Kiyoshi Suyehiro (2 parts)

BMR: I am Beatriz Martinez-Rius, postdoctoral researcher at JAMSTEC. Today is 25 of August of 2023, and I am at the JAMSTEC office in Tokyo with Suyehiro-san.

KS: Yes.

BMR: Kiyoshi Suyehiro. Thank you very much.

KS: You’re welcome.

BMR: So first of all, can you please tell your name and your affiliation and current role.

KS: My name is Kiyoshi Suyehiro and currently I am affiliated as an adviser to JAMSTEC.

BMR: And what are the activities you are currently doing?

KS: I am giving advice to the MarE3, particularly for advice on future mantle drilling, particularly aspired by the community (laughs), to be completed by Chikyu.

BMR: On which framework of time are you thinking about, when you give this advice?

KS: Sorry?

BMR: So, you are giving advice for mantle drilling. What is the time framework you are working on?

KS: Well, currently… The drilling proposal is in the system, and by the system I mean that IODP has a proposal that could be the first step towards eventual mantle drilling. But now, the current one is to… just to drill deep in the crustal, upper crust, and hopefully into the lower crust offshore Hawaii. That could be, if things go well, take as early as possible. Any day within a few years’ time, it could go on schedule, if everything is in place. But for real drilling to the mantle, it requires really deep drilling and that would probably take time, at a decadal scale. Ten years ago, we were hoping that it would happen in ten years, which is today (laughs), and so… That’s how things go. Things have to be planned very carefully and safety comes first. So, we are doing this very cautiously, but hopefully steadily.

BMR: I am looking forward to seeing if in the next few years we can see the Chikyu reaching the Moho. So, I would like to start by talking a little bit about the very beginnings of your background.

KS: Yes.

BMR: Can you please tell me a bit about your birthplace and early education?

KS: Well, I am a Japanese born in Japan, and I don’t have any specific subject of interest to your audience (laughs), I don’t think [so]… But maybe I should say that I did spend some time abroad in my elementary school years. I spent one year and a half in Teheran, Iran. And then in junior high-school year, a year in Washington DC. So those were something rather unusual for a Japanese kid to experience and… Other than that, I spent most of the time in Tokyo, and after high school years I went to the University of Tokyo.

BMR: Was it because of your parents, the work of your parents?

KS: Yes, my father [had a] temporary job at the University of Tehran and then at Washington DC, Carnegie Institution of Washington. That’s why we went there together as a family.

BMR: What kind of academic position was he in?

KS: My father was working for [the] Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) and… But he was trained as a scientist, so he spent some time, even though he was an officer at JMA, he could spend some time doing science. [At the] University of Tehran he was teaching, I believe. I really didn’t know what he was doing (laughs).

BMR: And what was the experience for a Japanese kid to be in Teheran?

KS: Oh, that was really interesting. There were a few Japanese families and mainly, I think, for commercial companies and… What should be the most… Well, coming from Japan, we felt… I shouldn’t maybe use this word, but… Everything was underdeveloped. The thing I remember is that if you went shopping, there were no escalators, and so forth. So, for a ten year old kid, everything seemed behind Japan. And… I probably had some kind of… superiority complex – not complex, but feeling superior to the Iranians, and also, they… I couldn’t really make myself understood in Persian, so… That was a pity. I did speak a little but, as I went to American School, I couldn’t really develop communication skills with really Iranian people. And that was before the Revolution so… Things have really changed. I haven’t been there since. But then in Washington DC, it was the other way around. Everything I was used to was back-warded (laughs). The US was so ahead of us that… That was another shocking experience I had.

BMR: Which years were both events? In which years more or less were you in Iran and in the US?

KS: Oh, in Iran [it] was I think… Like the early 1960s (note: 1960-1962). And then in Washington DC was 1965-65 (note: 1964-65). That sort of. [It was] when the US was starting to heavily involve into the Vietnam War. So yeah, it was interesting, I mean… Because I went to junior high-school and in History class, [they] taught the children how the US was doing the right thing for the world.

BMR: What was the feeling for a Japanese who had been growing up in the post-war era in Japan?

KS: Although it was only… I was born in 1951… And yes, I mean in 1966, by then the US and Japan had a very good relationship politically and also, we loved the US culture so… Interestingly, I did not [have antagonism towards US], simply naively adoring the US culture (laughs).

BMR: How did you develop an interest in Geology?

KS: Oh, I actually was more interested in seismology [rather than geology]. Because Japan is an understandably earthquake-prone country in the world. My father was also a seismologist, so it was natural, I think, to have interest in seismology. Which belonged to geophysics in Japan, at that time. And geology was in a separate department. [The] education system (note: for many universities) in Japan differentiated between geology and geophysics. Geophysics was more into the so-considered physical sciences. And geology is geology. So, because I never was properly trained in geology, I know very little about geology (laughs).

BMR: When you entered, or you applied to the university, did you go straight towards developing a career in seismology?

KS: No, I… [At] the University of Tokyo system, you simply choose whether you want to go for science or engineering in a broad framework, and then within the four years of the university life, you choose which specific field you want to pursue before graduating the University. At that time, I chose naval engineering… But then, getting to the graduation, I started wondering, “should I really enter the engineering, keep staying in an engineering field, and enter into shipbuilding industry?.” And finally, before graduation, I decided if I could move into the geophysics department, Faculty of Sciences. So, I did. So, my career in geophysics or seismology started in the year 1974, I think. That was when an earthquake in Izu peninsula (note: M6.9 9 May 1974) occurred, around magnitude seven, and killed many people (note: 30). And we went to the site, I mean the fault zone, and made observations using seismographs to capture after-shocks. And a study of these aftershocks became my master’s thesis.

BMR: Let me just go a little bit before in time. What made you choose naval engineering? Why were you interested in naval engineering?

KS: Well, if you were in the field of science at University of Tokyo, you can’t just choose anything. Geophysics at that time was very popular compared with engineering so… I think I could not make it to geophysics, and so… rather than dropping out, I just chose engineering.

BMR: Did you have good grades, good qualifications?

KS: For the engineering yes, naval engineering yes. But barely, not enough for geophysics.

BMR: And then, how was the transition to seismology, to starting in seismology?

KS: Well, I simply took the exam to enter the graduate school at the University of Tokyo, and this time I studied so (laughs), so I made it to…

BMR: I see, I see. So please, can you tell me this story about your first experience taking data from after the earthquake?

KS: Yes. At that time, well, in order to capture aftershocks, you have to have seismographs nearby. And at that time, we didn’t have enough formal [operational] seismograph stations in the area, so if you wanted to look for aftershocks, you had to go into the field and install temporary stations (note: for more precise locations). And collect data, and analyze the data afterwards (note: data were recorded only locally). And you start reading seismic P and S wave arrivals from each station seismic waveform readings to locate these – we call – hypocenters where these small earthquakes occur. The idea is to use these hypocenters to map out an image of the main fault zone. In those, at that time it was not clear if aftershocks occurred in the main fault zone or not. The accuracy of hypocenter determination was such that we couldn’t really tell. But from what we did, the result clearly indicated the fault zone as a plane, not real flat plane, but something that tells us that indeed, the main fault was a fault. I mean, we all know that earthquakes occur by faulting inside the crust, mainly, but to prove that by observation didn’t come so easily.

BMR: And did you go there with your professors?

KS: No, research associate. And other graduate school students.

BMR: Do you remember any researcher, or colleague, or mentor who inspired you?

KS: Well at that time it was Dr. Ishibashi, Katsuhiko Ishibashi.

BMR: What kind of research did Ishibashi-san developed?

KS: Well, he is also a seismologist, and after working on this Izu Peninsula earthquake, he eventually in a few years’ time developed his own theory that Japan might experience a magnitude eight earthquake in the Suruga Bay in the northern end of the Nankai Trough. Which really created a big media-hype. And… since that time, Japan has really moved towards earthquake prediction. And basically, it’s still, it’s continuing. As I am trying to tell, the most important thing is to observe what is really happening, with accuracy enough to understand what really is happening. So that’s something I really learned hard at the geophysical institute of the University of Tokyo with Ishibashi-san, and my professor was Toshi Asada. He also had the same idea. Incidentally he is one of the scientist’s group who discovered micro-earthquakes. You have to have a very sensitive seismograph to identify very small micro-earthquake, magnitude one or even below zero. Small earthquakes could only be discovered by delicate seismographic observation. And as you might know, these earthquakes occur more in frequency when magnitude goes one less. I mean, if you had ten magnitude seven earthquakes, you can expect one hundred magnitude six; tenfold increase with magnitude decreases of one. So, if it’s really small, you would see so many micro-earthquakes. And if the physics of earthquakes is the same for big ones and small ones, then you would learn so many things from looking at micro- earthquakes and to use it to understand the big earthquake. That was the idea. But unfortunately, [it] has not been easy, although it really helped to understand earthquake processes.

BMR: What was the impact that this research of your mentors had outside Japan?

