10 professional abilities you develop by doing science

By Lilian Pavani
English edit: Lídia Paes Leme and Katyanne M. Shoemaker

Original here

   Those who have done scientific research know how hard it is to explain what you do. Since your work is not an internship or a job, research is typically first done in the position of a student, as either an undergrad, masters, or doctoral student. Is there a researcher among us who has not heard the phrase “do you work too, or only study?” Contrary to common belief, yes, you work and work hard!

   Mislead are those who think that work within science is a cinch. Research goes beyond reading articles and books, it involves the construction of new knowledge. On this ardent path, scientists are forced to learn many things that are valued in the “real world.”

   When I was doing research I didn’t have any idea of the skills I had learned along the way, but when I started to work in the business world, I realized how many abilities I had due to my undergrad and masters studies in marine ecology. Regardless of the subject you research, you’ll likely find the following to be true for yourself:

Source

1- You know how to use Word and Excel

You may need a bundle of complicated software to analyze specific aspects of your work, but there will never be a time you’ll forego the simplicity of making a datasheet and quick graph in Excel. One of the first skills we teach ourselves in data analysis is how to transform a pie chart to a bar graph and change the colors of data series’ until we find what best represents our results. And if you’re applying to a scholarship, presenting results, or formatting a thesis, you’ll – pardon me the pun – learn Word “write.” You insert tables, images and references without losing sight of the format of paragraphs, margins, or footers.

Source

2- You know how to make nice presentations in PowerPoint

Who hasn’t made a poster to present in a conference? Or a presentation for a class in your undergrad or to defend your thesis? Research has helped you almost certainly develop a good aesthetic sense: knowing how to pick the best background color and font, and how to symmetrically distribute the elements of your slide. By now, we all know a picture is worth a thousand words, and wordy slides are the downfall of an otherwise good presentation. Powerpoint helps us master the art of presenting the important information in the available time, be it five, 20 or 50 minutes.

Source

3- Project management is something natural

Your desire to do research likely started with a question you wanted to answer, a need you identify – the initiation step. To answer the question, you needed to write a research proposal, so you to gathered information, defined the necessary activities to your study, and estimated the necessary resources and deadlines – the planning step. With a research project approved, you developed the defined activities – the execution step. And while your project was being developed, from time to time some activities and processes were reviewed, adjusted and made better – the control and monitoring step. By project completion, you presented the final results in a report or article that went through a rigorous evaluation by your adviser and others – the finalization step. There you go, you may have never heard of a PMBOK or MS project, but you know all about project management!

Source

4- Quality is mandatory

The level and rigor and requirements in the academic field can be stratospheric. I’ve seen people kicked out of graduate programs because their scores didn’t meet the level desired by the program. Even if your work is a good contribution to the field, an unsatisfactory abstract alone may prevent you from presenting your work at a conference. If your article is not well structured, it likely won’t be published in any journal. Peers evaluate everything and screen your work for any minor slip; therefore, it is imperative to always make sure the work is well done.

Source

5 – You become judicious

Because of the obligation to quality, the more thoughtful you are in the development of your work, the greater the chance that it will be well done. This habit is acquired without notice.

Source

6 – Knowing how to argue is a necessity

In order to discuss your results, apply for funding, or convince your advisor, you need to know how to defend, support, and prove your point of view.

Source

7 - You learn how to deal with people

During your research, you need to deal with several different people in varying positions of power. At the very least, you have an advisor and maybe a co-advisor. If you are at masters or doctorate level, you will have collaborators alongside you and new students below you to train. There will also likely be the need to connect to other members of the your home department, especially professors. Those who even only minimally understand academia know that the academic field is an ego war, and you are caught in the crossfire. You must learn to do whatever is possible to keep things going without damaging the pace of your research.

Source

8 – You understand deadlines are important and you abide by them

If you’re on a scholarship you’re always aware of the deadlines for filing reports and funding forms. If you don’t have a scholarship, you’ll be following program deadlines and keeping track of when to submit a new proposal. If you want to present your work at a conference, you have deadlines for abstract submission (sometimes organizers can extend the deadline date, but in general, people use that just to review the abstract sent).

