TS
Tectonics and Structural Geology

Early Career Scientists

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Barbara Romanowicz

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Barbara Romanowicz

These blogposts present interviews with outstanding scientists that bloomed and shape the theory that revolutionised Earth Sciences — Plate Tectonics. Get to know them, learn from their experience, discover the pieces of advice they share and find out where the newest challenges lie!


Meeting Barbara Romanowicz


Barbara Romanowicz studied mathematics and applied physics and did two PhDs, one in astronomy from Pierre and Marie Curie University and one in geophysics from Paris Diderot University. After her postdoctoral studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, she researched at the Centre national de la Recherche Scientifique (CNRS), where she developed a global network of seismic stations known as GEOSCOPE to study earthquakes and the interior structure of the earth. She currently splits her time between a professorship at UC Berkeley, California, where she does research, and a teaching position as the Chair in Physics of the Earth’s interior at Collège de France, in Paris, where she teaches to the public.

I go between theory and observations, back and forth.

What is your main research interest and which approach do you use in your research?

Barbara Romanowicz in class. Credit: Barbara Romanowicz

My main research interest is the Earth’s interior: figuring out the dynamics and the evolution of the Earth by providing constraints from seismic imaging at the global and continental scale, from the lithosphere to the inner core of the Earth. The methodology that we use is primarily tomography. In my team, we develop new techniques in tomography, so we can achieve higher resolution. But also other types of seismic waveform modelling.

What would you say is the favorite aspect of your research?

What I find most exciting is that I go between theory and observations, back and forth. This brings different types of excitements. For example, developing a method that works is exciting, and so is finding something new in the data. Making progress and discovering something new, basically through a lot of attempts at modelling, and commonly after a lot of time, is very rewarding.

If we do not contribute to it, we will not have any more data.

Why is your research relevant? What are the possible real world applications?

The research is relevant because we are trying to understand the driving mechanisms of plate tectonics. And plate tectonics is what causes earthquakes, volcanoes, tsunamis, and all other natural disasters related to the solid Earth. It is not directly relevant, of course, because of the different timescales; the dynamics of the interior of the Earth are in millions of years, and people are interested in timescales of decades, maybe hundreds of years. So this is a bit of a challenge, but if we do not understand the causes of natural disasters, it is not possible to mitigate them.

Depth cross-sections through model SEMUCB_WM1 (French and Romanowicz, Nature – 2015, doi:https://doi.org/10.1038/nature14876) highlighting broad low velocity “plume-like” conduits beneath major hotspot volcanoes in the central Pacific.

What do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement?

I was asked this question recently, and I did not hesitate to say that I was able to make some impact with my research, but also to contribute to the infrastructure of research. I have been involved since very early in my career, in the development of seismic networks at a global and later regional scale, or trying to put stations in the oceans… Developing the infrastructure to collect data for research is a very recurrent issue that people should keep in mind: if we do not contribute to it, we will not have any more data. If the younger generation of researchers keeps on considering that the data is granted, and do not take up this challenge, the good situation that we’re at will not last.

I thought it is kind of cool that we could show that.

What would you say is the main problem that you solved during your most recent project?

In a fairly recent project, we were able to not only to confirm that there is an ultra slow velocity zone at the base of the Iceland plume near the core-mantle boundary, but also to determine that it is circular in shape. This required being able to illuminate it from different sides, and showing that the same model works for whichever way you look at it. I think that the fact that we can show that is kind of cool, as it combined modelling of seismic waveforms, as well as some imagination in 3D geometry.

Seasonal changes in the dominant locations of the sources of the earth’s low frequency “hum” (top) as inferred from seismic data, compared to the distribution of significant ocean wave height (bottom).

We are not doing enough to raise funds [to build a seismic network infrastructure].

What would you change to improve how science in your field is done?

In my field, which is global seismology, we really rely on a large network of stations, and we need a lot of instruments. Ideally, we would like to cover the entire Earth with instruments, which is not only logistically difficult but also very expensive. I think we are not doing enough to raise funds to build this better infrastructure. The astronomical community, for example, develop decadal plans to build the next generation instruments. In a way, it is easier for them because they need perhaps only a small number of telescopes, whereas our systems are completely distributed, so it is harder for us to join forces. Nevertheless, we are not doing enough of that.

3D rendering of a portion of upper mantle shear velocity model SEMum2 (French, Lekic and Romanowicz, 2013 – Science, doi:10.1126/science.1241514) showing interaction of mantle plume conduits with the asthenosphere beneath the south Pacific superswell (A) and the presence of quasi-periodic low velocity “fingers” aligned in the direction of absolute plate motion extending below the oceanic low velocity zone (B).

What do you think are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

There are several computational challenges, in the sense that we are moving increasingly towards modelling the complete seismic wavefield using numerical methods that are computationally very expensive. One has to think about how big the computer is that you can use, and balance that by finding smart ways to speed up computations in a way that doesn’t rely too much on big computers.

Another really big challenge is to reach the ocean floor and to cover the oceans with broadband seismic observatories. We don’t have enough such stations, and two-thirds of the Earth is covered by oceans. We have less resolution in the southern hemisphere and in the middle of the ocean just because we do not have enough seismic stations on the ocean floor. This is a problem for research on ocean basin structure and deeper upper mantle structure beneath the oceans, but also for research on the very deep Earth, including the inner core. Ocean Bottom Seismometers are great, but we really need very broadband recording, with good coupling to the ground and for long enough times (several years), as well as really large aperture arrays to be able to catch seismic waves over a large azimuth and depth range.

I never really worried about my career.

Barbara Romanowicz. Credit: Barbara Romanowicz

When you were in the early stages of our career, what were your expectations? Did you always see yourself staying in academia?

I think times have changed a lot. When I was doing my Ph.D., I really didn’t have any expectations. I never worried about my career. I simply did not think about it. Probably because I was naive, but also because there was less of a concern at that time… maybe it was easier to find jobs. The landscape was quite different.

Primarily thinking about their [ECS] research will get them where they want to be.

What is the best advice you ever received?

I think the best advice I received is to be daring, to think broadly and about the big picture. So, my best advice to Earth Career Scientists (ECSs) is the same. I would recommend ECSs not to worry too much about their immediate results or about their citation index, but to really think about their research. Primarily thinking about their research will lead them where they want to be. Otherwise, their thinking can be polluted by practical worries. Also, you will always get into situations where you cannot do all the work that you need to do for your research because you have other demands on your time. So my other advice to ECSs is to always keep a couple of hours (the best ones) during the day to completely isolate yourself and work on your research. It is very important. Everything else is easier, but the research itself is the hardest, and if you get distracted you will end up frustrated by not being able to accomplish much.

 

Barbara Romanowicz. Credit: Barbara Romanowicz

 

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Introducing our new blog team!

Introducing our new blog team!

After three succesful first years of the Tectonics and Structural Geology blog, it is time to bring our platform to the next level! To provide you more frequent content over a wide range of topics, we invited some new people to join our team. We are still always on the lookout for new guest authors and/or team members, so let us know if you want to contribute! So, what will you be reading on our blog? We will continue the successful Minds over Methods and Geology in the City series, but we have some great new things coming up as well. Since our Meeting Plate Tectonics series is coming to an end, we plan on including new interviews with scientists from the TS field, that will hopefully continue you to inspire you. And we are very happy to have brought back to life our Features from the Field series, where we discuss common structures in the field in an accessible way. Curious to know about the other new content of the blog? Stay tuned!

So, who are those people behind the Tectonics and Structural Geology blog?

 

Elenora van Rijsingen

I am a postdoc in geophysics at École Normale Supérieure in Paris, France. In my research I focus on seismotectonics, using various methods to understand more about earthquakes in subduction zones. I am fascinated by nature, and especially the power of it. Thinking of what nature is capable of reminds me of how small us humans actually are, and helps me to put things in perspective. I have been part of the TS blog since the beginning, trying to create continuous content and to bring in new people. I love editing blog posts, such as the Minds over Methods blogs, interacting with other scientists about their work and learning many new things. I occasionally write blogs myself as well, such as the Mind Your Head series about mental health in academia, a topic I believe deserves more attention. Please contact me via e-mail if you have any questions or ideas about the blog.

 

David Fernández-Blanco

I’m an early career tectonicist that likes to mingle with other disciplines… and making lists. My big goal in life is to understand how the Earth’s vertical motions evolve in time. To answer this question, I do 3 things that I love. [1] Fieldwork, especially in islands and other areas where I might get burned and I have to hand-speak for anything I might need; [2] Mingle things around using bits and pieces from other disciplines, especially geomorphology, stratigraphy, geodynamics. [3] Take up the challenge of geo-communication and translate our geeky, scienc-y, sometimes complicated geo-knowledge to a more general audience. That’s maybe my favourite 3-item list! (I said I like lists, remember?). I also like music, movies, travelling and drinking with my friends, just like every Tom, Dick and Harry. I’m currently the ECS TS Representative, so get in contact via e-mail or reach me at @_GeoDa_ or visit my webpage. Rock on!