KS: Well, micro-earthquakes, of course, impacted the whole world. But… I think… Something I should emphasize and which really is the reason why I chose to work in the ocean, is that professor Asada was keen at that time to keep developing ocean bottom seismographs. At that time, very few people were engaged in seafloor observations. And he succeeded in getting one of the earliest data of the ocean floor, with a very good signal to noise ratio. And… I didn’t know that very well when I went into his group, but then I learned that the ocean floor is a very good observational field. First of all, big earthquakes that occur along the plate subduction zone are under the sea. So, as I’ve been trying to tell, if you want to understand earthquakes, you have to be close-by, for which inevitably you need to place an observatory in the ocean. So, I thought, “he is on the right track”, so I tried to follow him. And… Well, there are so many things, I can go on and on and on (laughs), but… I also liked his idea of pioneering the field, [doing] something that nobody else is doing; to succeeding in getting good data, and understanding how nature works. But at that time, I also wanted to study abroad. Like I think many young students in these days do, think to study abroad for one or two years. Very fortunately I could apply for a fellowship at Carnegie Institution of Washington, which was actually where my father had been, and… I spent two years during my doctoral course years at the University of Tokyo. Professor Asada was a good friend of my mentor at Carnegie Institute of Washington, Dr. Sacks, and he suggested me to study the lithospheric structure. What happens to the lithosphere? I mean, the plate, what happens to the plate after it subducts, and the plate structure itself, before [it] subducts. [This] was not very well known, but Asada-san led a group in Japan to use dynamites as controlled sources and observe the signals by ocean bottom seismographs, to induce that oceanic lithosphere was in fact very, regionally, heterogeneous. And included anisotropy, meaning the velocity of seismic waves differed depending on the direction of propagation. And that was very new. But the main discovery was, before the regional difference, the layered structure of the lithosphere. And my study purpose was to identify such a structured subducted plate after subduction. And eventually that became my thesis for doctor of science at University of Tokyo.

BMR: Just to recap. You were doing your PhD at the University of Tokyo with professor Asada, and during this time you went two years to Washington DC to continue as a visiting researcher for your PhD.

KS: Yes, right. These days, I think, even graduate students have to take classes. And gain… I don’t know how to say… Units (note: credits), to satisfy your qualification as a graduate student. But at that time, it was very loose. You could – there were practically no lectures. You could go into the field, or go abroad and spend a year or so, and pursue your own research interest. And I think in a way at that time graduate students were really on their own, doing whatever they wanted to. So, I took that as an opportunity as a… Usually one year is ok, but spending two years was more than enough actually, so… I mean, in the eyes of university administration, usually three years is time for writing up your PhD thesis, but I spent four years. One year out of two years was not counted as a valid year at the University of Tokyo. But that was ok, I think.

BMR: And from where came the funding for living in Washington DC? The money…

KS: The funding.

BMR: Yes.

KS: By then, Carnegie Institution had money associated with predoctoral fellowships so I could barely live… I am very thankful to Carnegie, but… Yes, we could live in Washington DC. So… We were financially supported by Mr. Andrew Carnegie, I think (laughs).

BMR: Did you meet someone with whom you keep in touch during your academic career?

KS: Yes, oh yes. As I said, my supervisor then, Selwyn Sacks, has been my mentor over the whole years of my career and even today. I was very fortunate to have met him, and being at Carnegie, you had different departments with very renowned scientists. One of them was Vera Rubin. A lady scientist who discovered dark matter. And… There were scientists of the Nobel Prize-class. And I could speak to them very casually, and that was a big surprise. In Japan, if you had met someone with a big name, you would be very… Feel obliged to pay respect and be very cautious about not saying something rude or… You know. But at Carnegie Institution, you could say anything as long as you were talking science. And discussions were made on first name-basis. I still remember when I first addressed Selwyn Sacks as “Dr. Sacks”, and he immediately, “no, Selwyn” (laughs). So that was a big eye-opening event for me and… I still think that that kind of atmosphere is absolutely necessary in research. So, of course you pay respect to your seniors, but if you are making scientific discussions, any names or rank should go away. And I thought that was the strength of American science.

BMR: Yes, this is probably one of the biggest differences at that time between the American and the Japanese academic system, right? Was there any other Japanese at Carnegie Institution?

KS: Actually, Carnegie Institution in Washington DC had different departments in different places, and the nearest one from where I was, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism – it’s strange, “terrestrial magnetism” but actually it is doing seismology – anyway, [and there was] the Geophysical Laboratory nearby, several blocks away, there was Dr. Takehiko Yagi. He is a… he just recently retired from University of Tokyo. I was married then, and with my wife we had… during holidays and afterwork we spent some time… We built friendship and did all sorts of interesting things. But mainly sightseeing (laughs).

BMR: I was thinking on the… At the laboratory and also in fieldwork, I was thinking about the differences of the instruments you were using in the US and in Japan.

KS: Well, in the US I was basically engaged with using available data. In a data book. By that time, everything was published in paper, so I had to read all the data and punch the data into punch cards, to feed into a computer. Computer was something still rare. Rapidly developing but… At that time… So basically, I was translating data books into punch cards to feed into the computer. And write my own software to analyze the data, and try to understand what those data meant. My software was to look at heterogeneous structures of the subducted lithosphere. And the computer speed was very slow, of course, so almost every night I would just feed in the data, and come back next morning to get the data – I mean, the results. And changing the model, trying to have a better model to explain the data, I would use different parameters to calculate, try to match the observation with my model.

BMR: This data, if I understood correctly, was data from the seafloor, from the bottom of the ocean.

KS: No, no. The data were all from the global seismic network data.

BMR: Ok, I see.

KS: Published by the International Seismological Center. Which still exists in the UK. Of course, the data is now published digitally, so you can do what I did in a year or so, in a month or less, I think. But the important thing is that you must phrase your scientific question correctly in order to find the answer from the haystack of data (laughs) and if you don’t have the right question, you will not get the right answer. And… That still is the same, I think. So… Yes, there was no ocean bottom data. Which really strengthened my thought that there should be more stations in the ocean, and we should make more observations in the ocean. And after finishing my PhD thesis, coming back to Japan, I sort of wanted to make my career in the same field. And, so, at that time there were two sorts of streams of scientific, or seismological objectives of making studies in the ocean. One is trying to understand the global scale dynamics, plate tectonics was just beginning to be accepted by the countries and it was slower in Japan. That was one thing. And… Well, as you know, the oceanic plate is… Oceanic plates are created at oceanic ridges and then destroyed in subduction zones, and its recycling through the mantle is the key process of plate tectonics. And so, if you want to understand what the lithosphere is doing, oceanic lithospheres are doing, you must look at the detailed structure of the lithosphere. So that’s one thing.

And the other is that, as I’ve been trying to tell, Japan is an earthquake-prone country, so you must understand this earthquake, and these earthquakes occur along the subduction zone, which is beneath the seafloor, which is also a good incentive to study earthquakes in the ocean. And [for] the two, you have to have ocean bottom seismographs. So, I was luckily at the right place at the right time, and in 1980 I was offered a research associate job at Tohoku University. And this time I was to work for the Earthquake Prediction Program, which did all sorts of things trying to predict earthquakes, or earthquakes really… What the physics was behind earthquakes. My mission was to do seafloor observations with colleagues from Hokkaido University, University of Tokyo and other institutes. And I was asked to start controlled source seismology, which is to shoot airguns in the ocean and look at refraction data from ocean bottom seismographs. Normally, the oil industry would do seismic surveys using airgun shooting and hydrophones streamers recorded from one ship, to obtain reflection records. Which is a vertical section of the crustal structure. And that’s routinely done to look for oil and gas. But because we are trying to understand earthquake generation, we had to have a stronger source. And more sensitive sensors, which led us to move into this field. But mainly they asked Tohoku University to lead the mission, and I was accepted to lead this project.

BMR: Can you explain to me please the setting of the technologies you were using and the differences with the oil industry? Because you said that you had more sensitive hydrophones.

KS: Well, hydrophones… [are] Sensitive to P-waves only. And also, hydrophones’ streamers are towed behind the ship. So, there is the surrounding noise generated by the ship and also waves; and the waves, the seismic waves we want to observe that are bounced back from inside the crust, have to go through the water column both ways, and it’s moving… So, the signal to noise ratio is inherently not very good. But ocean bottom seismographs could record in a much quieter environment, and also record S-waves, shear waves, with more information. And nearer to the crust. So… That method turned out to be very useful to look at the whole crustal structure. And sometimes into 10-20 kilometers depth [beneath seafloor]. And in later years, we used that method to understand island-arc structure, where the island-arc structure system is more or less drowned in the ocean. Mainly Izu-Bonin Island arc. You could find… These are islands, so in-between these islands you could shoot airguns and emplace ocean bottom seismographs to look at heterogeneous structure. Which at that time was nearly unknown.

BMR: Can you explain to me please how an ocean bottom seismograph works? I have never seen the structure itself, so I don’t know if it is something that you set up on the seabed or something that you tow behind the ship.

KS: Well, it’s a long history. But… The current model, which by then was under development and improving every time we did our experiment, was a glass sphere.

BMR: A sphere made out of glass.

KS: And inside the glass sphere there is a seismograph, which you normally would use on land without the glass sphere. But because in order to fight against the pressure as well as water around, we place them in a glass sphere which could withstand 6,000 to 7,000 meter water depth pressure. And they were dropped from the ship, simply dropped with weight, and when it was on the seafloor, it would start recording seismic waves continuously. And after the experiment is finished, you go to the site where you had dropped this – we call it OBS. OBS is interrogated using acoustic commands from the ship. So, sometimes these acoustic commands would not work. And we had [made] all sorts of errors to learn from. But we are now rewarded with a nearly 100% recovery rate. So, this is how these OBSs work and… recent development is trying to expand the same sort of technology that’s being used on land. On land this broadband seismographs of very wide band frequency response have been utilized. That’s of course advancing seismology, and naturally we should do the same thing on the seafloor. And here comes the borehole. In order to be making high-quality observations in the seafloor, escaping from noise in the ocean, water-column, actually it is better to bury in the sediments. Or better still, in the solid borehole below the acoustic basement, in hard rock section to have good coupling to the surroundings, which enables you to make the same kind of good quality observation in the seafloor. But that is… I was speaking about ocean bottom seismology and… I am still in 1980, so let’s see.

