Gabriele Uenzelmann-Neben

Disclaimer

This transcript is based on a video-recorded interview deposited at MarE3, JAMSTEC (Yokosuka, Japan).

The transcripts of the research project Oral Histories of Scientific Ocean Drilling are polished representations of oral conversations, and are intended solely for the purpose of preserving and documenting personal accounts and memories. They are not a literary product, and are not intended to exhibit literary qualities.

The primary goal of this transcript is to capture the spoken words and memories of the interviewee as accurately as possible. Minor editing and polishing works have been performed to enhance clarity and readability while maintaining the authenticity of spoken discourse, including non-standard grammar, inconsistencies, repetitions, and pauses. The interviewee has been allowed to review and edit the transcript, and they have approved the publication of this version before posting it.

The reader must be aware that memories of an event can vary between individuals and may evolve over time due to various factors, such as subsequent experiences, interactions with others, and personal emotions.

Use and citation

This transcript is the property of JAMSTEC and is subject to its regulations. Quoting, reproducing, or distributing this transcript, in its entirety or in part, is prohibited without written permission from JAMSTEC.

Please cite the interview as:

Interview of Gabriele Uenzelmann-Neben by Beatriz Martinez-Rius on 2024 September 5, Shizuoka, Japan. [link]

Beatriz Martinez-Rius (BMR): Today is September 5 of 2024. I am Beatriz Martinez-Rius, postdoctoral researcher at JAMSTEC. I’m in Shizuoka with Gabriele Uenzelmann-Neben. Can you please tell me your name, affiliation and current position?

Gabriele Uenzelmann-Neben (GUN): My name is Gabriele Uenzelmann-Neben, I’m with the Alfred Wegener Institute, Helmholtz Center for Polar and Marine Research in Germany, and I’m a senior research scientist.

BMR: Thank you. So this first set of questions is for understanding your background, and it’s the same for everyone. Where did you grow up?

GUN: In Hamburg. I was born and raised in Hamburg.

BMR: Can you describe something about your childhood?

GUN: I come from a relatively small background. We lived in a small flat with just two rooms, and we were five people, so… I wouldn’t say poor, but we didn’t have much money. But my parents – they couldn’t give me much, but they gave me the possibility to get m

y A-levels and go to university. So… that’s something to be grateful for.

BMR: What sparked your interest in Earth sciences?

GUN: I wasn’t interested in science at all, to start off. I liked Physics and I wasn’t too bad at school – even though my Physics teacher didn’t think I would make it through the A-levels. Anyway, I thought that if I studied Physics, I could only become a teacher, which is nonsense. But at that time, I thought it was like that. My father at that time was a printer with Mobil Oil in Hamburg. So, he told me about geophysicists who were working there. I found it a very interesting subject. Even though I still didn’t want to go into science, I wanted to go to industry. But, well, it didn’t end up that way.

BMR: Did you study Geophysics in Germany, then?

GUN: In Hamburg, yes. I studied Geophysics in Hamburg, and then I went to Kiel for my PhD.

BMR: Was there anyone, apart from your father, who was influential in choosing your career pathway? During your university time, PhD time…

GUN: No, I can’t say.

BMR: How did you end up in research science, instead of industry?

GUN: Once I finished my Master’s, which was a diploma at that time, I didn’t feel I was ready yet for industry, so I was looking around for another job, which I found in Kiel as a researcher. And my PhD accompanied that. After that, I sent applications to – I don’t know how many places, and I got a postdoc position at AWI (Alfred Wagner Institute), and I’ve been there ever since. So, it’s really mainly by chance (laughs).

BMR: And what led you more specifically to the sea, to the ocean?

GUN: This is because I at Kiel, I was in the Marine Geophysics group. So, my PhD already was about marine geophysics, marine reflection seismology.

BMR: When was the first time you went onboard?

GUN: That was in 1986, about four months after the start of my PhD.

BMR: What was that survey about?

GUN: We collected seismic data on the Vøring Plateau, which is offshore central Norway. This is where (IODP) Expedition 396 took place a few years ago. We were part of a special research program in Kiel, where different scientists worked together – not just geophysicists but geologists as well. And this was about the development of Northern Seas.

BMR: Was there more women in more?

GUN: Yes, I think there was another one. A student.

BMR: Who was this situation for women in marine geophysics, at that time?

GUN: Very few, actually, very few. There were very few women . I never really had the feeling that I was discriminated because I was a woman, but there were just few. So, sometimes it was not taken into account that we had different needs; but I never had the feeling that that was on purpose.

BMR: How about your first international collaboration? When was it?

