TS
Tectonics and Structural Geology

interview

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

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 – 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

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Roland Bürgmann

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Roland Bürgmann

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 Roland Bürgmann


 

Roland Bürgmann is Professor of Geophysics at the University of California, Berkeley. He has been teaching and doing research in Berkeley for around 20 years. He started studying Geology in Germany (Universität Tübingen) and then continued his studies in the US, obtaining his PhD in Geomechanics and Crustal Deformation from Stanford University.

 

After being active for several decades in your field, where is your main research interest currently? How would you describe your approach and methods?

My current research is on active tectonics. Really the idea is to study deformation processes in the Earth related to fault systems and the earthquake cycle, but also all kinds of systems that produce active deformation like volcanoes, landslides, or land subsidence. We study those especially with geodetic tools, and also with seismology and field observations. So, I don’t tie myself to any particular observational technique, I’m really just interested in better understanding the kinematics and dynamics of deformation processes of all kinds in the Earth.

The key indication that you are doing the right thing is that you love what you’re doing

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

Research really means being able to work with people. Research is not a solitary thing, a lot of it is about thinking of problems and trying to solve them. Not by yourself, but by having the opportunity to work with students and postdocs. That really enriches research immensely. I see this as one of the most enjoyable and valuable aspects of academic research.

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

I guess with what we do it is relatively easy to point out real-world applications because we address natural hazards. Earthquakes, volcanoes, landslides… everybody is somewhat worried about those. On the other hand, we have to admit that often the research we do is not going to directly impact or save lives. My wife is a cancer surgeon and she might have improved or even saved a life or two every week. For us, it is much more like we are pushing on a research problem, and we do see the long-term relevance when it comes to ultimately being able to mitigate and better understand earthquake hazards and some of these other hazardous processes.

Research is not a solitary thing

Roland with his group after running a trail race (an annual tradition) Credit: Roland Bürgmann

 

What do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement?

Bürgmann, Hilley, Ferretti, & Novali (2006). Resolving vertical tectonics in the San Francisco Bay Area from permanent scatterer InSAR and GPS analysis. Geology, 34(3), 221.

My biggest academic achievement, I’m sure is still to come (laughs). That’s a tough question… you couldn’t really say, well this is “the one” finding or study that is the most important one… I think overall the work I’ve done that relates to better understanding the whole earthquake cycle; we’ve done a lot of work on postseismic deformation, fault slip, stress interactions, rheology… but it’s all incremental. I don’t feel like we have made “this one” discovery that people would always associate with me.

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

One of my most recent projects is related to landslide physics. We use InSAR to study the landslide deformation, and rely on precipitation records and pore-pressure diffusion models to calculate what the fluid pressure is in the landslides. We can quite directly relate that and explain the time lag between precipitation and landsliding.

I think that this is a useful contribution. In a paper that we are about to publish, we were able to do that in the years prior to a landslide that then failed catastrophically. So there the hope is that this will actually allow us to understand what is it that gets a landslide over the brink. Landslides can keep moving steadily over the years, decade for decade, but what is it that makes one fail catastrophically? So this study, we hope can help to contribute to better understanding that.

 We should do more […] interdisciplinary studies

Looking back, what would you change to improve how science in your field is done today?

Something that we are doing already, which I think is really important and we should do more of, are truly interdisciplinary studies. I’m a strong believer in that, and I do think that geomorphologists need to talk to geophysicists, and to the modellers … Ideally, all of us should know enough about these other fields so that we can really optimize how we can see the whole system. I do think there is much more left to be done when it comes to that. Allowing us to speak the same language and joining forces when it comes to really understanding how the Earth works, not to limit oneself to just one problem, one process, and therefore one approach to understand it.

 

After all the time you have spent in science, you have seen some questions answered and more questions raised. What are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

Bürgmann, Rosen & Fielding (2000). Synthetic Aperture Radar Interferometry to Measure Earth’s Surface Topography and Its Deformation. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences, 28(1), 169–209.

Scientifically, we like to understand what we study in the simplest possible way. We try not to “over-model” what we observe, really just trying to get at the key underlying processes and principles. On the other hand, we got so much data now from all kinds of observational systems that seem to be trying to tell us much more. This suggests we should be upscaling the model complexity, and try to understand multiple processes at the same time. That is both exciting and seems dangerous. Whenever I see climate scientists with their models that incorporate hundreds of different processes, everything from turbulence in the atmosphere to particles in the air and many other things, that just seems scary and something that you would not want to do with what we study in geophysics. But I do see the need that we have to make our models and ways of understanding the Earth more complicated. Doing that consciously but well, that’s a big challenge.

 

What were your motivating grounds, starting as an Early Career Researcher?

The biggest influences ultimately are people. It was highly enthusiastic role models that made me get really excited about what I’m doing and made me change my career path. I wanted to study other things in my freshman year when I started studying geology. Over the years, I got to work with enthusiastic and inspiring mentors that made all the difference. Ultimately we are social animals and it does make a huge difference to have those kinds of influences in your early career.

