As our understanding of the solar system expands, so does our curiosity about the potential for life beyond Earth. This Union Symposium aims to bring together leading experts to discuss the latest research and ideas on the habitability of other worlds within our solar system. The symposium will focus on key celestial bodies such as Mars, Europa, Ganymede, Enceladus, and Titan, which have emerged as prime candidates in the search for environments that might support life.

The panel will delve into novel and cutting-edge research on the factors that could make these worlds habitable, addressing critical questions such as:
• What makes a planet habitable?
• What is the significance of liquid water, both on the surface and in subsurface oceans, in creating and sustaining habitable environments on other celestial bodies?
• How does geological activity contribute to maintaining environments that could potentially support life beyond Earth?
• What are the possibilities for life to exist in extreme conditions, such as high radiation levels and extreme temperatures, on other worlds in our solar system?
• How can comparative analysis of planetary environments help us define the boundaries and requirements for habitability across different celestial bodies?
• What future missions and technological advancements could offer new insights into the habitability of other celestial bodies within our solar system?
• How does research into habitability benefit society?

This symposium will provide a platform for interdisciplinary discussion, drawing on expertise from planetary science, astrobiology, geology, and atmospheric science. The session will be structured as a moderated panel discussion of invited experts who are at the forefront of this research. These panelists will share their insights, engage in a dynamic discussion, and respond to questions from the audience, fostering a collaborative exploration of this critical topic.

The goal of this Union Symposium is to bridge the gap between different disciplines and encourage the sharing of ideas and perspectives that could lead to a deeper understanding of habitability within our solar system. This discussion is not only vital for the scientific community but also holds significant implications for future space exploration and the search for life beyond our planet.


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

Digital technologies — including artificial intelligence (AI)/machine learning, digital twins, and extended reality — can bring benefits across the geosciences. For example, AI can be used to process large climate data sets, support detection, causation, and attribution of climate impacts, and provide climate services. Digital twins can enable us to monitor and simulate large-scale processes and their interactions. Finally, the use of extended reality to integrate observations into decision making has been explored in several areas such as natural hazards, disaster risk reduction, and spatial sciences.
In this debate, we will discuss:
- How feasible is it for domain experts to stay up to date with digital technology?
- How well should a domain expert understand the digital technology that they are applying?
- How can we keep the balance between our understanding of the processes and dynamics of our discipline and the potential of digital technology?
- As digital technology enables certain regions of the globe to prosper, how do we ensure that we are not leaving other parts of the globe behind?
For the latter, we will look at initiatives to fill data and communication gaps, to support digital education, and to develop best practices and standards.


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

Large Language Models (LLMs) and other advanced AI tools are reshaping how researchers and practitioners approach data analysis, synthesis, and communication across Geosciences. This Great Debate at the EGU General Assembly 2025 aims to critically examine the impact of LLMs in fields such as Seismology, Atmospheric Sciences, and Earth and Space Science Informatics. As these models grow increasingly capable of interpreting complex datasets, generating predictive models, and even drafting research manuscripts, they raise profound questions about their role and limitations in scientific workflows.
The discussion will address key issues, such as the potential of LLMs to accelerate discovery through data-driven insights, their capacity to support real-time decision-making during natural hazards, and the ethical considerations of AI-generated content in peer-reviewed publications. Are LLMs a transformative tool that can bridge knowledge gaps and facilitate interdisciplinary research, or do they risk introducing bias, reducing transparency, and undermining traditional scientific rigour? The panel will provide diverse perspectives on these questions.
We will also address the need for proper training, education, and guidelines to avoid misuse.


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

Panelists and Speakers

Sabine Gollner (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research)

Richard Herrington (Natural History Museum, London, UK)

Telmo Morato (Okeanos Research Institute, University of the Azores)

Ingeborg Rønning (Keep Norway Clean, Oslo)

Pradeep Singh (Oceano Azul Foundation, and Research Institute for Sustainability, GFZ, Potsdam)

Abstract

Paradigm shifts are by definition untested. They confront the status quo based on new evidence or new discoveries and form the basis for change. Real, constructive change, however, must be bigger than the likes of us, must be comprehensive and inclusive of others and, most importantly, must examine and quantify cause-and-effect in advance of implementation. Predicting Earth’s future is no longer possible using the natural sciences alone. We must include social sciences and the arts.

Deep-sea mining will not eliminate land-based mining, nor will it resolve poverty as the poorest of humanity dig in the mud, hand-filling and carrying impossible sacks of slurry and ore-bearing rock on bare backs. Such artisanal operations are lethal, if not through accidents, then through truncated workers’ lifespans on exposure to toxic metals, notably mercury, closely associated with gold mining. Nevertheless, steps forward are being taken to improve working conditions.

Deep-sea mining on a continental shelf or shallow underwater ridge will have uniquely different consequences than deep sea ploughing of gargantuan expanses of unconsolidated abyssal sediment to comb together and raise polymetallic (Co-Ni-Cu) nodules growing over tens of millions of years at thousands of meters water depth. Neither locality has been appropriately tested. Most agree it is essential to evaluate in advance the effects of mining on fragile and remote ecosystems which we barely understand. Perhaps a better quantification of river deterioration from artisanal mining could be made before jumping wholesale into the sea where 70% of our planet’s surface is stored out of view.