GUN: During that time in Kiel, we collaborated with the Renard Center of Marine Geology in Ghent, Belgium.

BMR: Where there non-Europeans?

GUN: No, they were all Europeans, there were Belgians and a Dutch.

BMR: So culturally that’s is much closer that when you collaborate with Japanese, or American…

GUN: That’s true, that’s right. I’ve never really collaborated with Japanese, I have to say, because we’re not in the same line of work. With South Africans to a certain degree, not to a large degree, because there’s little scientific geophysics down there. It’s all mainly industry. But I’ve worked in southern Africa… And I’ve worked together with British people, Italians… So, e.g., with Michele Rebesco – you know Michele –, from Trieste, we worked together in Antarctica; and to a certain degree with US Americans, but not very much.

BMR: How did you got involved in scientific ocean drilling?

GUN: I’ve always used the results. For my PhD, I used the results of ODP Leg 104, which was drilled on the Vøring Plateau, to get an idea on the ages of the seismic reflections and on their origins. So, I’ve always seen the need of drilling as ground truthing for my data, to give it a background, because hypotheses are good but you need a bit of more information. I’ve prepared pre-site survey data to ODP Legs 175 and Leg 177 and later, to a number of other proposals.My late husband was involved in the Site Survey Panel in ODP times. And when there was a call in 2009 for new members, I applied because I thought this was an interesting opportunity. And I was chosen as a site person, not as a science, but as a site. But I wanted to be site person evaluating the pre-site survey data.

BMR: In which sense, as a site? What was your position?

GUN: You look at the data, the pre-site survey data. The SEP (Science Evaluation Panel) has two different kinds of members. There are the science people, who evaluate the science of a proposal, whether this is sound and will advance science significantly. And on the other hand, you need the members who evaluate the data which is presented with the science.

BMR: What was your role, more precisely in this in this position?

GUN: As I said, I evaluated the pre-site survey data for certain proposals. You got assigned proposal numbers, and then you evaluated the data.

BMR: So do you need to discuss this with other international colleagues, in panels?

GUN: Yes, the work of SEP is totally by consensus. So, you are assigned a number of proposals and, before the meeting, you work on your part of it. There are usually five watchdogs, two for science, two for site, and one from the operators, for the feasibility. Because sometimes we scientists have an interesting imagination of what can be achieved. So, first of all, you discuss with your co-watchdog, then you present your part to the to the panel, and then the panel discusses it.

BMR: In which year did you start in this position?

GUN: 2010.

BMR: So, how have you seen the evolution of this panel?

GUN: Initially, there were two separate panels. The science and the site panel were separate. Then, in 2014, the panels were merged, which was a bit difficult at first. But eventually it was much better, because otherwise the proponents got a review from the science people, and then they got a review from us, and the reviews were not always consistent. So, it’s much better to combine that.

BMR: That’s interesting. So what is the biggest challenge of being in those sort of committees? I guess you have a lot of responsibility.

GUN: Yes.

BMR: You have the responsibility of driving the expeditions. So the findings, to certain extent, the science that can be done…

GUN: Yes, that’s right. I took that very seriously, always. An expedition is a huge effort, so the chosen drilling locations should be the right ones to achieve the objectives. For this, the watch dogs needed to pay close attention and potentially suggest re-locations. It is important for a site member to have a deeper understanding of the seismic method and of its limits.

BMR: Actually this is interesting because it’s a point where you really understand why there should be a collaboration between geophysicists and geologists.

GUN: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely. I mean, a colleague of mine who is a petrologist couldn’t evaluate seismic data. But I couldn’t look at the petrological objectives. So, you have to collaborate and work together well.

BMR: What was your first offshore expedition in scientific ocean drilling?

GUN: Oh, that was my own expedition two years ago. I only sailed once. As I said, when we went to the pre-cruise meeting, I said, “I’m a theoretical driller” (laughs), because I didn’t know stick about that. But as a geophysicist, it is difficult to sail because you can only sail as a phys-props (physical properties) specialist. And it’s very difficult to build a career just on physical properties. Everyone needs the data, but it’s difficult to publish it on its own. Or you can sail as a stratigraphic correlator, or co-chief. So, I waited to become a co-chief of a proposal I led as PI. (IODP) Expedition 392.

BMR: What is like the experience of being a co-chief in such a complex operation?