We all have our insecurities

So you always saw yourself staying in academia?

I wasn’t sure. I definitely considered alternative career paths. I meant to do an industry internship, which ended up not working out because I ended up working at the US Geological Survey that summer instead. I think I kind of knew I wanted to be in academia, but you really don’t know. You don’t know if you are good enough. We all have our insecurities and everything that comes with that, from impostor syndrome to what not. But it certainly always felt natural to me. The key indication that you are doing the right thing is that you love what you’re doing.

 

Following to what you just exposed, is there any other advice would you give to Early Career Students?

When it comes to giving advice, I always say, research in academia is the best possible job. Period. But only if you enjoy doing that. If research stresses you beyond normal stress levels, if it does not give you true pleasure, then maybe it is not the right thing. I totally appreciate how that is not necessarily true for everybody. Maybe you are meant for a more structured environment, where you don’t have to make up your days’ work on your own, every day. But if you are happy with that, it really is the greatest thing in the world. It does not feel like a job.

 

Credit: Roland Bürgmann

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Walter Roest

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Walter Roest

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 Walter Roest 


Walter Roest was born in Dordrecht, The Netherlands. He has had an impressive international career that started with an MSc in Physics and then Geophysics at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. He was the last one to obtain a PhD in Marine Geophysics from the Vening Meinesz laboratory for Marine Geophysics at Utrecht University, which closed afterwards. His career continued in Halifax, Canada where he contributed to geophysical data processing and interpretation, and subsequently in Ottawa, where he spent 12 years of his career in aeromagnetics. Since 2002 he is based at IFREMER in Brest, France, where he is active as a Marine Geophysicist.

 

Walter Roest – Credit: IFREMER annuaire

Walter, what was your reason to go into Earth Sciences? 

As a young adolescent, I wanted to become a physics teacher. That was my main reason to start with my studies in Physics in 1976. In 1978 an advertisement for a scientific cruise appeared. I applied and was allowed to embark, but unfortunately, the cruise got cancelled. There was another opening in 1979, which was aborted after a fire in the engine room. As a result, as an undergraduate, I had no real plan for about 6 months, until they proposed me to participate in the construction of a seismic streamer for the laboratory. After that, I was convinced that I wanted to work at sea. I got some opportunities abroad, so I basically dropped my physics-teacher wishes and continued in Geosciences.

Throughout my career I have never really planned anything, I never had any clear expectations neither

When you were very early in your career as a scientist, what kind of expectations did you have?

Throughout my career I have never really planned anything, I never had any clear expectations neither. Opportunities arose, in my case not in the Netherlands but in Canada and so I moved continents. I left the data acquisition at sea for a while. When I didn’t find a job after my PostDoc position I got the opportunity to go into aeromagnetics. Many years later, when I saw an advertisement for a position at IFREMER, the French marine research institute, I just applied. I thought I didn’t have any chance, but I was lucky enough to get the position! My career has been mainly a concatenation of events that happened.

It is very important to have knowledge on how data is collected.

What research interests, approaches and methods did you develop during your career?

Müller, D., et al., 2008. Geochemistry, Geophysics, Geosystems, 9. Q04006.

My research interests lie within global tectonics, using empirical research tools that are closely connected to data. It is very important to have knowledge on how data is collected. I try therefore to go on a research cruise at least once a year, so I stay updated about the newest data acquisition and processing techniques. I’m not so much interested in very detailed processes, but I’d rather try to understand the large scale tectonic setting of an area.

 

You have been around, working in quite some different fields. What accomplishment in your career are you most proud of?

Interesting question! I think I’m most proud of the Müller et al., 2008 paper I co-authored. It was published in G-cubed. We started this project in 1987 with a first edition of the ‘digital global plate tectonics map of the world’ in 1997. It basically took 20 years of work and I think the publication is a fantastic result, used and cited by many researchers. It shows that hard work pays off!

As soon as you can, start international collaborations […] they give you a different view on the world.

After all these years in the field of plate tectonics, you have seen many questions solved, but also arise. What do you think are the biggest challenges today?

Many questions still remain about the initiation of subduction. We basically do not understand how this works. Recently, we had two cruises in the South-East Pacific where we acquireseismic data to figure out how subduction starts. Also in terms of plate boundaries, there still many questions. For example between North and South America, we don’t exactly know where the plate boundary is, nor the style of deformation that is associated with it.

[…] you should force yourself to go a bit further every time you do something and make yourself capable of reflecting on the things you have done.

One last question, Walter, what would be your advice to Early Career Scientists that aspire a career in geosciences?