 

Derya Guerer

I am a Lecturer in Earth Sciences at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. My research evolves around tectonics and the evolution of Earth’s lithosphere at various spatio-temporal scales. I combine field-based observations (structural geology, stratigraphy) with laboratory analysis (U-Pb geochronology, paleomagnetism, micro-structural analyses) to build kinematic reconstructions and compare those to the structure of the underlying mantle imaged by seismic tomography. My current research projects focus on subduction-dominated records in the Tethyan region (with focus on Turkey, Iran and Ladakh Himalaya) and recently the SW Pacific realm. As part of the blog team I am happy to edit blogs, particularly for the ‘Minds over Methods’ series and also to occasionally contribute myself. In my free time, I enjoy the outdoors, travel, food and a good cup of coffee with friends. You can reach me via e-mail.

 

 

Anne Pluymakers

I am a post-doctoral researcher in the Rock Mechanics Lab at TU Delft, in the Netherlands. My work-related hobby is figuring out how rocks break, and how fluids affect fracture dynamics. My main rock of interest is limestone at the moment, but I also happily work on related topics, such as what do fractures in natural rocks look like, and imaging projects on fluid flow. I  mostly do laboratory work, and any associated microstructural investigations. But there are also the occasional field excursions, to not lose touch with geology. In the blogteam I am happy to edit blogs, and also to occasionally contribute myself. Outside of work, I love sitting in the sun with a decent cup of coffee and a good book, or to organize dinners for my friends. You can reach me via e-mail.

 
Samuele Papeschi

I have recently gained my PhD at the University of Florence (Italy) and -before that- I graduated in geology at the University of Pisa. My research is focused on understanding deformation of rocks, investigated in the field and in the lab. I combine classic structural geology techniques, like field surveying, with powerful analytical tools such as electron back scatter diffraction and electron microprobe. I like to share everything from what I am researching to observations from the field. I believe, indeed, that research is not done if it’s not shared! I also run one of the most useless geoscience facebook pages: Geology is the Way. The field is my natural habitat and I will share snapshots from it in the ‘Features from the Field’ series, hoping that you will enjoy looking at it through my eyes. You can reach me via e-mail.

 

Hannah Davies

I am a PhD student at Lisbon University, Portugal. Using numerical models and GPlates, I am investigating the link between plate tectonics and tides in the deep future and past. It was recently discovered that tides change over geological time scales as ocean basins change shape due to plate tectonics. As an editor and writer of the TS blog I want to bring this newly discovered link between tides and tectonics to an audience which may not have heard of it yet. When I am not doing real science, I am devouring science fiction. I spend a good amount of my free time in coffee shops reading. When I don’t read, I like to explore Lisbon. It is a very old place with a lot of history from the past two millennia so there is always somewhere interesting to find. You can reach me via e-mail.

 

Silvia Brizzi

I am a postdoctoral researcher in the Natural and Experimental Tectonic group at the University of Parma, Italy. My research is aimed at understanding the relationship between geodynamic parameters and the seismogenic behaviour of the subduction megathrust. More specifically, by combining observational and analog modelling approaches, I try to understand if specific (geodynamic) conditions can favour the occurrence of very large earthquakes in subduction zones. At present, I am working (really hard!) to measure and calibrate the rheological properties of innovative materials with complex rheologies to better mimic Earth’s behavior in the lab (yes, The Sassy Scientist, I am actually spending months on this!!). I am really excited to be part of the blog team as an editor. I will also be in charge of sharing our activities on Twitter. In my spare time, I love to read books and binge-watching TV series. Oh, and I also love aperitivo with friends. You can reach me via e-mail.

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Jean-Philippe Avouac

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Jean-Philippe Avouac

These blogposts present interviews with outstanding scientists that bloomed and shape the theory that revolutionised Earth Sciences — Plate Tectonics. Get to know them, learn from their experience, discover the pieces of advice they share and find out where the newest challenges lie!


Meeting Jean-Philippe Avouac


Prof. Jean-Philippe Avouac initially studied mathematics and physics during his undergraduate and graduate degrees. Later he got more inclined towards geophysics and then he discovered Earth Sciences. During his Ph.D. at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris, advised by Paul Tapponnier, he immersed himself in geology and tectonic geomorphology. Currently, Jean-Philippe Avouac is a Professor of Geology at the California Institute of Technology.

Like living organisms, earthquakes have a life cycle: they nucleate, grow and arrest. There can be some lineage but each earthquake is a different being.

Fieldwork along the Kali Gandaki (Nepal) in 1999. Credit: Barbara Avouac

Where lies your main research interest?

I study crustal dynamics: How the crust is deforming as a result of earthquakes, but also as a result of viscous processes. I study the process of stress accumulation on faults, the release of this stress by earthquakes, as well as how earthquakes and other mechanisms of deformation are contributing to building the topography and geological structures in the long run.

 

How would you describe your approach and methodology?

In my group, we develop techniques to measure crustal deformation using in particular remote sensing and seismology. We were using radar images initially, and we have moved toward using more optical images with time and also GPS data… We try to reproduce the observations (geodetic deformation, kinematic models of seismic ruptures, gravity field…) using dynamic models to determine what are the forces and rheologies needed.

 

What would you say is the favorite aspect of your research?

What I like most about my research is mentoring Ph.D. students and postdocs. I love matching their skills with good problems, problems that will be attractive to them and that will resonate with the currently hot questions in Earth Sciences. I really love doing that.

The other thing I love is to use what I learned as I student (maths and physics) to answer science questions arising from natural observations. I love that part when you look at nature, you observe something and try to measure it quantitatively and then you try to explain the observation with dynamic models. I really enjoy going back and forth between observations and modelling. And the field! I really like being in the field… This is an aspect of the job that really attracted me initially.

We built from what other researchers had done before, but we reached quite different conclusions […] that’s exciting!

Jean-Phillipe Avouac leading a field excursion in the Dzungar basin, 2006. Credit: Aurelia Hubert-Ferrari

 

Why is your research relevant? What are the possible real-world applications?

A significant fraction of my research is relevant to seismic hazards. After my Ph.D., I worked for the Commissariat à l’Energie Atomique (CEA) for 10 years. I was conducting seismic hazard assessment studies for nuclear facilities. So, I have been exposed to the applied side of earthquake science and I like that some of the research we do in my group can help to improve the way we do seismic hazard assessments.

But what I really want to say is that I do not think relevance should drive academic research. In that regard, I should say that I don’t like much the way the funding system works today. I think there is too much emphasis on relevance to society. The idea that you start from stating problems of societal relevance, and only then see what kind of research we can do to solve this problem is not a good approach, in my opinion. I don’t think this is the way important scientific discoveries are made. You make discoveries by being curious, by observing nature with an open mind, by exploring new ideas and coming up with new concepts, or by observing something that is not explained in the current theoretical framework that we have and then you make use of the knowledge that you build after looking at these problems. There is no way you can clearly anticipate where the joyful exploration of an intriguing idea or observation can lead but we know from experience that the society benefits from curious scientific exploration. So, although I think there is relevance in what I am doing, I do not think that, in general, relevance to society should be driving academic research.

 

An outcome of Jean-Phillipe Ph.D Thesis, later published in Kinematic model of active deformation in Central Asia (Avouac and Tapponnier, GRL – 1993; doi: https://doi.org/10.1029/93GL00128).

I do not think relevance to society should drive academic research

What would you say is the main problem that you solved during your most recent project?

People in my group work on many different projects that are all very exciting to me. I’m going to mention just one project though because I can not possibly list them all.

We have done a lot of work in the past to develop techniques to invert geodetic measurements for fault slip at depth. A postdoc and a graduate students in my group have moved on to improve the technique and use it to document slow slip events in Cascadia over the last 15 years. That was a daunting work but their hard work and perseverance have really paid back. The end result is amazing! We see how the slow slip event initiate, propagate, arrest, trigger one another… We built from what other researchers had done before us, but we reached quite different conclusions given that we now have a more complete view of the behaviour of the system –that’s exciting! I anticipate that we are going to learn a lot about the dynamics of slow-slip events, and maybe it will have important implications for regular earthquakes!

What do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement?

The research for which my group is probably best known is that we have done in the Himalaya. In particular, we have built a model of the seismic cycle that explains the observations that we have from seismology, geodesy, geomorphology and geology. We worked a lot on the Himalaya, in part because I love mountains, but also because it is a very unique setting to study orogenic processes which are still active today. There is really no better place where you can get geological constraints on the thermal and structural evolution of the range. There is a lot of erosion and it has been going on for a long time, so the rocks that have been brought to the surface have recorded the thermal and deformation history over tens of million years. Our research has helped understand how the Himalaya has formed as a result of seismic and aseismic deformation, and I think it has yielded important insight on orogenic processes and the seismic cycle in general.

By the way, I don’t mean that earthquakes are periodic. Like living organisms, earthquakes have a life cycle: they nucleate, grow and arrest. There can be some lineage but each earthquake is a different being.