So basically, refraction seismology was becoming a normal tool in the four years I was in Tohoku University. And at that time, I was asked at Chiba University, [by] professor [Hajimu] Kinoshita, who succeeded Murauchi-sensei [Sadanori]. Murauchi was the professor before his retirement. And upon his retirement, “Jimmy” Kinoshita became the professor. And he wanted me to move from Tohoku University to Chiba, and continue the same sort of ocean seismology work but, as I was telling, in two types of studies. More on global tectonic objectives, and… So I moved from the Earthquake Prediction Program, although I haven’t really quitted. I mean, because we basically used the same tool, we more or less worked together for both purposes. But that increased my career breadth into more global-looking objectives. And that’s when I think… 1985 or something, that Kinoshita-san asked me to become a member of the SSP of the ODP.

BMR: So, we are now when you… You became a member of ODP Science Survey Panel (SSP). This was 1986.

KS: 85.

BMR: 1985.

KS: So, before officially becoming… To serve on the SSP, I may have attended one in place of Kobayashi-san, as an alternate. But I don’t remember that. My first meeting was in Halifax, Canada, and actually I missed the connecting plane, and I missed attending the first days (laughs). Rather embarrassing moment. So, I think it was very good for me to serve in this panel. And the reason why I was chosen was because, as I said, I was working on airgun ocean bottom seismic refraction data to look for structures. And the structure’s information is very important to select the drilling site. And of course, the most important data for drilling is to look at very shallow sections in the sediments. So, high-frequency seismic waves, with normal hydrophone streamers, was the norm. I knew that as well, although I was not heavily engaged in reflection seismology, I think that was the reason why I was recommended to serve on the SSP. That’s where I learned my first encounter, I should say, almost my first encounter with ODP.

BMR: Did you know ODP before, or someone who had been working within it?

KS: I vaguely knew. Seismologists, we were not interested in drilling, in getting samples. And it’s afterwards that we thought boreholes could make ideal environments for long term observation.

BMR: And by that time, were you a member of any other international project or panel?

KS: No, I don’t think so. ODP was my first exposure to an international program. Yeah, I have to… [looks at his notes]. Chiba University and other universities were collaborating with international research institutes, particularly [from the] West, and sometimes in Russia. And so, I was involved in that sort of experiments, as a group person. But never really… I was just following others (laughs). Not really knowing what kind of project I was involved in. So… Yes, I should say that the engagement with ODP-SSP was my first experience to recognize ocean, I mean, international program. And of course, SSP is just a panel. One of the many panels that constituted the whole program structure. I was very fortunate to start from SSP because that basically was the key, provided the key data to choose which exactly where to drill. And the data provided were often very new, before being used in any scientific publication and so forth. For scientists, it was exciting to see this new image of something that has not been shown otherwise.

BMR: What was the relationship with other members of the panel?

KS: Well, we were… Well, because it is an international endeavor, this panel members were selected from international recommendations. And we, I think, I was considered having seismological expertise, but some are more on heat flow, thermal structure of the Earth, and or geomagnetic view of the Earth, and so forth. All this was synthetized to decide where it should be the most… The most adequate place to drill. So, these members were selected to collectively cover all the fields. And at the same time, different countries will also be represented, and we were to look at the data and see if the data were good enough to define the site, as well as address the purpose of drilling. And we gave opinions and eventually the chairman would decide whether to recommend this for drilling or not, from the site survey data perspective.

BMR: Did you say the German… Ah, the chairman! (laughs)

KS: Chairman.

BMR: Yes.

KS: Well, that’s also the first time I learned that in a scientific meeting the chairman has great power, but has to work very hard (laughs).

BMR: Were you the chairman at some point?

KS: No, no, I never was the chairman.

BMR: And what was the process or the means of communication with the other members of the panel? I mean, did you meet at certain times of the year and at that moment you made the entire revision of all the proposals? Or did you exchange information through mailing?

KS: Well, at that time in the eighties, all information was on paper. So this data was to be deposited at a data repository, and I think at that time it was Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory that did the work. Which means that any proponent who wished to propose a drilling site had to deposit the data at this data repository, and the person in charge would come to the meeting. And at that time, it was… I can’t… What’s his name… Ah, embarrassing. He’s… Anyway, this person, [he] is now head of the USSP, US scientific drilling program. Ah, Carl Brenner! Sorry, Carl (laughs). He had photographic memory of everything he handled. He could answer any question we had out of his head. It was truly amazing. So, anyway, we met… I think twice a year. And he would bring all the data on paper. And the most important thing of this panel meeting is to have a big table to spread these images, seismic records or whatever data to be seen. And everybody gathered around that data and said how would they interpret the data, if you have good enough data or not. So, the composition was everything in English, and the chairman would be there to discuss… and Carl would provide any information we needed. So, it worked very well.

BMR: What is one of the things that you learned there that you remember?

KS: Oh… One of the things is that, I learned that the program tried, well… It’s one thing to write a good proposal. But to justify that proposal with good data, it’s another thing. And to check if that stands or not, I thought it was important for the program to succeed. So, I thought, oh, this program is not to satisfy any proponents’ idealistic idea, but to serve the whole community for scientific ocean drilling to do the best.

BMR: At that time, did you start thinking about how to use ocean drilling for seismological studies?

KS: Well, I don’t think immediately. But… The first experiment I did was in 1989. Leg 128, to drill in the Japan Sea. So, as I said, I started serving the SSP from 85, and those, 85 to 89, I think I developed the idea of utilizing the boreholes as observatories for seismic observation. And at that time, in the eighties, global seismology was booming, because new broadband seismic sensors were developed on land. And the question was who would do the first observation in the sea. That was very tempting for me, so… Fortunately, Kensaku Tamaki at the ORI, who had deceased some years ago (note: 2011), [was planning on a] proposal to drill in the Japan Sea, to understand how the Japan Sea opened between East-Asia and Japan, and what the tectonic situation is currently, and… The proposal was written mainly in the geological context. But I tried to piggyback on his proposal to utilize one of his holes to install seismic sensors. And… so, I guess only a few years to start the idea and develop to a real project.

BMR: When you talk about installing a seismic sensor, who developed that sensor? Did you have something that could go directly there, or you had to develop it beforehand?

KS: Well, at that time there was nothing in production, because nobody had done it before. And then, I tried to find someone who might produce one. Guralp, it’s a Turkish name. Cansun Güralp then had written a paper on broad-band seismic sensor, as a so-to-speak competitor to the prevalent succeeding seismograph called “Wielandt”. Dr. Wielandt. But this Wielandt’s sensor (note: called Streckeisen) was very delicate and large, and would never go through the borehole. But, although the Güralp’s sensor was smaller, it was still too big. So, I contacted him directly by, I guess by email, at that time… Email could be done. And I still remember the day I visited his factory. [It] was in fact his garage (note: at home). And we talked about what we wanted to accomplish. He was very-much enthused, and… Although he was a private company, he was very, he got very interested, and eventually we worked together to develop this, and get it through the borehole.

BMR: Where was his company/garage located?

KS: Oh, in Reading. Outside London. It’s a big company now.

BMR: Which was it?

KS: Guralp. G-U-R-A-L-P. So this was a big challenge. Almost a gamble. But we very fortunately succeeded in installation and making observations for two days. Actually, we intended to continue the observation for years, and… To feed power, we had also to utilize a seafloor battery, which was also available, which was commercially available and… But unfortunately, I think the power connection failed after the power supply line was transferred from the ship to this seafloor battery. We could only really have reliable data for two days. But during these two days, we could conduct some interesting experiments on anisotropy, and as well as hopefully look for distant-earthquake waveforms. And we could observe surface waves from a M5-class earthquake occurred in Myanmar. For a normal person [it] is nothing. But for a seismologist, it’s a great feat. And we proved that very high-quality seismic observations can be made in a borehole. And that is worth doing.

BMR: As you said, for a seismologist this is a big hit. But maybe for a geologist, it’s not so big? So, I was wondering, what was the reception or the reaction inside ODP geologists, to having seismologists and seismic research?

KS: Well, I think, in retrospect, ODP wanted something new. Because it’s been a program for so many years, and to justify its continuation in order to sell itself into the future, you had to show to your funding agency that you are also trying for something new, accepted by a wider community. And the seismic observatory was a new thing. And also, the whole vast seismologist’s community is around, and they want the data. So, the success of this experiment was very well-received by the seismologists. A very renowned seismologist communicated with me directly, and congratulated for what we are doing. So that really… That moment, I still remember very well. But then, because I knew we had just started the experiment, we had to really establish an observatory so, lots of homework to do (laughs). But it was good that it could get the seismological community behind this experiment. For geologists, I think, it also served to justify the program. Since the DSDP times, the program had to move into an international program. I said it had to move, but it was good to have moved; but it was already at a scale much larger than a single country can manage. In order to expand, you have always to justify, and get members, and so forth. And that has been going very well. And for something new, seismology is one. And another is microbiology. And actually,  a sample taken from this leg 128, from the Japan Sea, was used to prove that microorganisms, microbacteria, were alive at deeper depths than people expected. And that really surprised the biologist’s community. They were now excited to get samples from the very deep bottom of boreholes. So, I think those are the new things that attracted new communities and helped sustain the program.