I actually have multiple tips and tricks that might boost your (early) career. As soon as you can, start international collaborations. I have worked with Chinese, Russian, Brazilian and American research groups, amongst others. They give you a different view on the world. For example, when I first worked with the Russians, they did not think that seafloor spreading was happening, even though we together interpreted magnetic lineations as isochrons. Another advice is that you should force yourself to go a bit further every time you do something and make yourself capable of reflecting on the things you have done. A last advice: every now and then go to conferences by yourself, don’t stick with your group or the people you already know. You will have the best encounters. For example, I met Dietmar Müller with whom I eventually wrote many papers, at a poster session at the AGU in San Francisco in 1978. So even when you are shy, just go for it, get out there!

 

Interview conducted by Anouk Beniest

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Richard Gordon

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Richard Gordon

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 Richard Gordon


Prof. Richard Gordon is currently Professor at Rice University (William Marsh Rice University in Houston, Texas). He researches on how several areas such as paleomagnetism, plate tectonics, lithospheric deformation and space geodesy are tied together. While a student, Professor Gordon used paleomagnetic data to calculate the minimum velocity of a plate or continent in the past. In 2002, he was awarded by the GSA with the Arthur L. Day Medal for contributions to the development of the plate tectonic model, especially for the recognition and quantification of diffuse oceanic plate boundaries.

There will be some heated debates in the AGU

After being active for several decades in this field, where lies currently your main research interest?

My interest is in processes in the lithosphere. This could mean Plate Tectonics, deformation of the lithosphere, absolute plate motions, how plates move relative to the hotspots, how much hotspots move between them and how they all move relative to the spin axis. Plate motions, how standard they are, how motions from a million years compare with plates motions we see over decades with space geodesy. My particular interest right now lies in working out the polar wander path of the Pacific plate, because it is a key missing part of the puzzle for understanding Cenozoic global tectonics, and Pacific tectonics. Those are some of the highlights.

How would you describe your approach, which methods do you while conducting your research?

A lot of it involves looking at data, using as many data and as diverse datasets as we can to test different hypotheses. A little tiny bit of it involves modelling. The main focus in our research group right now is on looking at marine magnetic anomalies in the Pacific and coming up with novel ways of process them in order to squeeze out information on where the paleomagnetic pole lies.

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

When you discover something new about the Earth and understand the Earth better, and you are the first one to get that realization: that is such a high, that makes all the hard work worthwhile.

Kreemer and Gordon (2014). Pacific plate deformation from horizontal thermal contraction. Geology, 42 (10), 847-850.

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

A lot of the work I’ve done has been about relative motion of the plates and motion across deep deforming zones, for example in the western US. Some of that work has been used and can be used more to help assess seismic hazards. The seismic moment releases energy over time and spaces related to how much the earthquakes move and how fast the plates move, I think this is a very important implication. I’m hoping, in the future, to relate true polar wander to global climate change. Maybe it will work, maybe not. But if it did, I think that would be really relevant.

What do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement?

(sighs)… That’s a tough one… Something I am very proud at was leading a group with a couple of my graduate students, to put together one new global set of plate velocities. We did a really careful job, went back to all of original data and analyzed the results. We were able to discover a lot of things. You can discover a lot of new things by going back and looking at the data. It was a big project and we were all really worn out at the end, but I think we are all very proud of that.

That work led to the discovery and quantification of motion across several diffuse oceanic plate boundaries. Such boundaries are globally significant and occupy 10% to 15% of the ocean floor. At the scale of the boundaries and boundary zones, the physics of deformation in them is very different from that for narrow oceanic plate boundaries.

C. DeMets, R. G. Gordon, D. F. Argus, S. Stein (1990). Current plate motions. Geophysical Journal International, 101 (2), 425–478

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

We have some of the papers out and still some of them are in the pipeline, I will be talking about them in the AGU: We solved a problem that people didn’t think was a problem: what’s the paleolatitude of the Hawaiian hot spot, when the Emperor Seamount Chain was formed. What we showed is different from what everybody believed. We showed that it stayed in the same place, it did not change its latitude. So it is going to be very controversial and there may be some heated debates in the AGU and EGU, I am sure. But I am sure we have got this right!

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

The easy answer would be: more funding! (laughs) Also, more opportunities for young scientists.

What are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

For the project I am doing right now on paleomagnetism of the Pacific, one challenge is that we need more data from the Pacific. We can do better with more data. A lot of the data that we have is collected by ships. But we would like to have vector data, from airplanes or drones that can move fast enough. Finding better quality data than we have is a challenge. And this goes back to more funding (laughs).

I thought I was going to be a writer

Richard Gordon in 1971. Credit – East Side Union High School.

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

When I went to graduate school, I thought I was going to be a writer. A science writer, maybe a science-fiction writer too. Isaac Asimov was my role model! I thought I had to have a PhD to know enough to be a good science writer. But to do a PhD I had to do research. So I started doing it and got really excited about it. And I thought “Hey, I could do this! I’m pretty good at this!