Generally, it’s the same as being the chief scientist on any expedition. I mean, I’ve been chief scientist, I think eight or nine times beforehand, so I knew what to expect because we all can be difficult once we go out at sea, and have to stay in the same room with the same people for a longer period of time. It’s just that this time we had to make different decisions, regarding drilling. But Steve Bohaty (Steven M. Bohaty), the other co-chief, he knew plenty about that. He sailed a lot with IODP. I think we made a good team because I had much more experience as a chief scientist – he only had been chief scientist once before; whereas he had much more experience regarding ocean drilling, and it was a great experience. I liked it but as I said, to a certain degree, it’s like any other chief scientist job.

BMR: So what’s the thing you enjoy the most of being chief scientist, and the biggest challenge?

GUN: What I enjoy most is that I have everything in hand (laughs). As a control freak I like that, you know.

The greatest challenge is bringing your people back home in one piece. Because you won’t believe what can happen. Very often, participants do not see the danger. They, e.g., stand on deck when there is a storm.. The personal, emotional side can be difficult.

BMR: I don’t really know about the relation between the chief scientist and the team, so should the chief scientist be a bit outside of the group? Or is he fully integrated into the team of scientists? Because to keep this sort of control, I understand that sometimes you cannot get as involved in a group, right?

GUN: That’s right. You can’t. You’re the boss, so you’re naturally not always part of the group. And even with IODP, where it’s more a team effort because most of the scientists are well advanced in their career and experienced, you’re still the one to make the calls, to say, “No, we’re stopping here”. You should talk to other people and get advice but at the end of the day you make the decisions. To some degree you’re an outsider, but that’s okay.

BMR: You have been involved in managerial positions in IODP for more than ten years. How did you combine these roles with your work at the university?

GUN: I don’t work at a university, so this is an advantage. I’m at a Polar Research Institution, so I don’t have any teaching. Other people who have this position and have to teach can struggle. But I don’t teach. It’s not that I have less to do, but I can be more flexible.

BMR: Is your institution mostly for geophysicists, or all kinds of Earth sciences?

GUN: It’s not only Earth scientist. We have a huge department for biology. We have three departments: one is bio system, one is climate system – these are the physical oceanographers and modelers –, and the third one is geo system.

BMR: I’m asking because I was trying to think how different communities of scientists work together – so you are a geophysicist and you often work with geologists. How do you see these interactions? Are there frictions or everyone is always willing to collaborate?

GUN: You tend to identify people who are willing and this works. You find people to collaborate with.

BMR: How about the integration of geophysicist into ocean drilling? Have you been leading any kind of movement to a attract more geophysicists?

GUN: No. And this is one of the problems we slightly suffer from. Geophysicists are needed to get a drilling off the ground, to provide the pre-site survey data, but after the expedition we are often slightly left behind. As the geophysicist, I wait for the results of my science party to correlate them with the seismic data. I’m a bit of an outsider there.

BMR: Let’s move to ECORD, your position within ECORD. So just to get the things clear, you got involved around 2010 in this Science Steering Evaluation Panel. And you were a representative of ECORD.

GUN: Yes.

BMR: Okay. So how did you move to other positions, within ECORD?

GUN: I only stayed at SEP for three years, and when in 2014 the panels were merged, I was asked to stay two years longer  for a smooth transition. And then I rotated off, and I applied to become a member of the EFB. I became a member in 2018, and in 2019 I became chair.

BMR: What have been the things you’ve struggled most in those positions? What things you had to learn to be in those positions?

GUN: Diplomacy. I think it’s diplomacy. Because with the SEP, it’s all purely about science. So, everybody is more or less happily discussing the science. But when you become a member of one of the facility boards, it’s all about budgets and logistics. And then there are setbacks, such as no vessel being available. With mission specific platforms, it’s difficult, since you do not have a vessel at your disposal all of the time. So, you have to make do with what type of vessel is offered, whether one is offered at a suitable rate..

BMR: Do you have also to talk to upper hierarchies or policy-making? Or you just interact with members of the Facility Board?

GUN: I just interact with them. I’m not the one who interacts with policy-makers and with the funding agencies; this is probably more Gilbert’s (Camoin) task, as he runs the managing agency. So, he interacts with the funding agencies.

BMR: How the support of Germany to scientific ocean drilling has evolved through time?

GUN: The German ocean drilling community is very strong, and this is reflected in the German contribution. We always have received a strong support from the funding agencies.

BMR: What is the difference, according to your perspective, between Germany and the other countries?

GUN: Other countries have smaller budgets and potentially smaller ocean drilling communities. We have been supported very well by our funding agency.

BMR: But this does not depend on the scientists.

GUN: No, no, no, no.

BMR: The intention is there, right? To do more expeditions. The point is how to do it with the available budget.

GUN: Yes.