Source

9 – Financial management is part of it

In general, most scientific grants and scholarships have a technical reserve -- money that does not go to the researcher but towards the acquisition of equipment, books, field research, and other items needed to the development of the research project. This pool of money is often small, so you learn to manage the financial resources by looking for the best value. In some cases, you may learn to manage many different project funds, to buy common materials that will benefit multiple projects and other in the lab.

Source

10 – You realize that your success is totally up to you

The academic field can be a hostile environment, demanding a lot of dedication. Because of that, people tend to qualify themselves as much as possible and are always in search of improvement. So, if you intend to leave the academic career and follow an alternate path, remember your own self value! You have a lot to offer! ;)

About Lilian Pavani:

Lilian is a biologist, with a masters in ecology and specialization in environmental engineering from the State University of Campinas. She is a lover of sponges and other marine invertebrates, especially the colorful ones. After sailing through sponges, amphipods and petroleum, the current and winds took her literally down other roads, where she worked studying run-over fauna, doing environmental management and supervision of railroad construction. She has many diverse interests, including education, writing, innovation, cooking, playing the flute in an amateur group of antique musicians, and bird watching. Anyway, she lives with her feet in the sand and kind of in the tides.

Misadventures in Research

By Yonara Garcia
English edit: Lídia Paes Leme and Katyanne Shoemaker

Illustration by: Caia Colla 

   As I was finishing writing my thesis, I started to consider all of the challenges that I went through in the two years of my Masters education in order to deliver such a perfectly rounded piece of work. My feelings were mixed because I was obviously happy to finish this step in my life, but I realized that this document didn’t contain even a third of all the misadventures that got me to this point. In my opinion, the thesis was missing a chapter; there should have been a chapter on “the making of” the research, just to explain how much went wrong and what it really takes to deliver good work. 

   When starting a Masters course, you must submit a proposal, which includes your research objectives, the hypothesis, and how you plan to answer that hypothesis. Wow! It was so easy so far! You just follow a previously described method and you understand what your results will look like and how they should be treated. This is all based on previously done work on a similar subject, which of course you know all about after reviewing the relevant literature. Two years to finish this project? No problem! …or at least that is what I thought. For me, it was not this easy, so I am going to tell you a little bit about my many misadventures during my masters.

   My work was a behavioral study of marine planktonic organisms in a 3D system. To build the system, I got together with a crew of post-graduate students who would also be using the experimental tank. This is where the soap opera began. We believed that we could build our system based on previous studies, but we quickly noticed that several components were not correct. There were issues with the magnification, color of LED lights, and the shape and positioning on the table. Everything had to be disassembled and reassembled to incorporate the necessary changes. The entire system had to be rebuilt 4 times because with each assembly we noticed new flaws. After months of arranging and rearranging pieces, and with the help of specialists in the area of optics, we finally reached a working system. 

   Ok, that took a few more months than expected, but now I could finally perform my tests, generate results, and graduate, right? Wrong. My work required filming the trajectories my target organism takes in the water column. However, the software for the two cameras we had would only film for 20 seconds at a time, which was not a long enough time span to get a valid representation of swimming behavior. We increased the computer’s memory, but that was not the issue. Thankfully, a student in our lab was proficient with computer science, and he became a key contributor to this project’s success. The filming software was completely replaced with software he developed. This new program didn’t have a time limit, however it could not utilize two cameras at once, so two computers had to be used. Having the two computers meant we could be introducing human error in timing; no matter how hard I tried, I cannot click the mouse at the exact same time on two computers. The solution for this problem was to use two microcontrollers that were activated by a potentiometer. Finally, we had a working system with a program that could be modified according to our needs!

   Onto the experiments! One of the primary challenges of working with living organisms is that you depend on them to be present in a certain collection spot at a given time of year. Unfortunately for me, by the time the experimental system was set up, we could not find enough individuals to run the experiments. It took several months of daily sampling to have enough individuals to perform all of my experiments, but I finally finished. 