BMR: That’s really interesting. I was just thinking on how in the first place DSDP decided to include seismology, and if that at the beginning conflicted with other goals.

KS: Yes. In order to set up a station, the most important requirement is that it’s at an optimal distance from the next station nearby. And the Global Seismologist Network advocated for stations every 2,000 kilometers. So, there were about twenty vacant spots on the Earth, where there were no seismic stations in 2,000 kilometers distance apart. That was the only requirement. For geologists, you have to have your aimed site at the exact fault zone, or fracture zone, or trench, or something of geological interest. It’s very specific. And these specific features are frequently at anomalous structures, which seismologists don’t like to have [laugh]. So, that was a concern, and the Japan Sea site was very good, because I didn’t really… It was more of a technological development stage, so I didn’t care so much about this site being anomalous. But… When it came to really establishing [a] seismic network around the globe, the best place would be out of no-where, as normal as possible. Meaning, the least interesting geological-wise [laugh]. So, in order to achieve that, we succeeded in that too. Because we formed a seismologist network, [the] International Ocean Network group, within IUGG, to advocate for expanding a network into the oceans. And… Purposely, “seismology” is not in the acronym, ION, because there are other of course experts who want stations in the ocean. So, we wanted to appear as inclusive as possible. That’s, I think, part of the very important process I learned working on the ODP program, is to develop your community. Get your community behind you, because ODP is a bottom-up program. And you can’t be, no-one is single authority, can be authoritative to command what to do. You have to have colleagues behind you. So, again, in order to have a proposal accepted by IODP, I am sorry, ODP, by the geologists, that is [?], we had to have a whole proposal specifically for establishing seismic stations. And ten years before that time, like when the Japan Sea was drilled, it would have been impossible to get through the system. But for 1999, and then around that time, early-2000s, I think the drilling community was changed to accept… For something new. Actually, our proposal was leg 186, following by two other legs to establish seismic stations in the Western Pacific. There was an American proposal to establish a station offshore Oahu, which also succeeded, and another one utilizing the already-drilled hole to reenter the hole, to install a broad-band seismograph, by the French group. So, there were a number of actual proposals being scheduled to install stations. And unfortunately, that movement has not persisted. And to this day we are still unable to have a true ocean seismic network quite yet.

BMR: We were talking about your position at ODP SSP. How did you move to the PCOM?

KS: Yes. So… Normally in Japan, scientists, researchers, would stay in one institute and change to professor, associate professor, and retire. But… Maybe I am one of the rare cases where I moved after graduation, finishing postgraduate work, at Tohoku University for four years, and then four years at Chiba University, and then I… Asahiko Taira, who then was professor at ORI, asked me if I was interested to come. And I said yes. So, I moved to ORI in 1988, and at that time I was still on SSP. And maybe Taira-san explained it far better than me, but… ORI was the main management body of ODP as Japan representative, because the agreement between NSF of the US and Monbusho was actually between NSF and ORI. It’s a strange connection, but I think professor Nasu who really originated the involvement of DSDP, Japan membership to DSDP, had deliberately… May made the decision to have ORI in front. And so, at every important decision making scene, ORI had to be in the game. Or had to be asked. Monbusho could not work alone. Well, I don’t know the real details, so I should not say more. Anyway, because ORI was in the center of running the program, and Taira-san became a member of the EXCOM, he wanted me to serve on PCOM. And I think that’s why I started serving on the PCOM. And this is the committee that really decides the schedule of the JOIDES Resolution every year, and…

BMR: How did you know Taira-san?

KS: I didn’t know very well. There was a telephone call abruptly one day. Suddenly he asked me to come, so… I don’t know how he knew me (laughs).

BMR: How was the moving from Chiba University to Tokyo? Was there something you were willing to do?

KS: Yes, it was something I was… After four years of being at Chiba University and getting along with students and teaching, actually learning from them as well, was… Interesting. And rewarding. But then, maybe four years was a bit too short, but I thought here was another opportunity to do something new, and I guess I liked to do something new (laughs). So, I thought, maybe it’s a good time to move, to do something differently. So, at ORI we had to, we were in the center of trying to justify ODP to Monbusho. Each year we had to allocate funding for ODP, I think it was about… three hundred million. Three million. Ok, let’s say… maybe three million US dollars each year. And to justify that, Monbusho would require, would tell us at ORI that: have you had hours per money spent, and did Japanese participants be rewarded with seats a JR as the membership requires and allows, and so forth. And how many proposals were accepted by the Japanese scientists, and how many succeeded, and so forth. So, we were always being supervised [?] by Monbusho officials, how we were doing. And we had of course to report. At the same time, we had to be accountable to the drilling community by publishing newsletters and so forth, how we are doing. So, another community building process. This time, domestic. And… In order to have a proper voice in the system in the international scene, we had to have a collective voice from the Japanese community and bring [it] back to PCOM, and “this is what we want”. But we cannot say that straightforwardly. Decision at PCOM was to be made on scientific grounds. Not for domestic, political reasons. So, well, it’s not that you cannot satisfy both. By carefully looking over the process, I think we had [a] decent share in the game. And, so, that was something I had in mind, serving at PCOM. And I also learned that it’s of course very difficult to prioritize any proposal against others with quite different objectives. One can be tectonics, another could be hard rock lithosphere, and yet another could be ocean history. And how could one say, oh, this is more important than yours. So, we had separate thematic panels to prioritize within the themes, and that was ok. I think that scientists were happy to do that. So, PCOM would receive these prioritized proposals and then the next thing is to try to satisfy as many proposals as possible in the realizable ship path, cruise path, the right weather window; and so, we would get information from the ship operator, that if we went around the globe this way, and in so many years we could do this. And if we took another route, we could do this in a different way, and so forth. And eventually I think we voted… I think… The idea was to internationally decide on scientific grounds the most optimal ship route, to get highly prioritized proposals.

BMR: Let me go a little bit back to what you said about the community. The ocean drilling community in Japan. You mentioned that you had to report every year to Monbusho, so I was wondering, who was this community? Who were the ones communicating between Monbusho, other scientists, and ODP?

KS: Well, first, when I moved to ORI, I think it was Taira-san. Before Taira-san, it was Kobayashi-san, Kazuo Kobayashi. And before Kobayashi, it was Nasu, Nori Nasu, who were communicating with Monbusho.

BMR: And how this this community, ocean drilling community in Japan, grew?

KS: Oh, I see. That question is very difficult for me to answer, because the main shipboard scientists came from geology, paleoceanography communities, which I hardly knew. So, you should ask Taira-san. But he knew all sorts of people around Japan, and he would communicate with these people. Of course, he must have inherited names from Kobayashi-san and so forth.

BMR: And how about the community of seismologists? Did you manage to drag some people in?

KS: Yes, I was keen on grabbing seismologists into the game. And yes, I was very fortunate that very capable colleagues joined the ODP community.

BMR: Also, one question from something we talked about before. You mentioned that you were creating a community of seismologists inside IUGG.

KS: Yes.

BMR: So how was that process of community building inside an international community?

KS: Well, IUGG worked as an international umbrella that whatever you’re doing in your country, you could say, “this is also supported by an international group under IUGG”, and that sort of gave you a stamp. That you’re doing something for the global community, considered important for the subject. And we could also use that to initiate domestic programs. We had this Ocean Hemisphere Program led by Fukao-san, Yoshio Fukao, who is now at JAMSTEC. He was the PI of the program, and this program I think was a 5-year program or something. It had different teams. The Ocean Hemisphere means the whole world, if you look from down-south. Looking from the Pacific Ocean you see the whole Earth as if it was all ocean. So… Ocean hemisphere means the part of the Earth almost all ocean. And without understanding this part of the globe, you will never understand the whole dynamics. And in order to gain go there, you have to have your own observatories. Not just seismographs, but geomagnetic observatories, and geoelectric observatories, and so forth. So, this was another domestic community building process. One of the teams was the Borehole Observatory team, which eventually became true[?] as leg 186, 191, and I forgot the number (note: 195), but three legs. So, another thing to say is that, you have to have an international umbrella, domestic program, reaching out in both ways, and justifying your program to be important considered from the national aspect as well as the international aspect.

BMR: How did your research change when you moved to ORI?

KS: Well, I guess my… Let’s see. More budget was available at the ORI. So, Taira-san and I could plan on doing something big. We were successful in asking for a budget to… I already briefly said this, but do a seismological transect of Izu Bonin Island arc system. We could obtain a huge sum of money from Kakenhi Hojokin (Grant-in-aid for Scientific Research). It’s the highest rank research project that could be funded. And ORI alone could not do it, but I could ask for help from my colleagues from universities in Japan, and we had a really good team of people to run this project. And incidentally, out of this project we could write a paper with a seismic transect of the whole system, island arc system, which surprised us, and we showed that although it was considered oceanic island arc, it actually had continental crustal composition. From a seismological velocity perspective. And so, this was a new discovery which called for, is it really continental? And to prove that by drilling. So that became IBM (Izu-Bonin-Mariana arc) drilling proposal. So yes, drilling science is connected to other fields. And we always say that drilling is to verify something that no other process can verify. If you can prove from using other methods, drilling is the most expensive tool, so do it other way. If it really calls for drilling, then we drill. So before drilling, get all the data available and really pinpoint the place where you want to make your point. So… That’s all. So, I guess I failed[?], I was, I had to coordinate the whole Japanese community at ORI. Which meant more administrative work, coordination.