Deep-sea mining will remove chemosynthetic life support, throwing our planet’s primary food chain into chaos. Extraction of metalliferous deep-sea nodules is unsustainable on the human time scale. Will humanity’s great 21st century experiment for green energy be our legacy as we leave marine life choking on dredged waste material, and create a seafloor that cannot re-establish its biota?


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

Research fundings enable Europe to drive innovation, address societal challenges, and maintain global competitiveness. While the value and benefit of applied research is relatively easy to understand for policymakers and the public, the link between fundamental research and societal value is less evident for them. As a consequence, it is increasingly clear that Europe lags behind other major powers in terms of investment in transformative frontier research and that this threatens its future.
Horizon Europe, the main research funding programme available to researchers based in EU member states and associated countries, is one of the key drivers of innovation in Europe. Not only does it fund research that aims to address our societal challenges, such as climate change, but the results of Horizon Europe funded projects often lead to unexpected discoveries, to unforeseen impact and even to solve upcoming new challenges. This impact is widely recognised and highlighted by the European Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, mentioning the need to promote competitiveness through “invention and ingenuity” as part of the Commission guidelines for the coming years.
However, does the European Union and its member states have the mechanisms required to transfer this new knowledge into tangible applications and for supporting evidence-based policies?
This Great Debate will explore the procedures to bring research results closer to policy, economy and society.
Involvement of researchers in policymaking and other societal actions appears to be limited, often not well recognised, and not easily accessible. In addition, the interest in specific projects usually fades away after their termination whereas the repercussion of obtained results may only arrive later. Knowledge hub, government Scientific Advisory Boards or Science Advice Mechanisms are not systematically in place across Europe.
During this session, panellists from European research funding, scientific, and policy communities will debate: How can individual researchers contribute effectively in societal and policy actions? Which mechanisms should be created to facilitate the harnessing of research results? Should the use of research results be left in the hands of dedicated professionals (e.g., officers at the research institutions)? What is the role of Scientific Advisory Boards? And where is research budget best invested?


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

Many in the scientific field are feeling a sense of urgency to communicate crucial issues that are impactful on society, but struggle with the challenge of best practices to convey that information in a way that inspires collaboration, rather than despair in the community. With a growing challenge of upholding the validity of scientific research against misinformation, there are instances where some scientists may choose to remain siloed in their approach without involving the broader public. What is holding scientists back from stepping out of the bubble and showcasing their progress to help resolve various issues? How can we find better solutions to confront the social responsibility that scientists must effectively communicate their science to the public?


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

Many of the challenges of today raise difficult questions about what the role of scientists should be in relation to issues from climate change and Net Zero policies to implementation of nature-based solutions to reduce risk of flooding, drought and diffuse pollution. Scientists working in such areas are understandably passionate about their areas of research and practice and there is a strong temptation to be active in promoting certain policies and action. However, there is a real tension between the need for objectivity as a scientist and pursuing an activist agenda. Is it possible to do both without compromising our integrity as scientists? This debate will explore this tension in conversation between the audience and an expert panel. Come along, hear the arguments and have your say!

All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

The Open Access movement has been recognized as a powerful and successful way of addressing inequities in the way research results are distributed. However, some publishers use the open access model to publish an excessive number of papers solely to increase their revenue. These publishers take advantage of the prevalent academic “publish or perish” culture, which leads to a vicious cycle that undermines scientific integrity. As a consequence, “publish or perish” has contributed to the proliferation of predatory publishing practices that lead to a large number of publications of low scientific quality. Such flawed papers often do not show evidence of rigorous peer review, which is a cornerstone of scientific quality assurance in publications. Breaking the cycle of the commercially-focused interests of publishers and the publishing pressure on scientific scholars require concerted actions by scientists, institutions, funders and publishers. How can these actors jointly address the challenges to uphold scientific quality in publications? How can scientists meet institutional publishing requirements while ensuring their papers are both societally relevant and scientifically meaningful? Can alternative publishing models help solving these problems? Join us in this Great Debate to discuss strategies to prioritize scientific quality over commercial interests in the rapidly evolving landscape of scientific publishing.


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.

The first months of this year have seen extreme actions at an unprecedented scale and speed by the new administration in the USA with regards to science, targeting among others climate and environmental research, essential for the health of our planet. These radical decisions will prove harmful for people all around the world. Large numbers of scientists, in particular Early-Career scientists, have lost their jobs, significant amounts of funding have been withheld or withdrawn, and entire programmes and institutes have been closed. Students have been forced to abandon their education program and studies.

Suppression of science leading to discovery anywhere in the world by governments is a tragedy that affects us all. But when drastic actions are taken by a nation that was previously a source of leadership and resources for many pioneering research programmes, the impact of that loss resonates worldwide, and well beyond the scientific community.

In this late-breaking interactive session, we will discuss the global impact of these attacks on science, and how the global geoscience community should respond. In the current political context, how can we make sure that datasets of inestimable value, built from continuous, long-term, observations and research, continue to grow and remain accessible? How can we assure that scientists can work on subjects of their choice, follow the data, and freely communicate their results anywhere in the world? How can we secure evidence-based policy making for global climatic and environmental threats?

We aim to have this conversation with individuals and organisations who are directly impacted, as well as with global geoscience leaders who ponder the appropriate course of action.


All opinions, statements, and questions, either from the panel or the audience, are the speakers’ own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Geosciences Union (EGU), our conference organizer Copernicus or the Austria Center Vienna, but have been shared here in the name of supporting open, transparent, and unedited discussion on this topic.