   After video collection, the next step of the project was to use a computer program to find coordinates and relevant numerical data on the trajectories of the organisms. Given the topic of this post, it may not be a surprise to say something went wrong in this part too. As it turned out, the program that was originally going to be used could not compare the long videos that we fought so hard to attain. Once more, we turned to our computer science hero, and he developed software that could give us the organisms’ trajectories independent of video size. Let me take a moment to point out that software development is not an easy task; it took several iterations to get it to the point we needed it.

   With data in hand, I could finally analyze them and get my results. Data analysis is never easy, but given what I had already gone through, the challenges seemed minor in comparison. I had no idea how far off that initial Master’s plan would end up being, or that I would face so many challenges. I also didn’t expect how much this project would shape me. I had to be more than a biologist for this work; I learned how to solder, make electrical connections, understand physics, be a computer technician, and learn a little about programming. 

   Beyond all of the research obstacles, you still have to live your own life. This may be the most complicated part of the whole project. I often felt defeated and like I couldn’t carry on as I was faced with problem after problem. I know many others have lived through much bigger issues with their graduate research, but no matter the size of the problem, it shakes you to the core, and it can often be debilitating. 

   But, if you can push through these setbacks and fears of failure, you will eventually reach the end with a huge sense of accomplishment, as I did. It is important for me to share these misadventures in research with you to show what it actually takes to do research—it involves many tries and more wrongs than rights, but in the end, you publish a beautiful piece of well-crafted work. Even with all of the pressures and obstacles I faced, I still love what I do. Through all of the challenges, I grow more certain that I made the right choice.

   What challenges have you faced in your research? Comment below to share a little of your story with us!

Science marches and popular culture: “What we have here, is a failure to communicate”

By Katyanne Shoemaker

Illustration: Caia Colla

   I had originally intended this post to be about the recent March for Science and the general idea of politicizing science, but after recently binge-watching “Bill Nye Saves the World” (a science education show targeting Millennials, hosted by a beloved host of a children’s science show in the 1990s—see trailer below) on Netflix, I have decided to focus on our failure as scientists to communicate to the public. Depressing, I know, but I truly believe there is a disconnect between our attempts to make science easily accessible and appealing to the general public so they actually listen. Public outreach is a major component of our grant proposals, but how much of that outreach is actually working, and how can we more effectively educate the masses? 

   As I was watching Bill Nye’s new popular show, I felt saddened that this great figure from my childhood, who helped inspire my interest in science, could not effectively explain some major gaps in the public perceptions of science. The show feels gimmicky at points, and I think would probably deter some viewers based on the mocking of certain issues. For instance, the episode on debunking homeopathic medicine is entitled “Tune your quack-o-meter,” implying that anyone that believes in homeopathic medicine is a “quack.” If I were a believer in this alternative (read ‘imaginary’) medicine, I don’t think I would want to sit through an episode of people, namely a mechanical engineer, mocking me. Although, this is somewhat irrelevant because I think the majority of people watching this show are scientists who just really love seeing common-sense things explained in new ways (or just want to feel the nostalgia of watching their childhood science pal, Bill Nye). This is an example of scientists teaching/entertaining other scientists, and it is appropriate that it came out right on the heels of another similar, yet more global effort.

   The March for Science was organized as any peaceful rally for change should be: a community sensed a growing problem, and members of the community wanted to make that problem known. In the United States, this growing problem is the use of “alternative facts” (again, read ‘imaginary’) in place of real science, which have been marketed as truth within the current government. This has lead to budget cuts for science funding agencies and less enforcement for environmental protections. For those readers who may not be American, President Trump has named a man who denies that climate change is human-caused as the new head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

An estimated 50,000 people gathered in the Boston Common, armed with witty signs and knowledge, in order to march for science.