Animation showing the process of stress build up and release associated to earthquakes along the Main Himalayan Thrust fault, along which India is thrust beneath the Himalaya and Tibet. Credit: Jean-Philippe Avouac, Tim Pyle and Kristel Chanard.

We tend to build walls between disciplines […] We would not have been able to discover plate tectonics without a deep cross-disciplinary dialogue

What do you think are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

As I mentioned before, the funding system is an issue. Funding agencies are clearly making a big mistake in prioritizing social relevance as a criterion to evaluate proposals. Aside from that, the challenge that we have in the Earth Sciences is that we tend to build walls between disciplines. Specialization is a natural drift, and you can make a very successful career in a particular field pushing further a particular analytical or modelling technique. Also, it is easier to get funding for what you are known to be good at. As a result, walls between disciplines are building with time. The vocabulary is evolving in each individual discipline and it is increasingly difficult to make major advancements that can bridge different disciplines. In my research, I try to navigate from one discipline to the other… but it is a challenge –while it can be key to make significant discoveries, it takes time and effort. There are fewer and fewer people making a carrier this way. It can be dangerous because of a dilution effect, but at some point, it is needed. Look at plate tectonics for example: it happened because of advances in different disciplines but most importantly because some scientists were aware of these advances and were able to connect them and derive a coherent global framework. We would not have been able to discover plate tectonics without a deep cross-disciplinary dialogue.

Another challenge is that nowadays we have a lot more data than we used to have. This is both an opportunity and a threat. There is a trend to produce more and more publications, that look very solid because they use a lot of data, but that are in fact very incremental. More of the same is not necessarily advancing knowledge at a fundamental level. We have to be imaginative with regard to how to process the increasing flux of data, but it should not come at the cost of being imaginative with regard to what they mean.

I do not like the way the funding system works today

When you were in the early stages of our career, what were your expectations? Did you always see yourself staying in academia?

After my Ph.D. I did not stay in academia. But even when outside academia, I kept doing research, because I had an appetite for it and was working in an environment where scientific curiosity was valued, even if science was not the main objective. Although I was not unhappy at all outside academia, I decided to go back to it since I found it more exciting for myself: I like to solve scientific questions but there is not so much I could solve without the help of students and postdocs. I didn’t consider staying in academia after my PhD because there were sides of the academic life I did not feel comfortable with… I was finding people in academia to be a bit… difficult sometimes, with big egos and not so open minded. Also, we are a very conservative community. There’s a reason for that, for we as scientists have to be sceptical and to push back new ideas and new observations. I guess I have now become now one of those crazy and conservative academic guys (laughs)!

 

Mapping and sampling Holocene terraces abandoned by rapid climate-driven incision in the Tianshan. Credit: Luca Malatesta

If you have a new idea… you will probably have a hard time

What advice would you like to share with Early Career Students?

My first advice is to be aware of the important questions that we should try to solve. Not because they are relevant but because they are interesting and because they are timely, given the tools and data that we have access to. Being aware of the really big questions is important because we tend to forget them sometimes as we become more specialized. And be also aware of the new techniques available, especially those that you could draw from other fields; computer science or medical imagery for example… It is important to be curious and see what is happening in other fields so that you can transfer new ideas and new techniques to your own field and give a try at answering big science questions.

Be curious, be adventurous. Take risks. Try things that might not work. You might be losing your time but it is also an opportunity to make real fundamental advancements. You can make a career by increments, but I think it is not as rewarding as taking risks and really solving a difficult problem.

Follow your own dreams and don’t be intimidated by peer pressure. If you put a new idea on the table, a really new one, first, you will probably have a hard time expressing it clearly… And second, peers will most probably push back, as they should. So do not be intimidated, believe in your ideas, and keep adjusting and pushing them forward. I see too many times students or postdocs who meltdown and get discouraged if they receive a negative comment after a presentation… – I would say, that could, in fact, be a good sign! You may be doing something different and maybe people are not understanding because there is something disturbing and really new!

 

Jean-Phillipe Avouac. Credit: Trish Reda.

 

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Nicolas Coltice

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Nicolas Coltice

These blogposts present interviews with outstanding scientists that bloomed and shape the theory that revolutionised Earth Sciences — Plate Tectonics. Get to know them, learn from their experience, discover the pieces of advice they share and find out where the newest challenges lie!


Meeting Nicolas Coltice


Nicolas Coltice graduated with a PhD from the École Normale Supérieure of Lyon, France. He then became assistant professor at the Université Claude Bernard in Lyon, and ultimately, full professor. As of last year, he also holds a professorship position at ENS Paris, France. He has received an ERC grant for the project AUGURY and he is one of the co-founders of the manifesto ’Did this really happen?’, which addresses sexual harassment and inequality issues within sciences.

 

Nicolas Coltice. Credit: Eric Le Roux / Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1.

I think it is extremely important that models are supported by evidence or data.

Hi Nicolas, could you tell us about your research interests and the methods you use to solve your problems?

Sure! My research interest is focussed on mantle convection and geochemistry. The research I do is strongly directed to combine models and observations to understand, for example, the geochemical cycle. I also combine observations and inverse models to build tectonic reconstructions and 3D spherical models. I work a bit with geologists and so I sometimes go into the field. I think it is extremely important that models are supported by evidence (or data) and so I try to combine this as much as I can in my research.

You have been active on different topics. What achievement in your carer are you most proud of?

The one thing I’m most proud of is setting up an ERC team for the project ‘AUGURY’, which happened to have more women than men, which is quite rare in our field. I feel we made quite some progress on undermining the patriarchy within sciences with this ERC project. I’m very proud to work with my team. One of the good things that came out of ‘AUGURY’ is our manifesto ’Did this really happen?’. It is a website where we tell the stories on sexual harassment and gender inequality that women in sciences using comics. Besides advocating gender equality science I also teach, which I find very fulfilling and my teaching is well-received.

Good research needs time.

Did this really happen?. Courtesy of www.didthisreallyhappen.net.

It’s fantastic that you are making the community aware of these more social issues. In terms of research, how does that benefit society?

The application of my research to society is first of all doing the job by itself. Every day that scientists invest in understanding parts of our planet is beneficial to society, just by the very act of it. Publishing my work might give a breach to society and offer perspectives that were not thought of before. I guess a more concrete way my research benefits society would be in the reserve or resources industry, where we always like to understand better where resources form and why they form under certain condition. This will eventually help to actually find them and exploit them and the better we understand that, the less impact it will eventually have on the environment.

Every day that scientists invest in understanding parts of our planet is beneficial to society, just by the very act of it.

 

How do you see the future in geoscience?

In my opinion, good research needs time. Currently we are given very little time to do good research. If we want to change the publishing-focussed mentality, we need to start at the bottom. We do not necessarily have to create a big revolution, but from the inside we can collaborate and slowly change the system. For example, if you publish, public money is used to pay for your publication. This public money then often goes to stakeholders, which is not good! We can change this by publishing in different journals with different ethics. This way, we can slowly lower the pressure we feel on publishing nowadays. So in terms of future, I think we need to get back to the core, do good research.

Selected 3-D view state of the model. Continental material is highlighted in yellow. Figure from Coltice & Shephard, 2018 “Tectonic predictions with mantle convection models”, Geophysical Journal International, 10.1093/gji/ggx531.

When you feel it gets rough, stick with your plan and keep your relationship with your colleagues positive.

One last question, what advice would you like to give to Early Career Scientists?

When I was hired 15 years ago, times were different. If recruiters had the choice, they would always go for the youngest person, not necessarily the best. Nowadays productivity is the factor that counts most and is imposed on people which makes it very difficult to maintain an interesting profile at an early stage in your career. I would advise to find time and space to feel good and let go of the pressure you might feel in your work. I believe there is room for everyone, just keep the spirit up. When you feel it gets rough, stick with your plan and keep your relationship with your colleagues positive.

Nicolas Coltice. Credit: Nicolas Coltice.

 

Interview conducted by Anouk Beniest

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Francis Albarède

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Francis Albarède

These blogposts present interviews with outstanding scientists that bloomed and shape the theory that revolutionised Earth Sciences — Plate Tectonics. Get to know them, learn from their experience, discover the pieces of advice they share and find out where the newest challenges lie!


Meeting Francis Albarède


Francis Albarède started his career as an undergraduate student in Natural Sciences at the University of Montpellier in southern France. He moved to Paris to get a PhD in Geochemistry, supervised by Claude Allegre, at the Institut de Physique de Globe de Paris (IPGP). After his PhD he remained at IPGP as researcher and teacher. He then moved to Caltech, where he stayed for two years. The National School of Geology in Nancy, France, offered him a professorship, a position he happily fulfilled for 12 years. In 1991 he switched to the Ecole Normale Superieure in Lyon, France where he holds a director position of the department of earth and life sciences until today.

 

Hi Francis, could you briefly introduce your research interests and methods?

