From left to right: Ms Wanda Vargas (CUNY, Lehman College); Dr. Sekeenia Haynes (U South Florida); Ms Andrea Smith (Columbia U); Mr. Justin Brown (Stanford U); Ms Joniqua Howard (U South Florida); and Mr. Warner Ithier (U South Florida)

In a cool airy, tightly filled room there loomed the aroma of coffee mixed with the faint smell of sweet rolls and mildew.  As participants rushed in to take their seats, anticipation grew stronger as they awaited the commencement of the opening session.  Quickly, when the clock struck 8:30 am, the session began promptly with a round of introductions from everyone in the room, including our group, Minorities Striving and Pursuing Higher Degrees of Success in Earth Science (MS PHD’S) Professional Development Program. Next there were overviews of the SSEP mission, updates from the last meeting, and a confirmation of the week’s agenda. After a positive confirmation of the agenda for the day, the session was ready to begin as the excitement and enthusiasm of old meeting participants subdued. With the session now well underway, I immediately knew that it would be a very long day!  

The reviewing panel plowed through the morning session which outlined the meetings objectives and how each proposal should be reviewed in each of the breakout sessions.  The breakout sessions were divided into three main categories: (1) faults/fluids; (2) paleoclimate/oceanography; and (3) solid earth/petrology.  With a long day ahead of us, MS PHD’S was on the agenda just before we were to break for lunch.  The brief five-minute presentation by the participants (Justin, Adrienne, Joniqua, Wanda, Warner, and Sekeenia) was a complete success.  It would leave a permanent mark in everyone’s mind as Justin gave a comical performance when he mistakenly used the microphone for a pointer.  I believe the presentation really gave meeting participants an understanding about the MS PHD'S Program and moreover each of our current research projects and interests. 

During the lunch break, we were given the opportunity to meet, get acquainted with our mentors and consolidate our schedules.  I was able to learn more about my mentor and learn what other interests he had outside of his field of study.  It was a great experience! The take home message during this morning session was that there are a total of 33 proposals which need “nurturing” and all must be reviewed before Friday.

After lunch, we reunited for the second session.  This was the highlight of the day as the session opened with a review of the new technology involved in oil sampling.  The gentleman who gave his presentation was so excited and charged with a plethora of emotions he excited the entire audience.  I always find it amazing to see a person so intrigued by his/her work!  It appeared as though he never got tired of his research and longed for the next day to come! After three more additional presentations and a heated debate on “conflict of interest”, the group separated into their respective breakout sessions. This is definitely when things began to transform and a room of cross fire was launched. I ventured into the solid earth break out session where it appeared to be the big bad battle of the PC vs. Mac.  Watchdogs had no fear in stating there concerns regarding the proposals and providing some wonderful insight on the topic when questions arose. The discussion for my session ended with an immediate decision to make a decision on the next day.

Finally, after a very long morning filled with heated scientific debates and several acronyms, some of which were not included in our portfolio, was coming to a grand close. Quickly after the meeting, panelists scurried to eat some good old Texas style Bar-B-Q steak and engage in a beautiful intellectual conversation regarding the unfolding of the day. On Wednesday, I attended the morning session of the Paleoclimate\Oceanography breakout group and spent my afternoon in the basement* discussing proposals under the heading of Faults and Fluids.  The diversity of the watchdogs and other SSEP members was inspiring. The Fluids group reviewed proposals ranging from microbiology to those dealing with seismic hazard in heavily populated regions.  The climate group discussed regional tectonics in order to better justify sediment coring site locations to study the Greenhouse-Icehouse transition. Although the watchdogs on these proposals changed based on expertise, the comments from the surrounding group were consistently insightful and scientific-no matter how distant the topic was from their own academic home.  Before coming to SSEP, I thought of interdisciplinary science as a project that brings scientists of complementary expertise together in an effort to cover the bases.  Now I have seen that the members of SSEP are individually able to think critically across many disciplines.  As Ph.D. students, we boil down our interests to concentrate our abilities into an expertise. Since the glory of the Earth is its diversity, I have always been a mite resistant to getting too boiled down, to the point that I have even felt trapped by my work. I keep thinking ‘What if I don’t want to study Antarctica forever?’. This meeting has reminded me that we are not trapped by our expertise, no matter how specific it may be.  While we are developing that expertise, we are developing the vital skill of critical thinking that translates to all scientific fields and is required of all scientists laboring (out of love) in them. I want to be an interdisciplinary thinker, involved in interdisciplinary projects. That way, the door is open and I won’t feel trapped anymore.

The third day of the SSEP meeting in the spring of 2007 is an experience I will never forget for the rest of my life. Although I have written successful proposals in the past, I never knew how they were evaluated. Sure, anyone can attend numerous workshops on proposal writing, write a proposal, and get it successfully funded as I have. However, it is seldom told exactly how to evaluate a proposal- something I will be asked to do often in the future. While many of my peers took detailed notes on the “do’s and don’ts” of proposal writing, I took detailed notes on how to critically assess a well-written proposal with an interdisciplinary group of scientists- especially on day three when the full panel evaluated all proposals except the Mission Proposals. The vast majority of the proposals presented to the SSEP were well written. But, just because a proposal is well written does NOT mean it gets funded, just as there are many poorly written proposals that are successfully funded. The ability to witness the interpretation of scientific merit from proposals is an experience every graduate student should have just as much as graduate students are taught to critically review papers. On day three I was able to learn techniques to successful evaluations. I now feel better informed about how to work with a panel of other scientists, what questions to look for when evaluating a proposal, and how to stay focused in the discussion of scientific merit.

The session began with the presentation of the final three reports from the Solid Earth category.  These were brief presentations where the individual committees who thoroughly evaluated these proposals presented their findings and their conclusions to the entire panel.  The panel then had the opportunity to place their opinions or add their comments to the final proposal’s outcome.

Afterwards, the “Mission” proposals were introduced and discussed.  What makes a “Mission” proposal is when a group of individual proposals have a common project that can be applied to a necessary, global goal.  The proposal must:

•    Intellectually integrated and coordinated drilling strategy
•    Originates from the Scientific community
•    Addresses a Significant aspect of an IODP science plan theme over an extended period
•    Merits Urgent need promotion in order to achieve overall IODP program goals

Three proposals were introduced during this session:  Monsoon, Moho and the Birth of Oceans.  Although most of the individual proposals grouped in each separate category merited recognition on their own it was concluded that all three proposals did not meet the 1st and 4th points fully.  It was decided not to proceed with all three as “Mission” projects and that they should continue review on an individual status.

The MS PHD’S students then had a chance to briefly state what they had learned from this experience and what they are taking with them as they continue with their future goals.  The response from the members, as before, was very supportive and encouraging.  I believe that the panel enjoyed having the MS PHD’S students as guest and were very eager to offer guidance and direction to us. The nomination for a new panel coordinator took place as the current person will be leaving the program.

Those members who serve on the panel are allowed to do so for a period of three years.  Once their term is complete they are commemorated for all their hard work with a good strong roast.  Such presentations were given by those who knew the seven or so individuals leaving the panel (these were awesome).

Dates and locations were given for the next two meetings.  SSEP will meet in Salles, France on November 2007 and then in 2008 somewhere in Asia where the next MS PHD’S cohort will hopefully meet.  Zhu Nin Hao Yun (Good Luck)!!