BMR: Maybe another kind of relation with researchers, if you are in a more coordinating position.

KS: Yes, right. And ORI was actually considered to be such a kind of institution by Monbusho. So… We had more budget for that reason, to unify the whole oceanographic community in Japan.

BMR: Maybe we can…

KS: Stop here.

BMR: Stop here. Is there something else you want to say, regarding this?

KS: It’s ok, I think. (looks at his notes) Maybe we can talk about OD21 and all this [the next time].

BMR: Yes. Well, thank you very, very much.

KS: Oh, you’re welcome.

---

Beatriz Martinez-Rius (BMR): Thank you very much for coming.

Kiyoshi Suyehiro (KS): You’re welcome.

BMR: Today is September 15, we are at the Tokyo office and we are in our second meeting, with Kiyoshi Suyehiro. So just to recap, in the last meeting we talked about your early training, your interest in earthquake research and seismology, your time at Chiba University, at Tohoku University, and the moment you moved to ORI.

KS: The Ocean Research Institute at the University of Tokyo.

BMR: Yes. And regarding ocean drilling, we talked about the borehole seismographs in the Japan sea, in leg 128; we talked about the community of seismologists, and how they integrated in…

KS: Right.

BMR: …In ocean drilling, and your time at the SSP at ODP. So, the conversation today, as we discussed, could be about OD21 and Chikyu, in the moment when Japan launched an ocean drilling program with its own drillship. I would like to know how the idea of Chikyu, or better saying, the idea of building a drillship came up.

KS: The idea of constructing a drillship?

BMR: A Japanese drillship.

KS: Yes. Well, I don’t really know (laughs), it will be my guess, but… I think that the Japanese government was eager to do something for the international science community and, well, that sort of raises our national status. So, I think it has justification to do that, and can be explained to the Japanese public. One of the goals was the Earth Simulator, among other things. That was the fastest computer at that time. That sort of gave us confidence to rise up in the international scene. And because Japan was involved in ocean drilling science for many years, from the seventies, in DSDP through ODP, and we knew (not only scientists, but also the funding agencies that supported the drilling), knew that the Earth Science community wanted something capable of drilling really deep… Because if you remember, the original idea of having a drillship was to drill to the Moho. And that was too ambitious, and too early. So, it became DSDP. And rather than drilling in hard rock, people chose to drill in the sediments, through the ocean floor sediments, and to learn about the Earth history as well as touching the basement at the bottom of the sediments to gather the information of the seafloor age and, as you know, DSDP proved the seafloor spreading. So, we knew the original ambition, and even through DSDP-ODP the dream was to drill through the sediments, the ocean crust, and reach the mantle. That has been around for many years. The Japanese government knew that it was an important target understood by the international science community, and so the chance was there. For some reason everything fitted well, I mean [laughs] maybe once, it happens sometimes, if you are lucky, I think… Let me remember. Yes, the ODP was coming to an end, ending in 2003 I think, so the planning was going everywhere in the world – how should it be continued, the ocean drilling science. Or not. There was the danger of not being able to continue the program. Part of the reason is that scientists always wanted something better. So, the technological capability had to improve to ask important questions, to get the answers to important questions such as learning about the seismogenic faults, which is quite out of the reach for the JOIDES Resolution, ODP’s capability. Of course, even penetrating through the ocean crust was actually written in the ODP’s Science Program Plan as a reachable goal, but it was not to be. And the Japanese government, I think, took up this program and studied [it] seriously, decided to study its feasibility. And came to the conclusion that we should pick this up as an important target of the national science and technology aims. So, I should say, from the government to funding agencies, to scientists to the international community, everybody wanted this. And I don’t know who finally gave a go, but I do know that JAMSTEC was quite important in making this happen. And I was, I think, helping JAMSTEC make this decision, since I was at ORI. But the time I moved to JAMSTEC was 1999, so OD21 [‘Ocean Drilling in the 21st Century’] was already decided. I think the point is, everybody wanted it and the Japanese government realized that and, as I said, it was a good project, so it was to be. We got help from all over the world. So, there was this atmosphere of a very much bright future which might really happen. And it did! So… (laughs)

BMR: This idea of the 21st century and [a] new understanding of the Earth, new goals for earth sciences … Appears very frequently. And Chikyu is somehow related to that idea, right?

KS: That’s right.

BMR: How did you know about this plan of building a Japanese drillship?

KS: Well, being at ORI, supporting ODP at [the] Japan office, it was quite natural to learn that there was this movement for Japan to really build the ship. Almost every year or every other year there were international symposiums to discuss this from all aspects, from engineering to scientific, to consider this as a funding project. How to fund such a big project. And such discussions took place in various areas for, I think almost, ten years or so. There were many, many, people involved. And I was sort of observing this all the time, being at ORI. And I think, as I said, I was serving at PCOM [Planning Committee of ODP], I could also learn how the Japanese plan was perceived by the international community. And I really knew that everybody wanted this.

BMR: Can you please explain to me a bit more about the international reception of the idea of building a Japanese drillship?

KS: Yes. Well, I don’t really know how the international community seriously considered the Japanese proposal as feasible or not, but with time they were really helpful, not only looking from above or from a distance. They came to Japan and important advice was given through experts. And, I think, the Japanese shipbuilding industries were also keen to do something challenging. As I said, I don’t know who said the last “yes, go!,” who signed [it].

I was excited, because sometimes big projects, very expensive projects, tend to be realized for political reasons; and from scientists’ standpoint, [they] make scientists feel like neglected. Like, “ok we will give you this toy, play with this (laughs), give us results.” But this was not so. Scientists really wanted this. And from our side, we thought our wish came true – kind-of feeling. And of course, we don’t know what politicians or bureaucrats were thinking, but… [laughs].

BMR: Yes, that’s something very interesting about this case. It was not only the Japanese community, but the international community, who wanted the ship, and who wanted a cooperative program between the US, Japan, and maybe…

KS: Yes, I think [that] we recognized from the early stage that this project couldn’t be run only by Japanese initiative. Just like the US’ JOIDES Resolution-ODP had to work with international partners for funding reasons. And not only for funding reasons, but what they perceived as important was that all the brightest minds to gather  from the international community is the best way to advance science. And that’s one key, important point. And the other is that, of course, you have to have money, and membership fees from member countries were very important, as well. For Japan that would be the model, but ODP was US-centered. The US was paying more than fifty per cent of the program. But this time it would be Japan and the US co-leading the program. And later Europe joined, so it became a trilateral agreement to run the international program. But as I said, from early on, it never was considered Japan going alone for the Japanese community. It was international from the very start. And because this OD21 was conceived by STA (Science and Technology Agency) separate from Monbusho, but they got merged (note: in January 2001). So it was also good for the science community that… Because for scientists, whether it’s STA or Monbusho, as long as we get samples from the ocean floor, [it] doesn’t matter. It was good that the two agencies were merged, so things could be more operative, or run smoothly.

BMR: Just to get it clear. Was it that both agencies, both ministries, merged, or was it that they merged only the funding to ocean drilling?

KS: No, the agencies were merged. So that’s another big political change in Japan. Once in a while it occurs that politicians start to think we have too many agencies (laughs) and make changes. Hopefully, to manage Japan more efficiently. But oftentimes, that’s just a wish (laughs). But for this particular program, I think it was quite helpful that STA and Monbusho were merged.

BMR: Right, because all the funding until that point was managed by Monbusho.

KS: Right.

BMR: And when the OD21 started, it was managed by STA.

KS: Right.

BMR: So I understand that it was beneficial to move forward with the program. Maybe we can talk about… I was curious to know if you, the community of Japanese scientists, did something to get funding for the drillship? Was there some sort of mechanism to interact with these agencies?

KS: Yes, yes. In Japan, the government always sets up committees that give advice to scientific policies, in different fields of sciences. One of them is in ocean sciences, ocean development. And that committee was mandated to give recommendations on how Japan should advance science and technology. We gave advice on building the ship. I think that was in the nineties. And of course, this committee doesn’t work in a vacuum, they listen to the science community. It basically works up from the bottom, because this top committee has subcommittees and tries to gauge what the priorities are, and how they could impact society, economy, and so on.

BMR: Were you part of some committee of this sort?

KS: Not on the top committee, but I was trying to sort of… Work with colleagues to try to make one voice out of many opinions, so I guess that at ORI and JAMSTEC I was trying to convince colleagues that this will be the right thing to do and that, “please agree with us that this is a high priority item”. And, so… it was a grassroots sort of activity, I think. And also, I worked with colleagues to form a consortium of institutions to support this program. With Tatsumi [Yoshiyuki], Kushiro [Ikuo] and others. We made visits to many institutions around Japan to explain what we were up to, and how it would benefit scientists, your institute, and give opportunities to young scientists, students… To get samples, to learn about the Earth, and get interesting scientific results. And those efforts went even outside Japan, and we visited South-eastern Asian countries, and also tried to sort of have them join us in this movement. But of course, it’s an expensive program. So it’s not so easy to say yes, but I think they felt our enthusiasm; and again, when I was talking about seismology, building a community voice is important. And [for] OD21 and IODP, I think it was the same.

BMR: What was the name of this consortium?

KS: The consortium itself I don’t know how it was named, but it’s now called J-DESC [Japan Drilling Earth Science Consortium].

BMR: Ah, yes.