   But this march wasn’t just in the United States. On Earth Day 2017, marches popped up all around the world to focus on issues specific to one location or important for all of us to pay attention to. Some reasons people around the world are marching have been published on the Science website (link below), including this quote from an Austrian biochemist:

   “Antienlightenment sentiments are rising worldwide. Many Austrians are against genetic engineering but don’t know what a gene is, for instance. I have a problem with that. Or antivaccine sentiment. It’s almost fashionable to be against science nowadays.” - Renée Schroeder

   Martin Stratmann, the president of the Max Planck Society, even marched, saying: “This is a march pro-science and pro-facts, not a march against Trump… Today, science is more important than ever before, but evidence and knowledge are being questioned in many places, including politics.”

   Don’t get me wrong. The march was a great event. I attended in Boston, MA, and we had an estimated 50,000 scientists and friends-to-science show up on a miserably cold and rainy day to show that this is something we care about. I heard inspirational stories from medical doctors, stories of overcoming adversity from a black, female engineer, and was urged to run for office by George Church (THE human genome guy – I had a major geek moment). It was a fun time to gather around with like-minded individuals and talk about the problems we are facing. But there lies the problem: we were talking to like-minded individuals. Someone who may be interested in learning facts, but does not run in our sciencey circle of awesomeness may not have known the march was going on, or what the march was for. My mother, an educated nurse, lies somewhere on the edge of being a part of the scientific community and not. Even with her daughter posting about the upcoming march, my mother did not know why I was in Boston wearing a weird knitted hat (see image below). Somehow we sciencey people got caught up in the fun of having a rally and forgot to tell the rest of the world what it was for.

Left: Some nerds spent hours knitting brain hats and making signs (that’s me on the far left). Fellow oceanography graduate student Robert Wildermuth marched with me. 

Middle: University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth graduate student, Laura Moritzen is invested in the future of the ocean and the crabs she researches. 

Right: Continuing with the momentum of the Women’s March, we love the “nasty women” of science! 

   So if these forums are not useful at conveying our science to the general public, what is? How do we effectively communicate sometimes very difficult ideas to the masses? I believe the key is in starting young. We need to reach out to schools to mold minds to think about the basic scientific method and teach kids how to come to their own conclusions based on facts, rather than media. Let kids fall in love with knowledge and the quest for knowledge, just as Bill Nye the Science Guy taught me, and Carl Sagan taught the generation before me. I don’t think the non-academic minded adults are a lost cause, but I do think it will take more effort to recondition their minds to not always trust what they read. Lets face it, seeing and sharing a facebook post about secret government plans to infect us with disease through the flu vaccine is a little easier and a lot more exciting than looking up the sources for that post to see it is false.  

   Perhaps, this blog may be a good start for introducing the public to science. We write posts with the intention of making our tales of oceanography and being women in science broadly accessible, yet we tend to share it among other scientists. Why? I challenge you to invite a person that may not be otherwise interested in ocean science to read a blog post you find interesting. Share your science with that friend who studies literature! Or law! Or liturgy! You never know what they will find interesting, and it is bound to lead to good discussion.

Trailer for “Bill Nye Saves the World”: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-_HKOcYBK8

References 

Science article: Why the rest of the world is marching

Science News Staff (April 13, 2017)

Science 356 (6334), 119. [doi: 10.1126/science.356.6334.119]

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6334/119.full

Research in the remote islands of Brazil

By Fernanda Imperatrice Colabuono

The oceanic islands of Brazil are not well known by the majority of people, despite the fact that they hold significant strategic, economic, and scientific importance. They harbor a rich diversity of life, including endemic species – species that can only exist there. Two of those islands, Fernando de Noronha and Abrolhos, are inhabited and/or used for tourism purposes, with some restrictions. Three other island regions, The Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago, Rocas Atoll, and Trindade Island are still little known remote places with restricted access. During my doctorate at the Oceanographic Institute of the University of São Paulo, I had the opportunity to join scientific expeditions to these three places, through a research project with the objective of studying the persistent organic pollutants occurring in remote places.