I did an internship in the oil industry for a summer and I really liked that too, but I liked academics a lot more, so I made the decision to stay in academia. Although I am still keeping my options open to still become a science writer. Isaac Asimov actually was an assistant professor for I think 6 years. When he reached the point where he was earning more money from his writing than as a professor, he decided to become a full-time writer. But I never did the writing, I just got so excited about academia that I have been totally focused in that way.

A disproportionate number of new discoveries are made by early career scientists

What advice would like to you give to Early Career Scientists?

The first thing is: don’t get discouraged. Because part of being an academic is receiving critical feedback. The advantage for us is that the people who are giving us feedback are people who also are getting feedback from somebody else. Whereas in art & music, the critics don’t actually make the music or make the art, they are just professional critics. It doesn’t give them the perspective of the person who also has received critical feedback. Everyone is going to get criticism, and papers get rejected and proposals get rejected…just don´t let yourself get discouraged and do read the criticisms carefully. It may be mostly wrong but there will be a kernel of truth, which can help you write a better paper, write a better proposal or be a better scientist.

The other thing to remember is that a disproportionate number of new discoveries are made by early career scientist. The early career scientists own the future, the near future. And that is part of “don’t be discouraged” because if you’ve got bright ideas, you could be just around the corner of a big advance.

Those two things together are, I think, important.

Richard Gordon. Credit – Jeff Fitlow, Rice University.

 

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Mathilde Cannat

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Mathilde Cannat

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 Mathilde Cannat


Mathilde Cannat started her career at the early age of 26 when she obtained her Doctorate in Geology at the University of Nantes, France. After a PostDoc at Durham University, England, she took a position at the National Center of Scientific Research (CNRS). She researched at the University Paris 6 since 1992 and obtained her present position at the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris (IPGP), France, in 2001. She was awarded with the ‘Médaille d’Argent’ of the CNRS in 2009.

Scientist should be able to take time to produce publications, even if this means that there would be fewer publications

Mathilde, could you share with us your research interests and the methods you use to solve your research questions?

I work on the processes of oceanic accretion. I want to understand how new oceanic domains are created at mid-ocean ridges. My focus lies on the specific case of slow-spreading ridges, where tectonic processes are prevalent, and I unravel the interactions between tectonics, magmatism and hydrothermalism. I’m primarily a geologist, but in addition to submersible studies and rock sampling I also use several geophysical methods, that include gathering time series data on active processes such as seismicity and the temperature of hydrothermal vent fluids.

That’s quite a lot different topics you address. What is the favourite part of your research?

Mathilde Cannat – Credit: ODEMAR scientific cruise

Participate in sea-going cruises is the best part of the job. In particular, the use of manned or remotely operated submersibles to explore the seafloor is a very exciting business. I also very much enjoy good collaborations with colleagues, and the last stages of writing a paper, when it is almost finished. Lastly I am also fond of working with and advising PhD students.

Creating new concepts and knowledge is highly relevant no matter the topic

What do you think makes your research relevant and connected to real world applications?

In my opinion, creating new concepts and knowledge is highly relevant no matter the topic. I completely disagree with the notion that creation of knowledge belongs to some other less real world. I even go further and believe that research is a fundamental part of our culture. In my view whether it can be applied to some material objective at short or longer term does neither increases or decreases its relevance.

After being in the field for quite some years now, what do you consider your biggest academic achievement?

In the ’90s, I proposed a new concept for the formation of seafloor that is partially made of tectonically uplifted rocks from the earth’s mantle. I was the principal proponent of this idea and until today it is still an accepted and commonly used concept.

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

I don’t believe that science problems are ever truly solved. It is more like conceptual hypotheses that are made based on our current understanding. These hypotheses can then be tested which in most cases results in updating the concept and so on. So for this question, I can say that in my most recent project I have been able to gather observations that appear consistent with the hypothesis that I made with a colleague a few years back concerning the formation of new seafloor at mid-ocean ridges that have a very low melt budget.

Scientist should be able to take time to produce publications, even if this means that there would be fewer publications

Over the years you have seen the system in which scientists manoeuvre their work being changed and adapted. What would you like to change to improve how science in your field is done?

I would definitely change science funding and general organisation to put the emphasis back on teamwork. Also, the pressure that scientists have on publishing their work should go down. Scientist should be able to take time to produce publications, even if this means that there would be fewer publications but these would have been more thought about!

Sauter, Cannat, et al., 2013. Nature Geoscience, 6, 314-320.

 

For the near future, what do you think are the biggest challenges right now in your field?

We should definitely look at plate tectonics in relation to a more global picture. This means that it would include the interactions and impacts between the solid Earth and the biosphere, the oceans, the atmosphere. This global picture should be regarded both in the present, with a better understanding of time variable processes, and in the past through the Earth’s history.

[To ECS] Do not become bitter when it seems to be so hard to get a stable position

One last question for the Early Career Scientists (ECS) that read this blog, when you were in the early stages what is the best advice you ever received and what advice would you give to them?