KS: Now it covers not only ocean drilling, but also continental drilling as well. In order to make that happen, JAMSTEC was instrumental in paying for travels [laughs] and arranging with many other institutes in Japan, from Hokkaido to Okinawa. I forgot if I visited Ryukyu university, but we went around Japan, giving talks and getting questions, and drinking sake at night, to get more acquainted with each other.

BMR: And once you got that support, did you transmit that to these commissions that were advisors to the agencies? If I understood it correctly.

KS: Well, I’m not sure if there was a formal path to get the recommendations or priority list or whatever to the higher committee. But for these institutes to make decisions on whether to join the consortium or not, they had to have approval first of their institutions, with their directors, so these directors could voice such movement at the committee. So that’s how voices go up though the system. You need individual scientists’ support, you need support of directors of institutes, and you need support from the… which means that not only the ocean drilling sciences but these big institutes, they cover all sorts of sciences, so it would be not through very narrow disciplinary pathway, but also they must be convinced that this will be accepted by the wide scientific disciplines.

BMR: Right.

KS: So, it’s about trying to convince people, and you have to show your enthusiasm, although you can’t show money (laughs), but somehow it goes through, I think. If you go to Monbusho and talk to officers, they will ask you: “Ok, as in ODP, you could send two scientists per leg.” We call each expedition leg. Of two months’ leg. So, two per six legs available each year, two times five is ten, so ten to twelve scientists would be able to experience the program and that would, if Japan and the US would co-lead the program with our own drillship as well as with JOIDES Resolution, it would much more increase the number of participants. And, “do we have the capabilities, do we have the resources?”. Human resources. So that also was an incentive for us to talk to universities and institutes, that if we do this, start this, we will have new opportunities to join with far more chances than with ODP. And I think that was also favorably appreciated.

BMR: Right. Maybe we can talk about what was your role in the implementation of OD21. At the beginning you were at the University of Tokyo, but then in 1999 you moved to JAMSTEC.

KS: Yes, that’s right. I think I helped the ODP community to get more acquainted with what OD21 was about. So I tried to participate with all sorts of workshops and symposia organized by JAMSTEC on OD21, and then when I moved to JAMSTEC, the main reason I moved to JAMSTEC was to try to install seismic and geodetic observatories in the Western Pacific (laughs) but that was done in 1999, and after that I could be more concentrated in OD21 efforts. By that time I had experience in PCOM and EXCOM of ODP and so, I had a network of acquittances in the program in all countries, US, Europe and other membership countries, so I could talk at these meetings, follow meetings of ODP, talk about OD21, explain what we are up to… particularly at night (laughs).

BMR: Why the idea was to launch a program, OD21, and not simply build a scientific drillship?

KS: Well, a scientific drillship has to be used; and to use a ship, you need people who appreciate the value, and that must involve top notch scientists and engineers as well, and also technicians, and all sorts of people at every level to run such a big program. And of course, Japan has to lead the program, although it’s a co-leadership with the US. Leadership means you have to really lead it, and to lead you must have people who follow. And if the people do not respect you in doing this program, they will not follow, so I think… You had to prove yourself. I mean, the fact that the global science community decided to go with us is an important proof that they believed in us, [in] our capability and scientific expertise, technological expertise, as well as working with the international community over a big program. So… I am not sure if I answered.

BMR: Yes. My question was that Japan could have built only a scientific drillship, in the same way that Japan [had] decided to invest in the Earth Simulator. But instead of only investing on a drillship, there was an investment in an entire ocean drilling program.

KS: Right.

BMR: I understand from what you explained to me that the reason is that to operate a drillship you need a very big basis.

KS: Customers.

BMR: You need customers but also a large workforce.

KS: Yes, that’s right. And that’s good, also, to have people… Something to do. (both laugh)

BMR: Sure. In the moment OD21 was proposed, was launched, how did you see the relation with ODP in the future?

KS: Well, we knew that ODP would end in 2003, and it was quite natural that working with OD21 is a great idea to continue the seafloor drilling scientific endeavor. I am not sure if there were other ideas of ocean drilling not working with OD21, but I think the decision, in order to come to this decision, was very slow… Everything moved slowly but steadily through many, many, meetings. Like I said, it took ten years to really start constructing this ship, so… I think I am not the main person, but people like Kinoshita (Hajimu) and Taira (Asahiko) and… many other senior people at that time carefully worked through the system, convincing funding agencies of other countries. And so OD21 was never a competitor of ODP, but it was to work in peaceful harmony. To be accepted by ODP was an important goal for OD21.

BMR: And the international community of ODP accepted OD21 as…

KS: Yes, right. At each ODP EXCOM meeting [the] Japanese representative – if I was the representative, I was given time to explain the progress of OD21, where we were. I know many people were skeptical until Japan really made the decision to really construct it. When we really [decided it], I had the honor of being PCOM member at that time and announcing that we are really going to do this. The room went quiet [laughs]. I remember Hans Christian Larsen, who became IOPD-MI vice-president later, and key person… actually he helped us in starting OD21 as an international program; [he] was in the same room at this PCOM meeting. And afterwards [he] told me: “Kiyoshi, if somebody dropped a pin, we could have heard it.” It was that quiet.

BMR: It was more of a surprise?

KS: Yes. And then it was the actual launching ceremony of Chikyu – I think it was already named Chikyu. It was in 2003, January. The NSF program director of ODP, Bruce Malfait, who unfortunately has deceased some years ago, came to the launching ceremony in Japan and he whispered to me, as the ship was slowly moving, that “Kiyoshi, it’s really happening!” (laughs). I will never forget that moment.

BMR: So, the context in Japan was… Was the social and political contexts open to these kinds of big science initiatives?

KS: That’s right, yes. I think… As far as I can tell, everything was open. If somebody asked the question, we would try to answer the best we could, and yes, that kind of open atmosphere was also very good, I think.

BMR: Just a brief parenthesis, regarding this. How do you think this general feeling has changed in the last 30 years?

KS: Thirty years means… What, 1990?

BMR: Yes, from the nineties to now.

KS: Mm… That’s a very difficult question. I think, I sense that, while thirty years ago Japan was keen on doing something for the international community, I think in the last few decades we came to recognize national interests [as] more important. And actually, that’s the same case for other countries. And if you look deeper, it has always been national interests [laughs]. But as I was saying, some NSF program director said “to advance science most efficiently, you must involve the whole international scientists’ community.” And that kind of statement sometimes is well-perceived by the program directors. But sometimes it’s not. Sometimes they think excluding foreign scientists it’s better for the national security or national interest. So… Rather than doing, coordinating with other countries, you feel like to win through the international competition you want to go alone. Not entirely alone, of course, but… Some emphasis might have changed in the last tens of years. And that’s unfortunate, because I truly think that getting involvement of the whole international science community is the best way to advance science. And that falls back to national interest, of course. At the same time to the global community, and particularly now that whatever we do humans, are affecting climate change. That is only recently recognized. That really tells the importance of international coordination. Even if you think that you want to save only Japanese people, you have to coordinate with the whole global community.

BMR: And that’s one of the particularities of ocean drilling.

KS: That’s right.

BMR: That makes it a very interesting historical case.

KS: Yes, that’s right. And I think that ODP, now called IODP, is always learning by cruising around the world. Because [in] even drilling in the open ocean these days, we have to worry about environmental impact. And of course, when you are going to drill in the Economic Exclusive Zone of other countries, all sorts of political negotiations have to take place before scientists can go there and do exciting science. So… It’s maybe getting more difficult to freely drill anywhere you want. Because I think there would be some sanctuaries, or biological environmental protected areas. And drilling sort of connotes some messing with the environment, changing the ecosystem there and so forth. So, we have to become more mindful of environmental impact, and that’s another aspect of change, I think, of doing science.

BMR: This brings me to the point of the cooperation with the industry in building Chikyu. Were you part of the relationship with industrial partners to build Chikyu?

KS: No, not really. So probably I am not the right person to answer that question. Of course, I met many people from industries, but… No, I don’t really know.

BMR: Also related with environmental concerns, I would like to know how public support was for scientific ocean drilling.

KS: Public support?

BMR: Popular support. What did you, at JAMSTEC, do to advertise OD21 and let people know about this investment; and – I was wondering – what was the feedback you received from mass media or…

KS: I think the mass media was very… Positive. Not only in Japan, but also in the world. I think. Like you hear when the astronomical community builds a new telescope, [it] makes the headlines of the newspapers. Constructing Chikyu made headlines in many newspapers around the world. And I think it was always mentioned that drilling through the ocean crust to reach the Moho was the eventual goal of the ship. But of course, the ship was… The original design was to drill in 2,500 meters of water and about ten kilometers of drill pipe, so… In order to drill through normal ocean crust, the capability has to be… To do that in 4,000 meters of water depth. So, the original Chikyu was to drill in the margins of continents. And as you know, Chikyu started drilling in the Nankai Trough seismogenic zone. The Chikyu’s capability was limited to drill in less than 2,500 meters of water, but of course, if you go riserless, Chikyu can drill anywhere. The point about Chikyu is that it’s riser equipped. And it allows for deep drilling. So it is, by definition, Chikyu is mission-specific, in my view… shared by many people as well. [The] JOIDES Resolution is a global operating drillship. You can schedule two-months-long legs around the world, visiting around the oceans. You can schedule and fit many scientific proposals as projects, each two months’ long, gathering scientists to join and do their own science. But for Chikyu, it has to go deep. You have to drill for sometimes over a year or so. So, it’s stuck to a location, rather than moving around the world. Stuck would be… Sit still in, without moving, at one location to go deep. That was actually a new concept, quite different from ODP. But then, without the definition of these missions, the global science community would not have followed us. Because JOIDES Resolution would do what it’s good at, so “Chikyu, please, do something you’re good at.” Which is to stay in a place for a long time and drill deep. So, if you expect Chikyu to do global cruising, like JOIDES Resolution, that’s not right. Of course, Chikyu should move around to the particular location to drill deep, it should be anywhere in the world. But making use of Chikyu, it has to be mission-specific. In a way, the European platform called ‘mission specific platform’ (MSP) is that kind of ship drilling project. It’s very mission specific to drill in the Arctic Sea, or drill in shallow waters… Again, it will not be wise to move from the Indian Ocean, to the Pacific Ocean, to the Atlantic Ocean. It [The platform] should be defined by missions. And that’s why they don’t have a specific platform on their own, but they arrange to rent or… Make up a system for each mission at different places.