Fig.1.Location of the Brazilian islands and oceanic archipelagos and distance from the nearest capitals. Source: Almeida, F.F.M. (2006).

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

Saint Peter and Saint Paul Archipelago is located about 1100 km (680 miles) from the coast of the Rio Grande do Norte state, almost midway between Brazil and Africa. These are the only Brazilian oceanic islands located in the Northern hemisphere. The trip from the state capital, Natal, to the Archipelago was a three day journey made in a fishing boat. I went there in March 2009, and I distinctly remember arriving to Natal's Harbor to meet the vessel that was to carry three other researchers, the crew, and myself; upon seeing the boat, it was hard to believe that we would cross nearly half of the Atlantic ocean in that way! Of course everything was fine, and we were neither the first nor the last group of researchers to make this journey. The fishermen were experienced,

and the seas were in our favor. When we were close to the Archipelago, we could see a group of tiny rocky islands. Those are, in fact, peaks of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, which extends all the way through the Atlantic Ocean, from Antarctica to the Arctic.

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

When we landed on Belmonte Island, the main island of the Archipelago and where the research station is, we could see that birds occupied all areas on the island with nests or resting spots. These hosts of the Archipelago, which welcome all visitors with strong pecking, are known as Boobies. Space is a limiting factor for these birds, so they always try to protect their territories, even amongst their own species.

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

Rocas Atoll, also located near the Equatorial Line, is, in my opinion, one of the most beautiful and preserved places on Earth, thanks to the courage and perseverance of the people that work and care for that spot. By the way, those are the two main qualities that one must have to work in environmental conservancy. In the beginning of 2010, I spent around 20 days acquiring samples on the atoll, collecting plastic pieces around the island. Plastic waste arrives daily from different places, probably from other islands, the continent, and passing ships, and they accumulate on the atoll beaches. It's impressive that human actions can impact such remote places, sometimes places that we don't even know exist.

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

My last expedition was to Trindade Island, in January 2012. Located around 1200 km (750 miles) from the continental coast, it is the biggest of the three islands and is part of the Vitoria-Trindade seamount chain. The island hosts several species of birds, invertebrates, fish, and diverse flora, and it is an important destination for sea turtle reproduction. Since the island's discovery hundreds of years ago, the Trindade Island has been visited by illustrious personalities, such as the astronomer Edmond Halley (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmond_Halley), and the naturalist James Cook (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Cook). Consequently, the island also suffers from the impact of human actions, such as the introduction of exotic animals, which has changed the environment and caused negative effects that can still be seen today. Nowadays, the island is the location for the Oceanographic Station of Trindade Island, a scientific station run by the Brazilian Navy, which is used by researchers from all over.

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

By being a part of these expeditions, I was given an incredible opportunity to get to know these different ecosystems, experience the local's lives, observe the behavior of the animals, and gain knowledge through experience, just as naturalists did decades and decades ago.

To spend time, even if brief, in places where you need to adapt to such unique environments, so different from the ones we are used to, was a deeply personal experience of developing self-knowledge, detachment, and learning to overcome.

Photo: Fernanda Colabuono

In this age of technology, it's become usual to not be able to communicate with the “external world.” You have to deal with the fact that you won't know about your friends and family for a while – and they won't know about you. To spend a month showering only in seawater, or having no “real” toilet to use may seem a little odd, but one can adapt. Some of these experiences may sound scary, but they become pleasant and can even be missed.

The feeling I had when visiting these places, where nature is the dominating force, is that man is only a visitor; we don't belong and we were not invited. My intention is not to be negative, but rather to show how strong Nature's presence is in places where humankind has not imposed itself as much. These are places that belong to the fauna and flora that have adapted to inhabit there. It would be great to maintain these islands as they are for the benefit of the great diversity of fish, birds, plants and other unique organisms that call these remote places home.

About Fernanda Colabuono:

Fernanda Imperatrice Colabuono is a biologist that has been working with seabirds since 2001. She is enrolled in a post-doctorate program in the Oceanographic Institute of the University of São Paulo, where she conducts ecological and conservation research on Antarctic birds, using pollutants and stable isotopes as ecological and environmental tracers.  