When I was an ECS myself, I saw myself staying in academia. The best advice that I was given at the time, I guess, was not to become bitter because it seemed to be so hard and take such a long time to get a stable position during my postdoc years. And so to ECS, I would definitely suggest not to hesitate to contact people, even senior people, if you like their work. Don’t be afraid to ask them questions, explain your own ideas and get into a scientific discussion with them.

Interview conducted by Anouk Beniest

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Peter Molnar

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Peter Molnar

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 Peter Molnar


Active in different research areas of the Earth Sciences, Prof. Peter Molnar has been Professor of Geological Sciences at the University of Colorado at Boulder for more than a decade.

Set your own standards for excellence and don’t let other people decide them

You have come a long way in academia! How do you remember the beginnings of your career?

Peter Molnar (1984) – Credit: what-when-how, In Depth Tutorials and Information

I studied physics in the United States, at Oberlin College, where I took one semester in Physical Geology. I remember a friend of mine said “Molnar, you ought to take Geology. If you take Geology, you will look at the landscape completely differently from the way you do.” And I liked looking at the landscape, so I took that semester. Then, I worked one summer at the Harvard Cyclotron Laboratory, and I realized that I wasn’t cut out for that kind of physics… So, I thought of going to geophysics. I applied and I was a good enough student that I got in, in both Columbia and Caltech. I went to Columbia University. During my second year, I attended a talk by Lynn Sykes. He had studied earthquakes on fracture zones and demonstrated that transform faulting occurred. This was a moment that changed me. I remember thinking “Oh my God! Continental drift does occur!” I had been introduced to it back in college, but I didn’t believe any of it! I heard Sykes, and I suddenly realized there is something exciting going on. I got interested and turned my attention to it. While a student I took a “sabbatical,” went to East Africa with a bunch of seismographs to study earthquakes there.

 

 

I attended a talk by Lynn Sykes… This was a moment that changed me

I graduated in 1970. Then I was a PostDoc for two years at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. Afterwards, I went to the USSR for four months, because I thought earthquake prediction offered a bright future. Next, I took a job at MIT where I had the good fortune to get to know Paul Tapponnier. He really taught me more geology than I knew by a long shot. I stayed at MIT for 27 years, but I wasn’t a very good teacher. So I decided to quit, and I supported myself on grants from NSF and NASA. Late in the 90s, after supporting myself for more than 10 years, I wanted to change directions. So I looked into moving to a place where they would pay me a little a bit so that I did not have to depend on grants. And there was the choice between University of Washington and the University of Colorado. I had gotten interested in climate change, and then other things since then, and I have been here for 18 years.

 

After being active for several decades in this field, where does your main research interest currently lie? 

Right now my main interest is related to how geodynamics affects climate on geologic scales. There are two problems that attract me: how does the high topography of Asia affect Asian climate and how do islands in the ocean affect rainfall and large-scale atmospheric circulation. The ultimate goal of the latter is Ice Ages, since I think they are all tied together. I have been working on what you might call geodynamics now for most of the last 50 years, so I still do that. I no longer do much seismology.

It’s almost a religion that I don’t believe what I don’t understand

Peter Molnar (2014) – Credit: Oceans at MIT

 

How would you describe your approach?

My wife says that what I do is to look for problems where everybody believes something, but there is an inconsistency, and that I try to find that inconsistency and expose it, and then revel in the pleasure of that exposure. That’s her observation of watching me, I certainly do not do this consciously. 

A concern I have with a younger generation is that, for some reason, they have not been encouraged or they have not learned to ask important questions…

 

 What about your methods?

Molnar & England (1990). Late Cenozoic uplift of mountain ranges and global climate change: chicken or egg? Nature, 346, 29–34.

I seek simple physical explanations for things. I do not like big models because I don’t understand them, and it’s almost a religion that I don’t believe what I don’t understand. I use big numerical codes. I use them to carry out “simple numerical experiments” where you vary one parameter and see what you get. To me this is an experiment. It’s just not done in a laboratory but on a computer. The strategy is to understand the physical processes while bringing data to bear. Another central element, which I often seen missing today, is that I try to direct my research towards problems that are “important”. It seems to me that an important problem is one that when you solve it, it changes the way people think. Sometimes you have to make incremental steps forward. As an example, both Tapponnier and I, over the years, have tried to constrain the kinematics of Asian deformation by studying slips on faults, and determining slip rates. One could argue, those studies are incremental steps forward, but of course, the big goal is to put the whole picture together. I no longer do this.

There are many people who do this better than I do. So, it would be pointless for me to do that. But I compile their data continually. And the question that I am asking, in this case, is what are the underlying physical processes that determine how the deformation occurs?

A concern I have with a younger generation is that, for some reason, they have not been encouraged or they have not learned to ask important questions.  There’s too much of a tendency to work on incremental problems. 