BMR: Now that we are talking about the MSP of the European community, do you remember how this suggestion came up at PCOM or EXCOM?

KS: No, I don’t know. I think that original discussion might have been made within European countries. They have their own consortium called ECORD. And of course, they had the wish to gain more support within the European community from the EU. Which means that they have to have a significant presence in the new IODP program. And… I think US-Japan to co-lead the program and EU countries to be members on this new IODP was something that they did not want. They wanted to play a bigger role, meaning to have another platform, a third platform, to contribute to the program. Which is a very good idea. But it sort of complicates operation. In a way, if you are rich, I think it’s ok. But if you are not rich, running three platforms to satisfy all the proponents, it becomes difficult. And when IODP started… Well, actually this program has to run ships, it has to have, you know, commodities, how should I say… Oil price? Oil price, which cannot be controlled by us;  but it matters for the program. It’s a big unknown that affects the whole program, which it did, since the oil price suddenly went up as we started IODP and everything we projected for the coming ten years was not to be. We had to have more money, and… Regarding the money, we had to reduce the number of legs or expeditions. And so forth. There were certain other uncertainties that, a little bit, unexpected for the program at the start. For example, the JOIDES Resolution was to be refurbished, which gave a hiatus on the program. Over a year there were no legs, no expeditions of JOIDES Resolution. And Chikyu starting to drill was not to be until 2007, although the program started in 2004. So… without drilling opportunities, scientists had grumblings (laughs). But even so, I think eventually all the platforms, MSP as well of Europe, were operated, and the first ten years were not without big success. Arctic Ocean, Nankai trough seismogenic zone, and biosphere exploration by JOIDES Resolution… were great successes.

BMR: Were there other uncertainties, apart from these ones?

KS: Well, there was… Chikyu had some accidents. Well, I guess these accidents happen, but the biggest one was I think the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake, causing Chikyu to hit the bottom of Hachinohe [port], and had to be repaired. Which needed, well, which sort of disrupted the schedule. Also, another uncertainty was that, because the funding of Chikyu was through JAMSTEC, and JAMSTEC had sort of top authority of running the ship as well as other JAMSTEC projects, the money that was to be spent on Chikyu’s exploration got less and less each year. That was, I think, another unfortunate uncertainty. Which is not JAMSTEC’s fault, it’s the whole Japanese policy of decreasing the funding to these institutes. Not only JAMSTEC, but other institutes also suffered. And that caused the program to change schedules, and that sort of makes people wonder what’s happening to the program and so forth.

IODP, because it had three constituents (US, Japan and Europe), conceived that there should be an international entity to manage the program. Until IODP, everything was managed by the US. So, it was simple. But now, with three international entities, we should have an international organization independent, unbiased, and international, to manage the program. All funding agencies agreed, so IODP Management International was conceived, was born. The first president was Manik Talwani, for the first half of the decade; and from 2009, I became president. Where I really learned how to run things internationally, how it is difficult… But… I don’t think that would be interesting to listen to here, so… I would just say that in the first ten years, as monetary funding, from a funding aspect, things were not going too well. So… thinking… “Maybe IODP-MI is unnecessary.” So after the first decade, they got rid of IODP-MI, Management International. And the next ten years was run without IODP-MI. Actually [it] is the same acronym of IODP, Integrated Ocean Drilling Program, for the first ten years, and the current International Ocean Discovery Program, [which] is a quite different animal.

BMR: What is the difference in terms of organization, of having or not having IODP-MI, an international organization that manages the budget?

KS: Well, I think, to me, currently the program is not integrated. It’s [a] really different program with the same name. I think [they are] three programs [that] can do anything they want on their own. And that’s different from the first ten years. IODP-MI, always through the IODP scientific decision system, Science Advisory System (SAS), had a single advisory plan, single funding source. Of course, the running of each ship was to be paid by each operator, but running the science was from one source of money. So, it was more coherent. And the decision had to be based on a single body, SAS. But now, in this current ten years, I think they have three different scientific boards, or various platforms. Of course, I think they are doing ok, but I am not sure what will be the best way into the next phase. I try to convince [them] that IODP-MI has its meaning and actually it helps to effectively run the program, and it’s also cost-saving. And also, a single entry for scientists to learn about the program, rather than going into three different sites, would be more helpful and easier. But [laughs] no, it didn’t [survive]…

BMR: Talking about your times as president of IODP-MI, which were the challenges of running such an international organization?

KS: Well, there were many challenges. So… I don’t want this interview to get… Get some negative impressions but… The biggest challenge was that although it was an international program, with memoranda of understanding between participating countries, it was not really international. Because IODP-MI was not exempt from US tax. That is not international. And those kinds of restrictions, such as having to… Of course we had to, because [the] back up of the whole program was the NSF of the US. IODP-MI had also to get the money though NSF, and all the NSF rules and restrictions had to be applied to IODP-MI operations. Which no other country would know. Well, that was one challenge. Because when people ask certain questions about how money flows, and how money just… Other than the science advisory system, SAS decisions, we also had to follow NSF rules. That was not to be, sort of, openly spoken. So, nobody really knew, I think. And so was each ship operator. ECORD had its own rules, JAMSTEC had its own rules, NSF had its own rules to run their ships. So, to manage the whole three platforms as coming out of a single program was not so easy, so… It was really something challenging but how should I say it… You really think you were… Doing something worthwhile? Because at IODP-MI we believed, with the Board of Directors of supporting institutes, we believed that running the whole program as a single program was truly important. The same way I say, to advance science you have to coordinate with international partners. And during this single management body it would have been the best way to do… But it’s just IODP-MI, that science advisory structure  used to be composed of many committees, like IODP Site Survey Panel, Downhole Measurement Panel, Information Handling Panel… I forgot, there are many, besides PCOM and EXCOM that, I think, well, many committees and the members who occupied these were scientists around the world. And also, serving in these committees [they] learned about the program from the management side. How to get the best results with a cooperative working atmosphere between operators and scientists and funding agencies. [There are] a lot of things to learn… But now the money was getting less, we could not operate all these committees, and the number of committees went down. And it’s now only one or two that remain. So… This took away the opportunity for scientists to learn about how to run a big program. And that kind of experience is not to be obtained by any other way, so that’s a sort of opportunity lost, unfortunately. Of course restricted by the whole funding, money… You cannot have a lot, so…

BMR: It’s interesting that the program has been evolving…

KS: Oh yes. Always.

BMR: …From the beginning… I mean it survives, but it changes shape.

KS: Yes. But it’s good that they knew what the priorities were, and I think the best choices were made. I have really nothing against all the decisions made. It’s very good that the program is still moving on. And although currently the next program is not clear in sight, I know people are working hard, and I think it will be continuing.

BMR: This is something that we have sort of skipped. Going a bit backwards in time, to this transition from ODP to IODP. How did this transition happen? At what time OD21 became IODP? Because OD21 never actually operated as a program, right?

KS: Right.

BMR: It operated in the sense that it started the construction of Chikyu.

KS: That’s right. There was – strange name – an IWG [International Working Group] composed of funding agencies’ officers, with JAMSTEC. From ODP they started discussing the new program, which would include both ODP and OD21. They met every year, I don’t know how many times each year. Such international funding agency level discussions were going on for many years since the start of OD21. And as I said, separate from ODP. So, when ODP was to end, I think it was natural for the IWG to start the new concept of IODP, a Japan-US co-leadership program. That kind of management framework, I think, was conceived by funding agencies. I don’t know the details.

BMR: Yes, thank you. I had a similar idea. I have not yet identified the moment when OD21 becomes integrated in IODP.

KS: That’s right. So… I guess the big moment was when NSF and MEXT agreed on this new framework. But I don’t really know who wrote the MOU (note: Memorandum of Understanding, signed in Aprril 2003)… But it must have come from these many IWG discussions.

BMR: Yes. I will continue looking for that.

KS: So it was not straightforward. Sometimes [the] US is very slow in making decisions. And that’s very frustrating for some people. If the US would not act, it would not… I think that kind of incidents did occur. Eventually the US moved, made a decision. I think [that] when [the] US makes a decision, it’s out of very thorough discussion and at all levels. I think including the Congress. So, it takes time. But I’m happy that eventually IODP was conceived as an important successor to ODP, to which everybody agreed. So, it was the start of different cultures trying to talk to each other. (laughs)

BMR: Following up with what you said about the cultures, at the level of funding agencies. Was it different at the level of scientists? Because you were already cooperating. So, the issue of agreeing between two different cultures was only happening at a political level, right?