Francis Albarède. Credit: Francis Albarède.

Sure. I’m a geochemist, and I apply geochemistry to understand mantle dynamics and the evolution of the mantle. I also use geochemistry to investigate other planets and work on ocean dynamics. Besides geochemistry, I also use isotopes and trace elements to understand the mantle dynamics and I use models to predict the complexness of magmatic and oceanic processes. Besides earth scientific questions, my methods can be used in archaeological problems or medical issues. My interests are mainly within the field of earth sciences, but I sometimes venture to different fields of research.

Interdisciplinary research needs to be enhanced.

You have quite an extensive career. What do you consider your biggest accomplishment in your field?

The introduction of geochemical modelling I consider one my most significant achievements. And of course, the introduction of the MC-ICP Mass Spectrometry in the mid-’90s within geosciences had tremendous success. At the time it was a new technique and it has become one of the most dominant geochemical tools in many different laboratories around the world. In geodynamics, the idea that continents grow from the head of superplumes was also successful.

Besides these big accomplishment, do you have personal projects too?

Yes, I do have a couple fun projects of my own. They often have to do with introducing new data. For example, I am currently working on using a panel of isotopes (silver, lead, copper) to understand the origin of money.

Science is actually quite hard work.

You have seen many changes in your field. What do you consider one of the biggest challenges in your field nowadays?

Interdisciplinary research needs to be enhanced. The geochemists are good at their own job, and so are the geophysicists. But we need more people that are knowledgeable in both geochemistry and geophysics, a gap that is difficult to bridge. In addition, few scientists ask the right questions. Always ask yourself why other people should care about your own research.

A two-stage history of He in the marble-cake mantle made of fertile (e.g., U- and Th-rich “pyroxenite” in beige) and refractory (e.g., U- and Th-poor “dunite” in green) rocks. Francis Albarède, 2008. Rogue Mantle Helium and Neon, Science, Vol. 319, Issue 5865, pp. 943-945, DOI: 10.1126/science.1150060

 

When you were at the early stages of your career, what were your expectations?

I never expected to be successful at an international level, but it happened anyway. I was craving to make great discoveries, and, even though the road to it was very bumpy, it happened, at least to the best of my capacities.

The most important is to think out of the box.

What is the most valuable advice you have received in your career?

As an early career scientist, I was very arrogant, even more than today. I received the advice, mainly from foreigners, to be more rigorous or demanding to myself. I was told that science is not just a quick effort, or that you do not get important results with a snap of your fingers. It is actually quite hard work. Claude Allegre, my PhD supervisor predicted I would always be a student and sure enough, I still am a student. I am not sure if I became less arrogant, but I definitely took his advice to work harder and to become more rigorous.

So, as the last question, do you have any advice for Early Career Scientists that are aiming for a career in science?

An Early Career Scientist needs to be exposed to other groups and individuals, preferably those who think differently. Perk is the great strength of being young but the danger is to reinvent the wheel. Do not think that something understood 50 years ago is necessarily obsolete. The most important is to think out of the box. This is not an easy thing to do, but if you manage it will make you a different scientist and therefore much more valuable to the community. Being scholarly will multiply and enlarge your sources of information. Read a lot, cultivate your memory, and most of all, have faith in your own capacities.

 

Francis Albarède. Credit: Société Française d’Exobiologie.

Interview conducted by Anouk Beniest

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Dietmar Müller

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Dietmar Müller

These blogposts present interviews with outstanding scientists that bloomed and shape the theory that revolutionised Earth Sciences — Plate Tectonics. Get to know them, learn from their experience, discover the pieces of advice they share and find out where the newest challenges lie!


Meeting Dietmar Müller


Dietmar Müller is Professor of Geophysics at the University in Sydney and leads the EarthByte research group. He started his academic career in Germany at the University of Kiel and obtained his PhD in Earth Science at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, UC San Diego, in 1993. Throughout his career he has straddled the boundary between geology, geophysics and computing.

Figure out what you actually enjoy doing and just go and do that.

You were educated in Germany and in the USA. How did you end up in Australia?

After I finished my PhD in 1993, I saw an advert for a lectureship in geophysics at the University of Sydney in EOS. I had never been to Australia and had no idea what life in Sydney might be like, but I thought, I might as well send off an application. A couple of months later I got a postcard from Sydney University, informing me that I had been shortlisted for the position. I thought this was vaguely interesting, but as a fresh PhD graduate, I mainly had my eyes on a couple of postdoctoral fellowships in Europe. Then I got a phone call for an interview. They had clearly decided that flying me to Sydney, all the way across the vast Pacific Ocean, was far too expensive. But they seemed to be interested in my vision for the future, and at the end of the phone interview they asked me: “If we offered the position to you, would you take it?” The thing is, this was the first real job anyone offered to me, so I thought, it’s probably a good idea to say “sure, why not”. Soon they faxed me a contract (these were not yet the days of the internet). Then I thought, hmm, what is this place actually like? So I went to the public library in San Diego and borrowed a VHS tape on Sydney. It included footage of Bondi Beach, Sydney Harbour and the Blue Mountains, with a few kangaroos and koalas thrown in for good measure. I thought this looks ok, it could be a liveable place. After I finally got my visa, I booked a 1-way flight to Sydney, and in late October 1993 I showed up in the Department of Geology and Geophysics and ran into a guy who turned out to be the Head of Department. He looked at the Scripps T-shirt I was wearing, and said: You must be the guy we hired! Of course, he had never seen me, so my T-shirt was my main identifying feature. Remarkably, over 25 years later, I am still there.

Dietmar settling into life in Australia in the 90s, mapping Devonian carbonates in Yass. Credit: unknown.

What is your main research interest? How would you describe your approach and methods?

I lead an Australian research effort, with many international links, to develop and continue to refine something that could be called a virtual Earth Laboratory. I have been an advocate for open-source software and open-access data during my entire career to make science transparent and reproducible. Based on these principles we have spearheaded the development of custom software and global data sets to reconstruct the Earth through time. To understand the Earth’s evolution we need to change our geographic reference system as we go back in time, because of plate tectonics. The plate tectonic revolution in the late 60s and 70s established the principles of how plate tectonics works. Applying these principles to build an Earth model is essentially what I have focussed my career on. I have always had a fascination with Earth evolution over geological time because its comprehension lies so far outside the everyday experience of humans. Most people cannot grasp the relevance of processes on vastly longer timescales than our own lifetime. But understanding the rhythms of Earth’s deep past and thinking about time like a geologist can perhaps give us the perspective we need for a more sustainable future. To dive into the Earth’s past, plate tectonics is indispensable. We need to be able to reconstruct geological data to their original environments. Doing this effectively requires open-source software and open-access data sets that can be shared amongst the community, enabling collaboration.

How do you build an open-source software system from scratch?

Dietmar Müller and Mike Gurnis in Altadena, 2006, taking a break from planning GPlates development. Credit: Melanie Symonds.

When I arrived in Sydney (over 25 years ago) there was no open software to build plate tectonic models, let alone to link plate motions to mantle convection models so that we can investigate the evolution of the entire plate-mantle system. I assembled a small team, partnering with Michael Gurnis at Caltech, to build the community GPlates software. This effort was initially supported by the Australian Partnership for Advanced Computing (APAC) enabling the development of GPlates1.0 on Linux and PCs and its Geographic Markup Language-based information model. In 2005, we managed to get a small educational grant from Apple Computers to develop the GPlates for Macs. We are lucky that shortly afterwards the AuScope National Collaborative Research Infrastructure was established which has supported GPlates development since 2007. That allowed us to fully develop reconstructions of plate boundary networks through time, which is essential for coupling plate tectonics to mantle convection models, as well as the 3D interactive visualisation of mantle volumes and lastly the functionality to model plate deformation, a key step beyond the classical rigid plate tectonic theory. We also developed a python library, pyGPlates, that allows users to link our plate models to many other forms of spatiotemporal data analysis and to other types of models, including geodynamic and paleoclimate models.

The slow carbon cycle is like slow cooking… over millions of years

What would you say is your favourite aspect of doing research?

Understanding the Earth as a system. I am interested in integrating observations from Plate Tectonics and mantle convection with landscape evolution and surface environments through time. I would like to adopt a definition of Earth System Science that actually includes the entire solid Earth, as well as the atmosphere, oceans and biosphere.

What are the real world applications of your research?

There are many applications of plate tectonics. They include understanding solid Earth evolution, palaeogeography, paleoclimate, paleoceanography, paleobiology, and spatiotemporal data mining, for instance for resource exploration. Most mineral deposits are associated with plate boundaries, so being able to link ore deposit formation with plate motions and the kinematic and geodynamic history of plate boundaries allows us to start understanding why certain mineral deposits form at specific windows in space and time, something we have recently started doing using the Andes as a case study.

Students will be entering a transformed workplace unlike any their parents knew

What do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement?