While you are learning, you are alive

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

Bringing two pieces together that don’t look like they fit, until you put them together. For example, I think that rainfall over the islands in Indonesia and the growth of Indonesia has made the Ice Ages in Canada. Now, who would have thought that? I have fun with this! You have to realize that when you do this type of things, most of the time you are wrong. So, I might be wrong about this one, but I am having fun. So it doesn’t matter. I’m learning. That’s the second favourite thing: learning. While you are learning, you are alive. And the third thing is fieldwork. I love being in the field. My head gets clear, I see things that I have not seen before, I learn about other cultures and people. I just have a wonderful time. I don’t think my own fieldwork contributed much to our field  – but it’s important to me.

I’m just having fun!

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

Peter Molnar – Credit: University of Colorado Boulder

I think my research is about as relevant as Goya’s paintings – Goya is one of my favourite artists. So if you think that Goya’s paintings are relevant, then maybe my research is relevant. And if you think his paintings are not relevant, then my research is not relevant either. And I shouldn’t be so pretentious as to equate my work to Goya’s paintings.

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

I don’t know if I solved any problem… that’s not a question I ask myself. I’m just having fun!

I wanted to ask what do you consider to be your biggest academic achievement, but perhaps I should ask you what is the one achievement that gave you the most fun?

I don’t spend time thinking about my biggest achievement. I prefer to look forward to what’s coming. You know, most people my age are retired, I can still work 50 or 60 hours a week. I love what I do. I rather look forward to the exciting stuff in the future.

…it troubles me when I see people worrying […] about artificial metrics

Looking back, what would you change to improve how science in your field is done today?

I see two aspects of the direction science is going that trouble me. One, can do nothing about, is the level of funding. Most of us struggle to get funded. I feel that back 50 years ago, it was much easier than it is now. Of course, we were fewer people. But in any case, limitations on funding really slow us down.

The other thing that troubles me is the focus on metrics. People counting the number of papers they write, worrying about their citations and not worrying about the quality of their work. These very poor measures of quality. So much today is focussed on these metrics, these indexes, that are meant to be a measure of your work. People are not thinking about the quality, they are thinking about how many people are going to cite it, where they are going to publish it, does the journal have a high -whatever it is called- impact factor. This is just crap, people should not waste time on this. This is just ridiculous! The focus should be on the quality of the work. We all have different ways of deciding quality. It is not something you measure, however; it’s something we determine in some subjective way. And it troubles me when I see people not worrying about the right thing, quality, and worrying instead about these artificial metrics. I am just so glad these things don’t matter to me. I am old enough, but I really don’t envy young people that have to cope with these sorts of artificial targets.

I don’t see anything like Plate Tectonics in the verge from happening.

But I do see still see very exciting stuff, but probably in different parts the science

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

Some of the challenges are too hard for me even to pursue them. In the climate world, we don’t know about the role of clouds. And I don’t know how to pursue this, so I don’t pursue it. Do clouds have a cooling effect, and what is the response from clouds to warming? Will they slow or accelerate the warming? We don’t know. The role of clouds is certainly a big, big question. Although I do not work on this, I think about it, but I don’t see what to do.

One of the problems I do work on is what brought us Ice Ages. How did we go through 300 My years without much ice in the northern hemisphere and then suddenly, beginning 3My years ago or so, we had 5 big Ice Ages? Why? An easy answer is that now CO2 is higher. But it’s really hard to measure, determining CO2 in the past is a big question.

Another big question for me is how does the convection in the mantle connect with deformation in the lithosphere? How do these connect to one another?

Another one I work on is where is the strength within the lithosphere? We still argue about it. This is a 40 years old question, and the points of view haven’t changed. There are still those who put the strength in the crust, while others put it in the mantle. I don’t think we know. And of course it’s going to be different in different places, so it’s a more complicated issue.

Molnar (2015). Plate Tectonics: A Very Short Introduction – Credit: Amazon

I think the prediction of earthquakes is often dismissed as something that we ought not to spend time on. But the progress that has been made in understanding earthquakes in the past 20 years is huge. This came up in Paris and I agree completely with what Eric (Calais), Jean-Philippe (Avouac), and others said. The use of GPS to study co-seismic and post-seismic deformation, and the realization of slow earthquakes are big advances. That’s a big question that I think we might be close to solving.

Another question I got really excited about is understanding how the upper mantle and the lower mantle are connected. In fact, some of us have had a discussion about it in Paris. The evidence shows the lower mantle is really chemically different from the upper mantle; that’s obvious. But how are the two connected; that’s not obvious. I don’t see this the same way as a bunch of other people do. I see the connection between the two, and this takes us back to the question of the early history of the Earth. How is the chemical difference manifested? How has the slower convection of the lower mantle slowed the cooling of the Earth?