KS: No… When the US was running the program, they had their own culture. Of course, they had their own way of running meetings and making decisions. So, we were voting, or coming to consensus, or so forth. They have their own rules. And Japan has its own rules, as well. If you observe two meetings, a typical Japanese meeting and also a typical US meeting, be it scientific or political, they are run differently. But when these people sit together in one room and try to run a meeting, without seriously agreeing on how to run a meeting, it sometimes becomes chaotic. So, I think that at the beginning we had to go through that stage. But quickly I think we came to, basically, run meetings the US way. And I think it was good for the Japanese community as well. Because when it’s a multicultural system, the most important thing is… I think I’m getting off the line, but… If you have an opinion, which is the same with somebody else, even so you have to speak up. In Japan, if you think that your opinion is basically the same as another person, you just keep quiet. And if you keep quiet, in Japan, you are thought to agree with what is being said. In the US, it is considered that you are thinking nothing [laughs], you have no opinion. And that’s quite different.

BMR: I think it’s not going out of the line, because these are the differences and the things that make doing history kind of unique, right? So, when you go out of the specificities of the program, and you understand that for instance there are two cultural ways of doing things, this is beyond the sciences, or beyond the organization or beyond budgetary issues. This is something more profound, we can say. And this makes me think about… Were there, in this same sense, any kind of challenge or problem to align the scientific interests of both programs, OD21 and ODP?

KS: Not really. I think it just took more time. And because both sides knew that without true understanding of each other, we could not be successful in the program. So, even though there were different ways of doing things, you had to go over that and come to real understanding of each other. I think we quickly learned. And again, if you belong to a committee within IODP, you would learn these things quickly. It’s a pity that the number of committees went down. Those kinds of opportunities went lost. And of course, in the US or maybe in Europe as well, the chairman had great authority. But they cannot dictate. But in Japan, the chairman tends to dictate. By getting… Quiet consent. So, without really making sure that nobody… If everybody agrees with you, the chairman could decide on various things, in Japan. In the US, you really need to get [the] consent of everybody, even though you have the power. Another interesting thing I learned was that, in order to move a motion, a single person could not make that. Somebody had to set up the motion to put it in the discussion. In Japan, a single person can do that. That’s another different aspect. And another, well, we can cut this later, but is that [in the US the] agenda of a meeting is very important. But in Japan, it is not. Chairman can easily change the order of the agenda during the meeting. Or add agenda items, freely. And that doesn’t happen in international meetings. And so forth. And if you ask why that’s so, it is to… To be fair to everyone sitting in the meeting, I think, so… There was a lot for me to learn.

BMR: Picking back up the topic of scientific goals. We have only very briefly commented that Chikyu was designed to reach Moho.

KS: Yes.

BMR: But also, to study seismogenic zones.

KS: Yes, yes. It had five or six big goals defined by OD21 and the two outstanding goals will be drilling in the seismogenic zone and drilling to the Moho, yes.

BMR: How was this idea of reaching the Moho perceived? In the sense that, was it something thought as really achievable in the short term? Or was it more like a long term goal?

KS: Well, because the current Chikyu can only drill in 2,500 meters water depth with [a] riser, in that sense we had to develop [a] 4,000 meter riser capability, which to this day does not exist in the world, even in the oil industry. But they come to nearly more than 3,500 meters water depth. Because the oil industry is not so eager to finding oil in deep waters any more, that kind of technological advancement might not come so soon. And so, yes, the technological advancement we had sort of [depended on] how things were in the industry. But Japan was, I think, trying to do it on their own, considering the importance of the goal. In that sense, well, nobody really knew how many years it would take to have that capability, but after the first ten years of IODP, the idea was that we would have learned enough to go for the 4,000 meter riser, so in the current IODP time, we would have had a quite clear design of a second generation Chikyu to drill to the Mohole. In a sense we do. It’s not such [an] out-of-reach thing, with the current technology. So once things are decided, it might be reachable within the next ten years. But that’s my personal view. With some industry advice. We did a study where I was at IODP-MI, so…

BMR: The limiting factor is budget, of course.

KS: Money, yes. Of course, that’s if you had to do with the current technology, without requiring entirely new technology.

BMR: And about the second goal that I mentioned, earthquake research? I would like to know from you, because of your field of expertise, how did Chikyu help advance earthquake prediction and the field of seismology, more broadly speaking?

KS: Well, by chance the 2011 earthquake occurred, the Tohoku earthquake occurred, and Chikyu was quickly chosen to drill through the seismogenic fault that caused a huge tsunami when the fault was still young. To try to measure the temperature across the slip fault zone. And we had not really direct evidence of what the friction coefficient of a seismogenic zone is, as well as how much heat is generated at the zone, and so forth. That was directly measured by Chikyu right after the earthquake, and that’s a great advancement in seismological evidence. How friction properties are at these big earthquake faults. The finding was that, to some people, an unexpectedly small coefficient of friction was discovered. So in a way, if the coefficient of friction is very low, earthquakes can happen any time. And yet that does not happen. Why? (laughs) When you observe something new, you come up with another question. For example… Well, it’s good for the people, but we would probably have to wait – well, not have to – but we will have to wait 500 years or so for the next Tohoku earthquake. But if the coefficient of friction is so low, why do we have to have a big one only once in 500 to 1000 years? That’s another difficult question to answer. For Nankai trough is still ongoing, but people have succeeded in emplacing long term seismic observatories, and a wide, very broad band observation of earthquakes are being real time monitored. That includes not just small earthquakes, but very small earthquakes that emit [waves of] very low frequencies. That changes the [stress and strain] distribution of the fault zone, and the understanding of what is happening around the fault is quite important, which is only observable in drilled boreholes. And it’s a great advance in observing capabilities of seismic generating fault zones. I hope that, well, of course from the very start of my career, my belief is that if you want to know what’s really happening, you really go into the zone. In situ observation is the key aspect of trying to understand what’s happening and why it’s so. So for a seismogenic zone, having the drilling capability to drill in the seismogenic zone is really, really important. And it’s still on its way. And it should be continued.

BMR: Was there any previous equivalent to this study?

KS: Previous?

BMR: Around the world?

KS: Ah, attempt. [Do] you know the San Andreas fault, in California? There were attempts to drill in the San Andreas fault and also emplace observatories there. Yes. Also in Europe, there were some really true seismogenic zones in… I forgot the exact place, but in Greece (note: the Corinth Rift) prone to earthquakes. But because there is such a variety of seismogenesis, it is good to make observations at different places. San Andreas is a transform fault. Japan trench is a reverse fault environment, because the plate is subducted underneath the continent. And I think in the Greece case it was an opening rift environment. So: open fault, transform fault, and reverse fault. All different environments. All kinds of cooperative studies would also be very good.

BMR: Actually there’s still so much to learn…

KS: Yes, that’s right.

BMR: Maybe we can move to some concluding questions.

KS: Yes.

BMR: Taking stock of what you have experienced in these years, both in your scientific field and in the field of ocean drilling, how do you think the community of scientific ocean drilling and the programs have evolved?

KS: Well for Japan, it considerably increased the opportunity to participate in the program, and they (the participants) became experienced in running international projects. I think probably the most important thing is to have discussions with your colleagues, and through these discussions you learn something new; and not only [in] one way, but you influence the others, and through that kind of process science does advance. So it’s not only you working alone in your lab or looking at your PC screen, that science advances. It’s also through these discussions, interacting with other scientists – that it’s extremely important. And I think this is one of the most important ingredients of why US science has prevailed after the Second World War. It’s because they were drinking coffee (laughs) and having discussions. And of course, twenty years gave Japanese scientists confidence that we can lead an international scientific program. So I think [that] we have a new generation of scientists, young researchers, every day mingling with international scientists to do something new. I think going to international meetings it’s one thing, and that’s also very important, but actually learning in these ships, which takes careful planning, and on the ship experience and post-cruise studies, cannot be replaced by any other project. I don’t think [so]. I like scientists to work collectively, rather than work separately in [a] vacuum. These understandings and findings must be shared globally, particularly in this time of Anthropocene. Humans are affecting the global system. I mean, Earth will be Earth, but the fact that we are changing the system makes us more responsible to understand the system. And drilling science is an important component for understanding the Earth system, so I hope it continues.

BMR: In relation to this, what is your perspective for the future of scientific ocean drilling? How do you see the future of the field?

KS: Well… Generally speaking, scientific drilling gives the opportunity to learn something new in all sorts of scientific disciplines. So, it needs many, many participants, many, many scientists to join; it gives joy of doing science to many people, in a way. Also it gives the only way of learning about the Earth system in a unique way of getting samples and making in situ observations. And this kind of [way of] doing science has to be kept. Of course, ideally you want to drill to the core of the earth, which is unthinkable (laughs), and… but going to the mantle, which is the biggest volume in convection of [the] internal Earth, is still unknown… The  more we affect the Earth, the more we need  to understand the system. So yes, I said this, even if we recognize that understanding climate change and adapting to the change is so important that it, sort of, it’s far more important than drilling to the Moho, the most important thing is to understand the Earth dynamics, which is at the base of the climate system as well. Science is not about us [just] guessing. If you have a theory, it has to be verified, proved. And that makes science different from astrology or gambling. So I think, in my view, nothing has changed since the time of Mohole science perception (note: early on in the 1960’s). It’s still lingering on.

BMR: Thank you.

KS: Thank you.