I am most well-known for my work on the age and palaeophysiogeography of the ocean basins. I started working on this as a PhD student. My thesis supervisor, John Sclater, made a name for himself with the first isochron map of the ocean basins. But there was no digital map. Having a digital grid, linked to a global plate model, was going to be critical for studying a whole range of processes from subduction, plate-mantle interaction, the evolution of ocean gateways through time, dynamic surface topography, and many others. I decided to synthesize all the data that we had available at the time to create the first digital map of the ocean basins, followed by a set of reconstructed paleo-age maps. This has enabled a lot of research, both my own and that of the community. For example, it has allowed us to look at the volume of the ocean basins through time (via the connection between the age and the depth of the ocean floor). A more recent achievement, fresh off the press, represents an epic decadal effort on part of the EarthByte group to complete a global plate model for the Mesozoic/Cenozoic period that includes plate deformation. Classical plate tectonics requires plates to be rigid and separated by narrow boundaries. It’s astonishing that it’s taken about 30 years since diffuse deformation was first widely recognised in the 80s to get to the point of systematically building a global model incorporating diffuse deformation for the geological past (soon to appear in Tectonics). It reveals that about a third of the continental crust has been deformed since the breakup of Pangea, about 77 million km2, partitioned into 65% extension and 35% compression. That roughly corresponds to the total area of North and South America and Africa together. The model can be used to investigate the evolution of crustal strain, thickness, topography, temperature, and heat flux, globally.

Total distributed continental deformation accumulated over 240 million years of rifting and crustal shortening. In Dietmar et al. (to come in 50th anniversary plate tectonics volume in Tectonics). A global plate model including lithospheric deformation along major rifts and orogens since the Triassic.

What would you say is the main problem that you solved during your most recent project?

Recently, I became involved in the Deep Carbon Observatory. There are a few quite exciting problems involved in understanding the Earth’s deep carbon cycle and, being an area I have not traditionally worked in, it’s a new adventure for me to try to understand how plate tectonic drives the geological carbon cycle. One of the problems that we tackled in the course of connecting plate tectonics to the “slow carbon cycle” is to investigate seafloor weathering. The slow carbon cycle takes place over tens of millions of years, driven by a series of chemical reactions and tectonic activity and is part of Earth’s life insurance, as it has maintained the planet’s habitability throughout a series of hothouse climates punctuated by ice ages. We were able to build on ocean drilling results and laboratory experiments from other groups to understand how of the storage of C02 and carbon in the ocean crust changes through time, as a function of the age of the ocean crust and of the bottom water temperature, which is quite important, because temperature strongly modulates this process. This is something we published in Science Advances in 2018.It is quite a cool paper!

We actually need geochemists and geophysicists to work together

After being many years active in the academia, looking back, what would you change to improve how science in your field is done?

The biggest change in my time in academia is the emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) and data science as a universal, rapidly growing research area and set of tools to analyse big or complex data, to assimilate data into models and to quantify uncertainties in process models and predictions. There is an urgent need for all Earth science students to become literate in these areas. By the time this year’s first-year students will graduate, they will be entering a transformed workplace unlike any their parents knew. However, the need for changing staff profiles and undergraduate curricula are often recognised and implemented much more slowly than the evolution of the world outside of our ivory towers. But this change needs to happen.

What you just exposed, goes to some extent in line with my next question: What are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

Most of the problems that we are left with are complicated problems that aim at understanding the complexity of the Earth system. That could be anything from structural geology to understanding physical and chemical problems. An example is the field of geodynamics. It is mostly dominated by looking at the physics of mantle convection. And then there is another bunch of people who look at the chemistry of the mantle. These fields have not been properly connected. We actually need geochemists, geophysicists and geologists to work together to try to understand how the Earth system works. Then we need to connect deep Earth evolution to surface environments, understand the exchange of fluids and volatiles between the solid Earth and the oceans and atmosphere.

You actually have to be in for the long game

Building a geological time machine at the University of Sydney, 2009. Credit: Rhiannon McKeon

What was your motivation, starting as an Early Career Researcher? Did you always see yourself staying in academia?

As a kid I was inspired to become a scientist by taking long walks along Germany’s Baltic Sea beaches, picking up unusual rocks and fossils along the way, none of which really belonged there. They had all originated in Scandinavia, where they had been scraped off by moving glaciers and dropped much further south after being transported in the ice over 1000 km. I still have a small collection of these rocks and fossils which include remains of sea urchins and squids from the Cretaceous period and over 400 My old pieces of ancient reefs that had once been buried deeply in the Scandinavian crust. I always wanted to be an academic, I wanted to understand how the Earth works, over geological time. I never had any second thought about that. I can see today that students are often quite confused about what they want to do. Because they are unsure about where the future might take them, they don’t end up focussing on any one subject and are not necessarily inclined to acquire skills that are deep and broad enough to excel. If you want to be successful at anything, you need to become really good at something, and persevere. Be good at something that you actually enjoy, and be in it for the long game.

Who inspires you?

I am inspired by the pioneers of open source software and open access data. Open science is the key to forming global research teams and advancing studies of the Earth system. I am inspired by Paul Wessel at the University of Hawaii, who, together with his colleagues, built one of the most extensive geo-software systems, the Generic Mapping Tools, over the past ~30 years; I started using an early version of it during my PhD and am still using it! In terms of open access data, one of my heroes in Earth Sciences is David Sandwell at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, who revolutionised our knowledge of the deep structure of the ocean basins by making his global satellite gravity maps freely available to the community. On the geochemistry side, Kerstin Lehnert at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory has accomplished an amazing feat by leading the EarthChem database effort, and now the Interdisciplinary Earth Data Alliance, a nice example for bringing geochemistry and geophysics together.

What is the best advice you ever received?

Not long after I arrived at the University in Sydney, the then professor of geophysics pulled me aside and said: “I have one piece of advice for you: Stay away from University politics and just do your own thing“. That’s exactly what I have done and that’s the best advice I have ever received. It is easy to get carried away with politics at many different levels…

Stay away from University politics

What advice would you give to students?

You have to figure out what you enjoy and what you would like to do. You should not choose a career because you think this career will pay more money than another one, or it may seem there are more jobs in one field than another. The advice I would give to students is to try to figure out what you actually enjoy doing and just go and do that. The future will be driven by big and complex data analysis and simulation and modelling, but there will still be a need for people who can identify a rock. If you can do both, you’ll have a job without any doubt!

 

Dietmar Müller, November 2018 in his office. Credit: Jo Condon, AuScope

 

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Cesar Ranero

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Cesar Ranero

These blogposts present interviews with outstanding scientists that bloomed and shape the theory that revolutionised Earth Sciences — Plate Tectonics. Get to know them, learn from their experience, discover the pieces of advice they share and find out where the newest challenges lie!


Meeting Cesar Ranero


Prof. Cesar Ranero is an Earth Science researcher, currently Head of Barcelona Center for Subsurface Imaging (Barcelona-CSI). He owns a degree in Structural Geology and Petrology from the Basque country and he later completed his PhD in Barcelona, emerging himself in Geophysics. Prof. Ranero’s research is marked by a multidisciplinary approach, applying physical methodologies to understand geological processes.

Scientist also have to look for collaboration with the industry.

Ranero giving an outreach talk on fossil fuels at the Centre de Cultura Contemporània de Barcelona (CCCB). Credit: Cesar Ranero

Hi Cesar, after doing research for few decades, what is, at present, your main research interest?

My research interest covers mainly active processes, I am not so interested in regional geology. I see regional geology as a necessary step to understand processes but the main goal of our group is to understand geological processes. For instance, a great interest in our group is the seismogenic zone and the generation of great earthquakes. We have very good examples in the Iberian peninsula, such as the famous 1755 Lisbon earthquake. Yet, nobody knows where the big fault that created this earthquake is located. We have a lot of research to do. But, often to understand local geology you need to integrate it in the big-picture view of processes. This is why we are mainly interested in those processes rather than in regional geology.

The more you know, the more you realize that nearly everything is to be discovered.

Further, I am interested in interacting with the industry. The geological/geophysical community is a relatively small community (compared to medicine, for example). There is out there quite a few industry groups that are doing very similar things in terms of methodologies and approaches (communities working in oil & gas exploration, or the ones working on carbon sequestration, or geothermal energy production…) All these communities have quite a bit of history in the development of methodologies. They usually have much more money and very talented people developing new methodologies. It is very necessary that we participate in their interests. They are often showing interest in what we do. By going to their meetings and talking to them, you can build fruitful interactions. Scientists also have to look for collaboration with the industry, because at the end of the day it is a place where some of our students can find a good job and make a career.

How would you describe your approach and methods?

The approach in our group is multidisciplinary, we combine complementary methodologies. But it is also important to be aware of proper methods to interpret geophysical data (you have to understand different geological methods, for instance, the methods used in structural geology).

Poststack finite-difference time migration line showing the structure of the Cocos plate across the ocean trench slope. Ranero et al., 2003, Bending-related faulting and mantle serpentinization at the Middle America trench, Nature, 425, 6956, 367.