I think the answer to your question is: I don’t see anything like Plate Tectonics on the verge of happening. I do see still very exciting stuff, but probably in different parts the science.

…that way I was not going to get killed

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

I don’t remember what expectations I had, I don’t think I was even aware enough to know what I wanted to do. When I decided to go into geophysics, people said to me “Oh, what’s geophysics?”, and I didn’t know. And “What would you do?” and I said, “Well, oil companies need people like that”. At that time I knew so little, that it never dawned on me that if I work for an oil company, I might be stuck having to live in Texas. And I can’t imagine living in Texas. What I did know is that if I did not go to graduate school, I would be sent to Vietnam. I was kind of trapped with having to go to graduate school and choosing a field that seemed possible and open to me. So, I just decided to go for the easy road. I stayed in school because that way I was not going to get killed. I stayed, and I thought about music and girls. But once I got excited about research, it was clear that that was the only place for me.

 What is the best advice you ever received?

Now, that’s a good question. One of them came from my father. He did not articulate this, but I sensed it in a conversation with him. And one of my three main advisors, Jack Oliver, emphasized this to me again, and that is to continuously ask yourself: What is the most important scientific question? As soon as you did something, Jack Oliver would say, “Ok. Now you have done this, what’s the next most important question?” Just because you ask it, it doesn’t mean that you have solved an important problem. But if you continue to ask yourself that question, you have a better chance of doing good science, than if you don’t ask that question.

Jack gave another piece of advice, which is almost counter opposite to this, and that was that when you can’t think of what to do, the worst thing you could do is to do nothing. Just because you can’t come up with the most important problem doesn’t mean you should do nothing. You should just keep going.

Another piece of advice is, set your own standards. None of us is Einstein. None of us is Newton (maybe not none of us, but very, very few of us are). So, if we set those standards, we fail. And the problem is that, if we let universities with low standards but counting and using metrics to set the standards, we will not do as well as we would, if each of us would set our own standards for excellence. We should strive on meeting our standards, rather than what others expect from us. Don’t let other people decide your standards.

 

Peter Molnar – Credit: David Oonk

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Xavier Le Pichon

Meeting Plate Tectonics – Xavier Le Pichon

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 Xavier Le Pichon


Prof. Xavier Le Pichon is one of the pioneers of the theory of plate tectonics. He developed the first global-scale predictable quantitative model of plate motion. The model, published in 1968, accounted for most of the seismicity at plate boundaries. Among many substantial contributions to the field, he also published, together with Jean Francheteau and Jean Bonnin, the first book on plate tectonics in 1973.

 

Your contributions have led to great advancements of our understanding of Plate Tectonics as we know it today. What‘s your main interest and what motivates your research?

My interest is the Earth and how it behaves. Discovering what type of animal the Earth is. I think of the Earth as a living organism, and we have to understand it. It’s very interesting to take the Earth as something that evolves, that changes, and that you have to understand how it evolves. The whole thing about research is getting very intimate with it and knowing really its behaviour.

I think of the Earth as a living organism

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

I do not have any favourite aspect, but I think that to explain the change in the Earth is captivating. For example, how did we pass from an Earth where there were a single continent and a single ocean, ~200 Ma, to something where the continents are as dispersed as they are now… This had a tremendous influence on many things, including evolution, biology, climate… We know, for example, that when all the continents were together the pace of the evolution was much smaller than when continents are dispersed. All this fascinates me. I believe that if there is something that is not understood, you have to understand it. The basic question that proves you are a human is, you always have the “why” in your mind as the main thing that is present.

Claude Riffaud and Xavier Le Pichon – Credit: Jean-Claude Deutsch/Paris Match

 

What do you consider is the main problem that you solved during research?

I have been interested in many different aspects… I’m best known by the fact that I’ve been one of those who promoted plate tectonics. I made the first global model of quantifying the motion of the plates, knowing everywhere what would be the motion absorbed in the plate boundary. Also, I made the first finite and precise reconstruction of the configuration of the Earth, for nowadays, 70 Ma, 200 Ma, and so on. I also think that I was the first that proved that the Earth’s expansion did not work. Because if you take the shortening that is absorbed in the trenches of the world, in the mountain belts, and you claim there is no shortening there, then you are left only with the expansion of the ridges. And the expansion is asymmetric, and it’s produced much more in the east-west sense than it is in the north-south sense. And if you have that going on for several tens of millions of years, then the Earth would have a shape which is completely non-hydrostatic. It would not respect what the Earth has to have to be a planetary body turning on itself. So the Earth’s expansion was clearly impossible.

I believe that science that is completely regulated

top-down is not efficient

Le Pichon, X. (1968). Sea-floor spreading and continental drift. Journal of Geophysical Research, 73(12), 3661–3697.