Diving for life in the darkness: a survey of the deep

By Camila Negrão Signori

Just being involved in a scientific expedition aboard the R/V Atlantis (managed by the prestigious Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, WHOI) was itself an enriching experience. I was no stranger to ship research, having crossed the South Atlantic from Africa to Brazil, been to the continental shelf of the southern and southeastern coasts of Brazil, and sailed three times in the waters of the Southern Ocean surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, but my experience on the Atlantis with the submersible Alvin was quite a different experience. 

Photo 1: Alvin being prepared for its decent, with two divers on top and a boat in the water to offer support. (Photo by Camila)

This experience was only possible by an invitation by my collaborator Dr. Stefan Sievert who had helped develop part of my PhD research with polar samples in Woods Hole (funded by CAPES-Training Coordination of Higher Education Personnel). Stefan was the scientific coordinator of this cruise with a project funded by the US National Science Foundation (NSF) entitled “Integrated Study: metabolic energy, carbon sequestration, and colonization mechanisms in chemosynthetic microbial communities in deep hydrothermal vents.” My job was to help Stefan and Jesse McNichol (my friend and doctoral student in the MIT-WHOI joint program) in all on-board tasks. 

There are many reasons this was such a different experience from my other times at sea. This was my first time in the Pacific Ocean. It was my first time aboard a ship run by a research institute, and it had a greatly reduced crew of about 25 (the other ships I have been on have been run by the Navy of Brazil, manned by 50-60). This was an international ship, with 23 researchers from countries including the United States, Canada, Germany, Italy, Spain, Japan, China, and myself from Brazil. 

Instead of navigating to different oceanographic stations (to spatially explore physical, chemical, biological, and geographical oceanographic features), we remained in the same sample area of 9 degrees N for almost an entire month. Our landscape was an expansive ocean without an end in sight, and we were a 4-5 days steam from the nearest land. The objectives of the project were all related to the deep ocean, at hydrothermal vent sites. 

Photo 2: Camila Negrão Signori observing life in the deep ocean through one of Alvin’s five portholes (Photo by Stefan Sievert).

Typically, water is collected from different depths, selected according to differences in water mass through the layers of the ocean, using a Niskin bottle, usually coupled to a CTD-rosette system. However, for this journey, we used the famous submersible Alvin, diving daily to more than 2500 m deep to collect our samples. With the help of two robotic arms and a “biological basket” able to carry more than 180 kg of bottom material, we collected samples such as fluid from the vents, microorganisms associated with the sources, invertebrate worms, and near-vent settlers. 

Instead of using water collected by Niskin bottles on board the ship, we collected fluids for chemical and microbiological analysis with a special piece of equipment known as an Isobaric Gas Tight sampler (IGTs). These IGTs were developed by WHOI to maintain pressure and environmental conditions of the deep when brought to the surface. 

Photo 3: A “IGT” sampler collecting fluid with the help of a robotic arm. The fluid here was 25C at 2500 m depth, collected at the “Crab Spa” location. Crabs, bivalves, annelids, and microbial mats can be seen here. (Photo by Camila, C WHOI).

Despite calm seas, work in the ship’s lab with the samples was not a trivial task. When removing fluids from the IGTs, we needed to be extremely careful with the high-pressure samples when opening and closing the system. Work was done with tools I had not seen before, and this was often morning and night work (after the Alvin returned to the ship). It was very difficult to draw out 150 mL of hydrothermal fluid and then continue with traditional laboratory protocols such as DNA extraction of microorganisms, gas measurement (such as Hydrogen sulfide), measurements of chemosynthesis processes, counts and cultivation of microorganisms, and incubation experiments using different temperatures and nutrient additions. 

Having the chance to dive so deep was one of my dreams (I thought impossible), but it became a reality on November 14th, 2014. 