 

What would you say is your favorite aspect of your research?

What stroke me since I started my PhD is how much good work has been done, but how much more needs to be done.
We know a lot because there were many talented people before doing a lot of work. But actually, if you have a sceptical mind, the more you know, the more you realize that nearly everything is to be discovered. If you look at the last 10 years, you realize that a lot of what has been published is incremental science and much had been laid down in previous publications. But also, there are a whole series of new topics coming out and you have to pay attention because those are the topics that really mean a substantial jump forward. Every year there are several new interesting things coming. For example, earthquake phenomena have been an amazing topic in the last years, all these new phenomena explaining how plate boundaries slip. You have to keep a sceptical mind and at the same time search for those topics.

You have to have a sceptical mind.

Why is your research relevant, what are the real world applications?

This is always a good question. We do a lot of basic research and there is always the philosophical question on whether basic research is relevant… When we discovered the laser, nobody knew how relevant this would be in the future. Now, we can not live without it! I am sure that there is a percentage of basic science discovery that might not have any real-world application. But in many cases, it does. Much of what we do contributes to the understanding of natural hazards. But also, we contribute to resolving problems industries and society are concerned with.

Prestack depth migration of a Sonne-81 line projected on bathymetry perspective. Ranero & von Huene, 2000, Subduction erosion along the Middle America convergent margin, Nature, 404, 6779, 748.

 

At this point of your career, what do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement?

I would like to think that it is the next one! (laughs)

I am proud to have been elected as a fellow of the American Geophysical Union. It means I have done something relevant that is appreciated by my peers, and at the same time, it is a great motivation to work even harder in the future.

Also, I have some nice papers that I am proud of (tectonics of subduction zones, the role of fluids on earthquakes, serpentinization of the outer rise). My view is that for most people, after you finish your career and you look back at your many publications, probably only 3-4 papers are really worth it and seriously contributed brand new material.

What would you say is the main problem that you solved during your most recent project?

Since I came back to Spain, 12 years ago, I started to work a lot in the Mediterranean. For many years, the Mediterranean had been a place where people did not want to work because it is too complex. With the help of German groups and others, our group has been able to characterize for the first time the nature of the crust in many systems in the Mediterranean. We have added a new layer of information to understand the evolution of the whole Mediterranean region. I am quite happy with that, we are producing quite a few papers and have some very new ideas, and we have also started to put that together with fieldwork. There has been a lot of on-land work all around the Mediterranean, but rather limited modern geophysical data on the nearby basins. For example, the Apennines are very well known, but the nearby Tyrrhenian, not so much… We worked with the Italian and the German groups and found some new, interesting geological observations.

Cartoon showing a conceptual model of the structure and metamorphic evolution of subducting lithosphere formed at a fast spreading center. Ranero et al., 2005, Relationship between bend-faulting at trenches and intermediate-depth seismicity, Geochem. Geophys. Geosyst., 6, Q12002, doi:10.1029/2005GC000997.

The biggest challenge is to have time to think about new observations of
high quality that challenges the conventional view
.

After being many years active in the academia, looking back, what would you change to improve how science in your field is done?

I think there are significant differences depending on the country, even within Europe, in terms of funding: how research is done, how research careers develop… Some countries, like Germany and France, are doing relatively good in terms of funding. Other countries, like Spain, Italy or Portugal are not. These countries do not have a well-organized structure for funding, so for researchers is difficult to know how to organize funding around their research to succeed. The people that do well, that work hard, that produce, should have the certainty that they will be able to move forward. But today there is a lot of uncertainty, and in these countries, there’s no warranty that people who deserve it, will have their chances. This is a major problem for ECR, and I think a better structure funding and more funding opportunities for ECR are needed.

Regarding European-funded projects, as for example those of the European Research Council, these programs are extremely prestigious, and only the very top are getting these very well funded grants. And yet, it is unclear to me, at least in my community, that the results and papers produced in the context of these programs are of higher quality than those in other funding programs. So, is it unclear to me that this is a system that we should sustain, but that we shall see in the next years. Talking to others, I get the perception that it is now becoming somewhat too prestigious, people even hesitate to submit proposals because they have to invest loads of time into it and is a huge effort that might not even pass the first evaluation, and review comments appear somewhat indecisive. But I might be wrong on this one.

What you just exposed, goes to some extent in line with my next question: What are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

As for the scientific challenges, I think we can look back at the Plate Tectonic revolution. How did it happen? Before it happened, many observations did not have a good explanation because we were lacking the right data. Then, almost suddenly, we got three datasets that nobody had seen before: magnetometers and echo sonars of higher quality coming from the second-world-war related research, and a worldwide seismological network for monitoring within the frame of the Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty. And of course, these data landed on the right people. But, in my opinion, it was the access to the right data that provided a whole new view on geology.

So, perhaps the biggest challenge we have now is to be able to produce new methodologies of high resolution to look deeper into the Earth. We need to use high-quality new data sets and new observations that could allow to actually challenge the conventional views.

This is very complicated, particularly in the academic world we live in now. Currently, people have to write several papers for their PhD, and immediately after, in the postdoc period, they have to produce a massive number of papers to at least have a chance. In these circumstances, you can simply not think long enough in a complicated problem. There’s little time to think about what the main fundamental problems are that you want to solve. You have to be a paper-producing machine, and this is detrimental to their quality. You might manage to be someone that is highly productive but, in that frame, it is unlikely that you will often produce major quality. There’s too much pressure on ECRs. So, a challenge is to have time to think about how to obtain new observations of high quality that can change conventional views.

Pre-stack depth-migrated line IAM11, with arrows and numbers indicating the average dips of the block-bounding fault segments exhumed during rifting. Ranero & Pérez-Gussinyé, 2010, Sequential faulting explains the asymmetry and extension discrepancy of conjugate margins, Nature, 468, 7321, 294.

You have to be a paper-producing machine, and this is detrimental to their quality.

What were your motivating grounds, starting as an Early Career Researcher? Did you always saw yourself staying in academia?

I actually thought of going to the industry when I finished university. But I was lucky enough to be introduced to Enric Banda, my PhD supervisor, who had a big picture of geosciences, and he made a real impression on me and made me change my goals. Once I started my career in science, I quickly realized that there was a lot to be done. After two-three years into my PhD, thanks to a nice data set and some good results that were coming out, I definitely saw myself staying in academia. I looked for funding before finishing my PhD and I was lucky to get a Marie Curie, which was not even called like that at the time. I was lucky to work with relatively large groups, and with good funding. There was a good moment, also for industry. Funding was not a major issue for me for many years, so I could spend my time doing the research I wanted. At present, early careers are much more complicated, and you have to really like it to keep on pushing for it.

What advice would you like to give the ECS?

Be ambitious, think big. Don’t be afraid of making mistakes. And above all, be sceptical, completely sceptical about everything. Don’t pretend you know more about what you know, but be sceptical. Because, almost for sure, no matter who did the work, it can be improved, and in most cases, to a great extent. And be open, talk to everybody.

 

Researchers of the Barcelona Center for Subsurface Imaging. Credit: Cesar Ranero

 

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Mind your head #3: A healthy relationship with your advisor

Mind your head #3: A healthy relationship with your advisor

Mind Your Head is a blog series dedicated towards addressing mental health in the academic environment and highlighting solutions relieving stress in daily academic life.

Besides the professional environment in general, the relationship between early career researchers and their advisors also plays an important role in the degree of stress researchers might experience. This relationship does not only depend on the type of advisor you have, but also on your own personality type. A tough supervisor for one person, might be a very good supervisor for someone else. The success of a healthy relationship therefore lies in the expectations you have for each other, and how you respond if those expectations are not met.

Different types of advisors
There are many different types of advisors, as there are many different types of people. A famous one is the ‘superbusy’ type, but also the ‘over-confident’ (“of course this never-tried method will work!”), or the ‘micro-manager’ (someone who checks every detail of your work), are common types.

The ideal advisor would be a supporting one, who cares about your future career, tries to teach you how to become an independent researcher and encourages you to do your work in a way that works best for you. The opposite would be someone who is interested in their own career and only sees you as someone who will simply take on some of their workload, whilst all the time keeping control on how you do that.

Generally speaking, advisors will fall in between these two extremes, and depending on their own stress levels, they might be easier to work with at some times than at others.

Expectations in both ways
The good news is that you can steer a little as well! So, how to make sure your situation will approach the ‘ideal’ situation, rather than the opposite? The first thing you need is probably a bit of luck; a good fit of characters might already be enough to obtain a healthy relationship.

If you’re not so lucky, then communication becomes key! Take the time to figure out what your advisor expects from you as an early career scientist and to think about what you expect from him or her. Advisors are all different, but students are too! Make sure to tell your advisor what you need in order to do a successful job. For example, does your advisor expect you to write your drafts mainly independent? Or does he or she prefer to work on it together, and check it after each section you’ve written? You both might have different preferences for this and it is important to discuss these and find a compromise.