BMR: You’ve been involved in scientific ocean drilling from different positions. Doing the science, preparing the surveys, and in managerial committees. How your perspective on the science changes?

GUN: I can’t say my perspective on the science has changed. I can still see the necessity and the importance of the science, potentially even more so, but I also see the difficulty in implementing an expedition which I might not have seen 20 years ago.

BMR: Picking up again the budget thing, and on the conversations held these days, how do you see the future of scientific ocean drilling?

GUN: I mean, we are the only programme already starting in 2025. There have been plenty of worries that with the JR (JOIDES Resolution) gone, and only one or two, potentially three expeditions per year, this will much scientific drilling opportunities. That’s true. But we have to work with the available budget, and we are moving on. I think this is very important, and if we can attract ANZIC and potentially India as associated members, the programme will gain even more momentum. We have to see what kind of proposal will be submitted and carefully plan. Different techniques such as giant piston coring have been successfully used, think of Expedition 386. Such expedition may be implemented easier and this leaves room for expedition, which are more difficult to implement.

BMR: And how do you see the evolution of the community, during the years you have been involved in IODP?

GUN: Generally, it was relatively easy with the JR expeditions. The system was well tested and the logistics ran smoothly. The logistics for MSPs are a bit more intense because the vessel always is a different one.  Then there is the opportunity to work with archives submitting a SPARCs (Scientific Projects using Ocean Drilling ARChives) proposal. There are locations where you need to drill new material because, especially in DSDP times, the sites were only spot cored. That means a site was not cored continuously but a core was taken every 20, 50 or so meters. There plenty of objectives which you can address using archive material. And I think this is a different way of thinking, a different approach opening new opportunities.

BMR: It looks to me that scientific ocean drilling, of course, has been evolving through time. It has diversified and the structure has change. So, in an exercise to looking back in time to better prepare the future, what kind of things do you think that could have been done differently?

GUN: I can’t say… That’s a very difficult question… I don’t think it’s the one occasion where we could have turned a different direction, so things may have changed. I mean, to a large degree, you’re dependent on politicians and funding agencies.

BMR: Regarding the budget issue and the need to attract attention, showing the importance of scientific ocean drilling, do you have any suggestion of how this can be done? How can scientific ocean drilling attract more attention or budget?

GUN: We have to point out what we learned from scientific ocean drilling. There are plenty of things which we learned from ocean drilling. I think of, e.g., the different warm phases in the Pliocene, which are now considered as potential example for the future climate. The big events in the development of Earth, climate and circulation have been known for quite a while, but with more scientific ocean drilling we have started to fill in the small gaps in knowledge between those large events. E.G. we have known that the Cretaceous was a very hot time and we have had ice sheets in Antarctica since about 34 Ma. But scientific ocean drilling has taught us that the decline in temperature was not a linear one, there were also were more warm phases, and then the cooling started again. Those processes need to be studied in more detail.

BMR: From my perspective, the difficulty of showing geology to the public is the relationship between the problem and the scientific research is difficult to see in the sense that… for example, earthquakes. You can tell to people that you can learn about earthquakes by drilling the seafloor, but the relationship is not that clear because they will ask, well can you predict earthquakes? There’s a gap, that it’s difficult to overcome, to show people how the rocks can explain something.

GUN: Yes, that’s true. I think we have become more aware of it. We have to translate our objectives and results so non-scientists can understand them. And we also have to point out that we will only ever achieve small steps in knowledge and not solve a problem immediately.

BMR: In some countries…

GUN: It can be difficult.

BMR: So, coming back to the topic of being a woman in a field where, at least when you graduated, were mostly men, how has gender balance changed in this time?

GUN: There are all the movements now to primarily employ women. I don’t like that so much. I don’t want to be chosen just because I’m female. I want to be chosen because I’m good at my job. I have a large expertise. So, I think focusing on the gender distorts the picture. So, it is difficult to say the situation has become better for females. This is by force and unnaturally.

BMR: I agree with that. So, to conclude I’d like to ask you, what has been the most valuable take out from your experience in scientific ocean drilling?

GUN: Again, I can’t say…  It is a series of small experiences rather that a giant leap.

BMR: And scientific ocean drilling is one of those, I guess.

GUN: Yes, I find that very interesting, which is why I have engaged so much in setting up the new program.

BMR: And how do you see your position in this new program, in the years to come?

GUN: I still want to be part of the Facility Board – I mean, I don’t have many years left before I retire.

BMR: Is there something that we have not talked about that you want to mention?

GUN: Oh no, I can’t think of any.

BMR: Thank you very much.

GUN: Thank you.