Once the Alvin was released into the water from the giant cable it had been suspended from off of the Atlantis, we felt a slight swing in the surface waters of the Pacific. After a last check by two divers on top of the submersible and a brief goodbye and good luck wave through the portholes, we started our descent to the deep sea. 

The first 100 m of the water column were a beautiful turquoise color, but shortly after crossing the 300 m depth, everything became completely dark and quiet. As we passed the Oxygen Minimum Zone (300-800 m), bioluminescent organisms appeared floating in contrast to the black water. After a very gentle hour and a half descent (it felt like I was sitting on a sofa!), the pilot, Phil Forte, turned on the Alvin LED spotlight and a new world appeared under my eyes. 

Photo 4: Hydrothermal source with black smokers in full swing, under the sea. 2514 m deep, observed through the Alvin porthole. (Photo by Camila, C WHOI)

We landed on the seafloor, which was made up of ocean bottom ~200 million years old and some basaltic rock that shone brighter, indicating a more recent formation of a typically more active area. And so, with the help of our GPS, we began to explore the study area for six hours. After another hour, we had returned to the surface.

From all of the scientific papers, pictures, videos on the internet, and stories from those who have plunged to these hydrothermal vents in the Pacific, I expected I would find a bounty of life. But deep down, we always have that nagging in our heads…is this real, did these people actually see these things? 

And yes! We did see an abundance of life in the deep ocean: many small white crabs that justify the name “Crab Spa”; invertebrates including the annelid Tube worm, a species of giant tube worm that can reach nearly 2 meters in height with reddish color at the tips from the hemoglobin complex adapted to the sulfides present, toxic for us humans; 30 cm long, blind, albino fish swimming about resembling eels with their lack of scales (called Eel pout). We also saw yellow bivalves, small shrimp, and lobsters in the area in addition to the famous microbial mats. 

Photo 5: Dr Stefan Sievert (left), pilot Phil Forte (center), and Camila Negrao Signori (right) in Alvin’s sphere 2514 m deep. (Photo by Camila).

I must confess however, that, although a researcher of microbial oceanography, what impressed me the most was the geological structure that seemed artistically carved, surrounded by black smokers rich in metal sulfides. It was simply stunning to see this “step” in the ocean crust, where the Earth was being newly formed, and life abounded. 

How did I feel after the dive? Well, aside from my amazement at the excess of life and beauty, appreciation for the technology we have developed to explore these new frontiers, and how blessed I felt to have experienced this opportunity with such a great international group of competent people, I felt very little. As small as a drop of water in the vast ocean or a tiny bacterium shining under the microscope! We still have much to learn about the mysteries of the sea. 

Photo 6: A group of scientists embarking on the R/V Atlantis, opposite the Alvin garage. (Photo by Camila).

Dive 4769: an experience I will never forget! Sometimes when I find myself thinking about this dive, it pains me to believe that I was there at one time. I am extremely grateful to Dr. Stefan Sievert, who trusted in my work and gave me this chance to ride and learn on board the Atlantis and Alvin. I also thank all of my fellow scientists and competent crew, for sharing this experience with me and for all of the efforts and hard work put in to break into life in the dark. 

For more information, check out the links below:

Expedition blog “Dark Life” to the hydrothemal vents of the East Pacific Rise: http://web.whoi.edu/darklife/
About Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution: http://www.whoi.edu/
An overview of my research career: http://agenciasn.com.br/arquivos/3010

About Camila Negrão Signori:
Oceanographer, Master in Biological Sciences/Zoology, and PhD in Sciences/Microbiology, with periods of comings and goings to WHOI (USA). Born in Campinas (Sao Paulo), but has been enchanted by the sea since a childhood spent in Ubatuba Bay. In her spare time, she loves sports and dance, is always surrounded by family, her boyfriend, and wonderful friends. Today she is a Post Doctoral researcher at the Oceanographic Institute at Sao Paulo (USP) and a member of the microbial ecology laboratory where she researches the effects of climate change on microbial communities of the Southern Ocean. 
Contact: camisignori@hotmail.com