If necessary, make an appointment once a year to simply discuss the process of decision-making and discuss what the best way of communication is for both of you. For example: some people prefer lengthy emails, some short, and some people you need to catch in person in order to work together. If you make it a habit to figure out what the best mode of communication is, it will definitely speed up any cooperation!

Most conflicts between PhD-students and supervisors arise in the final year of the PhD, since this is the point that the student thinks most independently. – Marie-Laure Parmentier (occasional consultant for Belpaeme Conseil)

When conflicts arise
When expectations are not met, a conflict may arise. An example is the case of the ‘superbusy’ advisor, who never has time to talk, whereas you would prefer to have regular short discussions (once in two weeks for example). This could lead to frustration on the students’ part, and even to giving up on trying to communicate at all.

A contrary situation could be an advisor who checks up on you daily to see how you are doing, probably with all the best intensions, whereas you prefer to work independently, and will only call your advisor when you are stuck. This situation could lead to the feeling of not working hard enough and not meeting expectations, which most likely is not the advisors intension.

Eventually these types of frustration will build up and slow down your work, so it is best to simply avoid it all together by discussing expectations clearly.

 

Albert Mehrabian’s 7-38-55 Rule of Personal Communication. Credit: www.rightattitudes.com

 

When a conflict arises, the most direct and understandable response is an emotional one; frustration, anger or quiet worry eating away at you. People often directly confront the person causing such an emotional response (which is very human!). However, as you probably know, this is not the smartest, nor the most professional way to deal with frustrations.

So, take a step back and calm down first, count to 10, briefly go to the gym, sleep on it, or go to a friendly colleague to shout out all your frustration; anything that works for you. Reflect on the situation, figure out what the main issue is, and then find a quiet moment during which you can discuss the problem in a calm and rational way. This will ensure your message is received and taken seriously.

In a direct conversation, the impact of your message is mainly determined by body language, while the contribution of the actual words is very little (only 7%). If your movements, space occupation, intonation and volume shout out your anger or your sadness, your conversation partner is likely to respond to the emotion, rather than the message, even if you manage to find the right words straight away.

To conclude: even when you have a different opinion than your advisor, when you are able to express your arguments carefully and clearly, it is much more likely that you’ll find a solution which works for both of you. Communication is key in becoming a better scientist, and will benefit you in any type of collaboration during your career!

By Elenora van Rijsingen
Written with help and revisions from Anne Pluymakers

 

Resources

2nd workshop of the Marie Skodowska-Curie ITN project CREEP: Discussion sessions between senior- and early career scientists focused on reducing stress levels in academia.

PhD management training by Marie-Laure Parmentier from Belpaeme Conseil, France. 

Minds over Methods: Linking microfossils to tectonics

Minds over Methods: Linking microfossils to tectonics

This edition of Minds over Methods article is written by Sarah Kachovich and discusses how tiny fossils can be used to address large scale tectonic questions. During her PhD at the University of Brisbane, Australia, she used radiolarian biostratigraphy to provide temporal constraints on the tectonic evolution of the Himalayan region – onshore and offshore on board IODP Expedition 362. Sarah explains why microfossils are so useful and how their assemblages can be used to understand the history of the Himalayas. And how are new technologies improving our understanding of microfossils, thus advancing them as a dating method?

 

                                                                          Linking microfossils to tectonics

Credit: Sarah Kachovich

Sarah Kachovich, Postdoctoral Researcher at the School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, The University of Queensland, Australia.

Radiolarians are single-celled marine organisms that have the ability to fix intricate, siliceous skeletons. This group of organism have captured the attention of artist and geologist alike due to their skeletal diversity and complexity that can be observed in rocks from the Cambrian to the present. As a virtue of their silica skeletons, small size and abundance, radiolarian skeletons can potentially exist in most fine-grained marine deposits as long as their preservation is good. This includes mudstones, hard shales, limestones and cherts. To recover radiolarians from a rock, acid digestion is commonly required. For cherts, 12-24 hours in 5 % hydrofluoric acid is needed to liberate radiolarians. Specimens are collected on a 63 µm sieve and prepared for transmitted light or scanning electron microscope analysis.

Animation of radiolarian diversity. Credit: Sarah Kachovich

Scale and diversity of modern radiolarians. Credit: Sarah Kachovich (radiolarians from IODP Expedition 362) and Adrianna Rajkumar (hair).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Improving the biostratigraphical potential of radiolarians

The radiolarian form has changed drastically through time and by figuratively “standing on the shoulders of giants”, we correlate forms from well-studied sections to determine an age of an unknown sample. A large effort of my PhD was aimed to progress, previously stagnant, research in radiolarian evolution and systematics in an effort to improve the biostratigraphical potential of spherical radiolarians, especially from the Early Palaeozoic. The end goal of this work is to improve the biostratigraphy method and its utility, thus increasing our understanding of the mountain building processes.

The main problem with older deposits is the typical states of preservation, where radiolarians partly or totally lose their transparency, which makes traditional illustration with simple transmitted light optics difficult. Micro-computed tomography (µ-CT) has been adopted in fields as diverse as the mineralogical, biological, biophysical and anatomical sciences. Although the implementation in palaeontology has been steady, µ-CT has not displaced more traditional imaging methods, despite its often superior performance.

Animation of an Ordovician radiolarian skeleton in 3D imaged through µ-CT. Credit: Sarah Kachovich

To study small complex radiolarian skeletons, you need to mount a single specimen and scan it at the highest resolution of the µ-CT. The µ-CT method is much like a CAT scan in a hospital, where X-rays are imaged at different orientations, then digitally stitched together to reconstruct a 3D model. The vital function of the internal structures provides new insights to early radiolarian morphologies and is a step towards creating a more robust biostratigraphy for radiolarians in the Early Paleozoic.

Linking radiolarian fossils to tectonics

Radiolarian chert is important to Himalayan geologists as it provides a robust tool to better document and interpret the age and consumption of oceanic lithosphere that once intervened India and Asia before their collision.The chert that directly overlies pillow basalt in the ophiolite sequence (remnant oceanic lithosphere) represents the minimum age constraint of its formation. In the Himalayas, over 2000 km of ocean has been consumed as India rifted from Western Australia and migrated north to collide with Asia. Only small slivers of ophiolite and overlying radiolarian cherts are preserved in the suture zone and it is our job to determine how these few ophiolite puzzle pieces fit together.

Another way I have been able to link microfossils to Himalayan tectonics is by studying the history and source of erosion from the Himalayas on board IODP Expedition 362. Sedimentation rates obtained from deep sea drilling can provide ages of various tectonic events related to the India-Asia collision. For example, we were able to date various events such as the collision of the Ninety East Ridge with the Sumatra subduction zone, which chocked off the sediment supply to the Nicobar basin around 2 Ma as the ridge collided with the subduction zone.

Left: Results from the McNeill et al. (2017) of the sedimentation history of Bengal Fan (green dots) and Nicobar Fan (red dots). Middle/right: Reconstruction of India and Asia for the past 9 million years showing the sediment source from the Himalayas to both basins on either side of the Ninety East Ridge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly, on board Expedition 362 we were able to use microfossils to understand how and why big earthquakes happen. We targeted the incoming sediments to the Sumatra subduction zone that were partly responsible for the globally 3rd largest recorded earthquake (Mw≈9.2). This earthquake occurred in 2004 and produced a tsunami that killed more than 250,000 people.

From the seismic profiles (see example below), we found that the seismic horizon where the pre-decollement formed coincided with a thick layer of biogenetically rich sediment (e.g. radiolarians, sponge spicules, etc.) found whilst drilling. Under the weight of the overlying Nicobar Fan sediments, this critical layer of biogenic silica is undergoing diagenesis and fresh water is being chemically released into the sediments. The fresh water within these sediments is moving into the subduction zone where it has implications to the physical properties of the sediment and the morphology of the forearc region.

The Sumatra subduction zone. The dark orange zone represents the rupture area of the 2004 earthquake. Also shown are the drill sites of IODP Expedition 362 and the location of seismic lines across the plate boundary.