 

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

I never worried about “what is done”, I worried about “what I do”.  I have always found a way to get money, to get a position and to get a lab. I changed labs quite a few times. I created a few labs… I think it is a question of adjusting. I believe that science that is completely regulated top-down is not efficient. I think there has to be a lot of freedom. At least for fundamental science. For applied science, I don’t know but I think it is probably about the same. The reason is very basic: what is the purpose of research? It’s to discover something that is totally unexpected. If it is expected, then it’s not a discovery. When the guy who does the planification says: “we will focus all our energy to find out about that”, how does he know “that” is the thing that is going to come out? The most important things in the evolution of research have been totally unexpected and came from people that had no planification whatsoever of what they should find.

The most important things in the evolution of research have been totally unexpected

Where do you see the biggest challenges in your field right now?

Le Pichon, Francheteau, Bonnin (1973). Plate Tectonics: Developments in Geotectonics, 6 – Credit: Amazon

The plate tectonic was really a revolution that changed completely the concept. And it took a few tens of years to adjust to this revolution. Actually, we are still in the phase of adjusting to that. For example, we are adjusting to the fact that to understand that plate tectonics is not only what happens at the surface, but that it implies things that happen in the interior of the Earth, in the mantle and below. This is not fully understood. And we do not understand one very important thing, which is that plate tectonics is a relatively new thing on the Earth. In the beginning, there was no plate tectonics as we know it nowadays. And I think that even the style of the plate tectonics has changed in the last was 200 Ma for example. It probably was not the same before Pangea… So we have still lots of things to understand, and to incorporate. And then, the main thing about discoveries, again, is that they are unexpected. So, I would not be surprised that major discoveries focus our energy in a completely new direction in the near future. I think we are approaching a time where it seems that we need to trigger something else to get into something new.

 I am very afraid of people who get specialized too early

When you were an Early Career Researcher, what was your motivation, what stimulated you most?

Riffaud, Le Pichon (1976). Expédition ‘Famous’ à 3000 m sous l’Atlantique. Paris: Albin Michel. – Credit: Amazon

The fact that strikes me the most when I think about Europe is that the student’s mobility has been greatly increased and I think that this is extremely important. The mobility I had was not too frequent in my time – I have moved a lot: I moved to the United States, where I was offered a professorship, and came back, then I was an invited professor in other places, Oxford, Tokyo… I have created three different laboratories, and I’ve been in many places in the world. I think this is very important because you change with time and you cannot get stuck in a given thing. I think this is very basic in research. I mean, you learn a lot by comparing. You have to move, and confront yourself to other laboratories, to other ways to teach… Otherwise, you get stuck in a certain frame and that can be very dangerous. Then you become more interested in promoting your position and the place where you are than in the discoveries. Or you end up trying to be what your professor was and trying to imitate the guy that taught you is certainly one of the worst things you can do. I think anything that promotes mobility and independence and possibilities to change is a very good thing.

I am very afraid of people who get specialized too early. Of course, it is easier to get a job if you have a narrow speciality, you are more immediately usable. But I think the result is quite bad, quite often. You first have to see the different possibilities and then progressively you find out that you best express yourself in a certain direction, in a certain field. And that requests time and several tries and so on.

 

When you were a young researcher, did you always see yourself staying in academia?

I always wanted to do research. I wanted the freedom to choose. And I always went to places where I was sure that I would decide myself what type of research I would do. If that was not anymore the case, I quitted and I changed. I was very firm about the fact that I wanted to choose myself my own research direction. This has been a problem with financing. I had to change my source of financing. Whenever I had a problem with the state and the administration, I would go to oil people and other types of European financing in order to be able to keep this freedom.

You have to go to a place where research is thriving

The last question for today’s Early Career Scientists: what advice would you like to give the ECS that would like to stay in science?

Xavier Le Pichon – Credit: Instituto De Estudios Andinos Don Pablo Groeberg (IDEAN)

Basically, I have been an autodidact. I have always learned, in contact with other people, but mostly by myself. I cannot give any advice about what is best… but it is clear that you have to go to a place where research is thriving. If you go to a place where nothing happens, you will not start by yourself something unless you are a real genius. But even then, you don’t have the resources and so on. So you first need to identify the place where things are moving, where things are happening.

And then you try to go to this place and then, if possible, you try another one. Don’t get stuck to one thing only. Try to see the world, try to see how it moves, try to contact people…

One of the most interesting things in research is the contact with other people. Academia is a place where you have a lot of cooperation and you learn to interact with others and having a wide network of people with whom you interact is one of the gifts of this type of life. One very interesting thing is wherever you go you will agree if you talk about good science. Because when proper science is made, everybody agrees. This is not true in any other field. In philosophy, for example, you will never find people with whom you totally agree, it’s impossible. In science it’s so restricted, the rules are so clear that you are sure to come to a common agreement. So you can work with anybody on Earth that has the proper mind to do research and you will cooperate very well.

Xavier Le Pichon – Credit: Xavier Le Pichon

Interview conducted by David Fernández-Blanco