Seismic profile: The fault that develops between the two tectonic plates (the plate boundary fault) forms at the red dotted line. Note the location of the drill site.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

Hüpers, A., Torres, M. E., Owari, S., McNeill, L. C., Dugan, & Expedition 362 Scientists, 2017. Release of mineral-bound water prior to subduction tied to shallow seismogenic slip. Science, 356: 841–844. doi:10.1126/science.aal3429

McNeill, L. C., Dugan, B., Backman, J., Pickering, K. T., & Expedition 362 Scientists 2017. Understanding Himalayan Erosion and the Significance of the Nicobar Fan. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 475: 134–142. doi:10.1016/j.epsl.2017.07.019

EGU – Realm and Maze? An interview with Susanne Buiter, the current chair of the EGU Programme Committee

EGU – Realm and Maze? An interview with Susanne Buiter, the current chair of the EGU Programme Committee

source: ngu.no

Susanne Buiter is senior scientist and team leader at the Solid Earth Geology Team at the Geological Survey of Norway. She is also the chair of the EGU Programme Committee. This means that she leads the coordination of the scientific programme of the annual General Assembly. She assists the Division Presidents and Programme Group chairs when they build the session programme of their divisions, helps find a place for new initiatives and tries to solve issues that may arise. This also includes short courses, townhall and splinter meetings, great debates, events on arts and other events. The programme group also initiates discussions on how to include interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary science and how to accommodate the growth of the General Assembly. Questions: Micha Dietze, Annegret Larsen (both GM Early Career Representatives), and Anouk Beniest (EGU TS Early Career Representative)

 

Susanne, you are a perfect example of a scientist bridging scientific work with scientific management. What brought you to this and how do you manage keeping the balance?
I would not call it perfect! And I find it not so easy to keep a balance. I am very fortunate that my employer, the Geological Survey of Norway, recognises the importance of organisations like EGU for the geoscience community in Europe. That means that I can partly use working hours for EGU activities and that is a great help. For me, EGU fulfils an important task in bringing people together for networking, starting new projects, discuss new ideas and I would like to contribute to making that possible. I guess one thing led to the other, but what is important for me is that all activities are truly fun and rewarding.

 

It seems you have filled almost all the different possible jobs within the EGU: giving talks, discussing posters, judging presentations, convening sessions, coordinating ECS activities like short courses, acting as Programme Group member and leader, serving as TS Division President, and now working as Programme Committee Chair. Could you describe what the main goals of the EGU are for you, and what brought you to become such an active member of the EGU community?
I see the role of EGU as serving the geoscience community through enabling networking, discussions and information sharing. Our General Assembly is very important for this and also our journals. I love the outreach and education that EGU does, through the GIFT programme and attempts to interact with politics and funding agencies. By the way, the short courses are for and by all participants, including the ECS, but not only!

I would really like to encourage ECS to submit session proposals during our call-for-sessions in Summer. And please consider to submit your abstract with oral preference, so conveners can schedule ECS talks.

 

Could you shed some light on the structure of this big ship called EGU in a few sentences?
What characterises EGU is that the union is by the community and for the community. EGU has a small office in Munich that oversees the day-to-day operations and coordinates our media activities (www.egu.eu). They are also EGUs long-term memory. We have 22 divisions from Atmosphere Sciences AS to Tectonics and Structural Geology TS. The division presidents are usually also chair of their associated Programme Group, with the same abbreviations AS, BG, CL etc that you see in our programme at the General Assembly in Vienna. They schedule their parts of the conference programme. For this, programme group chairs rely on the work of conveners (you!) to propose and organise sessions. Division presidents are also member of EGU’s council, together with EGU’s executives. Here decisions are taken on budgets, committee work, new executive editors of journals etc. EGU has among others committees for awards, education, outreach, publications and topical events (https://www.egu.eu/structure/committees/). Copernicus is hired by EGU for organisation of the General Assembly and publication of the 17 journals (https://www.egu.eu/publications/open-access-journals/). All EGU journals are open access. Sorry, that was rather more than a few sentences…

 

How flexible – in your experience – is the EGU administration and organization on a scale of 1-10?
A 9! I would have like to say a 10, but improvements are always possible. The EGU office, executives, divisions and committees put a lot of effort in coordinating all activities. We actually rely on flexibility as EGU is bottom-up. This is also how new initiatives find a place. For example, EGU2018 will have a cartoonist-in-residence and a poet-in-residence, a new activity I am very excited about and that was proposed by participants.

 

Regarding the ECS, which role do you feel should they play at EGU level? What is running very well and what would you like to change? Where do you think are fields where you see opportunities to become more active?
About half of participants to our General Assembly identify as ECS according to the survey from 2017 and abstract submission statistics for 2018. So they should play an important role! Not only in the General Assembly, but also in our committees. The ECS representatives are important for their feedback to council, making the ECS opinions heard, and starting new activities, such as the networking reception, many short courses, and the ECS lounge. What I would like to change? More ECS session conveners please! I would really like to encourage ECS to submit session proposals during our call-for-sessions in Summer. And please consider to submit your abstract with oral preference, so conveners can schedule ECS talks.

 

What is most important for ECS to know about the EGU structure?
Know your ECS representative. At the General Assembly, come to the ECS forum on Thursday at lunch time and the ECS corner at the icebreaker. Connect with scientists in your division(s) by attending the division meeting.

 

From your perspective, what can we do to motivate more ECS to actively shape “their” EGU?
It is building on what you already do: share information on EGU, the divisions, that we are bottom-up and therefore rely on suggestions by community members. Encourage ECS to suggest sessions, volunteer as committee member when there are vacancies (these are advertised on www.egu.eu and through social media), and organise activities at, before and after the General Assembly. Encourage ECS to use the conference in Vienna to network with all participants, not only through ECS channels, and find new opportunities that way. My observation is that many experienced scientists love to discuss with ECS and perhaps even start new collaborations.

 

Which ways and approaches do you see to better connect ECS within and between Programme Groups?
I find especially connections *between* Programme Groups very interesting, not only for ECS. EGU is growing to a size that it has become more difficult to find time to look outside your own bubble. We have been investigating ways to make our programme more interdisciplinary and perhaps in the future also transdisciplinary, to try to create new approaches. That said, I am happy to see at the ice-breaker and networking reception that many ECS identify with more than one division! It is important to cross borders, that is where a lot of exciting research happens.

 

The mentoring programme is a rather new feature for many divisions. Could you give some feedback on how it went last year? Will it be a permanent item during the EGU General Assembly?
We organised the mentoring programme in 2017 as a pilot, which we on purpose kept somewhat low profile to generate feedback and develop our tools. We see the programme as a networking opportunity for both first-time and experienced attendees. Feedback was very positive, so we are rolling out in full this year. We offer matching, two meeting opportunities at the General Assembly and some guidance.

I encourage people to try a PICO presentation or convening a PICO session. I have run some poster-only sessions last years, which have been great fun as we had so much more time for discussions.

 

The EGU General Assembly can be overwhelming at first. What would you advice young (and not so young) researchers to do to have a successful meeting?
Attend short course SC2.1 on how to navigate the EGU (Monday at 08:30), read the first-timer’s guide to the General Assembly, and make sure you are on the mailing list for your division ECS representatives if they have one. Some divisions have an ECS evening event, do attend! Consider taking part in the mentoring programme of course. And prepare a personal programme before heading to Vienna. Not to follow it in detail, but at least to know where to go for talks, PICO, short courses, posters, and events. I would definitely use the General Assembly to talk to other participants, this is a great chance to expand your network.

 

Time and space are precious during the EGU General Assembly. There are over 10.000 contributions, many aiming at a talk, but ending up as posters, the session rooms are often overcrowded, the lunch break brings a rush and long queues. Is there any way the Union Council considers to improve certain bottle necks or are we already at the maximum of optimizing some of the conference logistics?
In 2017, we had ca. 17,400 presentations and 14,500 participants. We rented a new hall on the forecourt of the conference centre, which we will also have in 2018. This increased the conference space, taking pressure off the rooms and surely reduced queues. Copernicus and EGU work continuously on optimising the scheduling. We also started a broader discussion on future formats of the General Assembly. I would like to take this opportunity to encourage trying a PICO presentation or convening a PICO session. I have run some poster-only sessions the last years, which have been great fun as we had so much better time for discussions.

 

Many ECS approach their representatives because they are worried or disappointed to see their initiatives for scientific session proposals not succeeding. Instead they find year after year the same names behind established and crowded sessions. Do you have any advice how to deal with this or do you think this is not really an issue?
I am aware that this may unfortunately play for some sessions, but overall I think we cater well to new initiatives. My advice to Programme Group chairs is to encourage ECS conveners for new sessions and also to include ECS as part of long-running sessions that should rotate, and renew, conveners each year. Our General Assembly offers place for sessions on the basics and fields that require long-term developments, and at the same time also on new, emerging topics. Sometimes these sessions on upcoming topics may be small in number of submissions, but large in attendance. The best I can say to anyone is to discuss concerns or feedback regarding convening with the division president and the ECS division representative.

 

With the growing amount of members and participants (almost) every year, how do you see the EGU’s future both as a community and as one of the most important events?
EGU is an important voice of the Earth and space science community in Europe. I think the union should continue to do what it is good at: providing a platform for networking, discussions on new and old fun topics, and information sharing. I would like EGU to stay flexible and cater to new formats in its journals and at its General Assembly, the latter also in light of discussions on CO2 costs of meetings.

 

Thank you Susanne!
Could I emphasize again that EGU is bottom-up and depends on input from our communities? So please contact your ECS representative, the division president or me (programme.committee@egu.eu) with ideas and feedback!

 

Some more information online here:
www.egu.eu
https://meetings.copernicus.org/egu2018/information/programme_committee
https://www.egu.eu/gm/home/
https://www.egu.eu/gm/ecs/
http://www.geodynamics.no/buiter/