"...only limited by imagination." An interview with Kevin Zelnio

I had the good fortune of meeting Kevin Zelnio a couple of months ago (pictured right sorting critters). He's a graduate student in Penn State's biology program doing research on hydrothermal vents and an avid blogger at The Other 95% (a blog on invertebrates) and at Deep Sea News where he and two other nuts keep up on new marine biology research. As someone who works with evolution every day, I asked him for an interview and he agreed. Here it is.

---

Forms Most Beautiful: Kevin, thanks for answering some questions on Forms. You do deep sea biology, specifically related to life around hydrothermal vents. How'd you get into that?

Kevin Zelnio: It’s my pleasure to be here! That's a good question and I'm not quite sure how I got into that myself. It sort of "evolved.” I think it was a natural fit for me. I grew watching Jules Verne's classic 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea religiously. My favorite scenes are when they get into their dive suits and go out into the ocean and the giant squid attack of course! I am also a nature film and Discovery Channel junkie. Starting in the mid-90s my family and I went on many several snorkel trips. I was blown away by the Great Barrier Reef and Hawai'i. I think this is the point where I got very interested in marine biology and taxonomy. I had to know the names of every creature I could find! So my dad and I sat down with glossy field guides and tried to find all the fish and invertebrates that were on the list, like my favorite Humuhumunukunukuapua'a.

During my undergraduate studies at the University of California at Davis I participated in a seminar course in the geology department on hydrothermal vents. One of those interesting little 1-unit classes you know. The two geology professors organizing the seminar were invited on a primarily biological cruise headed by the Field Museum in Chicago. Someone got injured before the cruise and a spot opened up for an undergraduate slave. They knew I was a biologist (my major was Evolution and Ecology, but I took many classes in Geology - two classes away from a double major) with an interest in geology. So they made me a deal I couldn't refuse! I helped them operate the TowCam (a camera and sensor array that is towed behind the ship on several miles of cable) during the "3rd shift" and helped out with the biologists as needed. In exchange, they paid my expenses for the trip and gave me a berth on the ship! A student and postdoctoral researcher from my current lab were on that cruise. It was a little over four weeks long so we all got quite close. They encouraged to apply to grad school with their advisor and now I am finishing a masters studying the animals and ecology of hydrothermal vent communities in the southwestern Pacific. It is an amazing field to be in, but a very tough environment.

FMB: What's it like working in those depths? In so many underwater documentaries – cue the Jacques Cousteau voiceover – narrators love to compare the deep to a science fiction world. Is that your experience?

KZ: You are very limited by tons of factors. If you are in a manned submersible like the DSV Alvin (pictured right from Woods Hole. Kevin in Alvin below), you need to get everything done before the batteries die, a maximum daily working time of about eight hours. You also can't overload your sub with samples or you can't float back up to the surface! So everything has to be very carefully planned out and maximized to make the most out of every dive.

But shit hits the fan all the time. A storm comes that lays everyone out in the bunks for a day. That’s a whole day's funded work lost. On my first dive we lost a water sampler at the surface as we were entering the sea. We spent an hour of our precious dive time searching for it to no avail. They found it a year later. A good thing since they are about 10K a piece! You are also limited by ship time and availability. It’s expensive to operate a research vessel and sub.

The deep sea is an absolutely an alien world. Anything can be down there, which is part of the reward for all the hard work. Nearly every dive brings back something new and interesting, whether it’s a new species, a weird looking rock, or video of some behaviors never seen like vent shrimp mating.

I like to compare my first ever dive in a sub to the classic moon landing: it’s complete darkness except for the occasional splash of bioluminescence. The sub pilot turns on the lights as approach the seafloor and the ground is absolutely barren, lifeless where we happened to land. Our sub gently touches bottom and kicks up some of this deep-sea "moon dust." After a short time we start to signs of life though. The cool thing is that this is all real; its not sci-fi. Truth is absolutely stranger fiction.

FMB: What's the coolest thing you've ever seen?

KZ: I did my thesis work in the Lau Basin which is between Fiji and Tonga in the southwestern Pacific (pictured below with scaleworms). Our lab tech and I built these sampling devices to collect an intact subsample of a whole community. It is designed to leave behind a steel ring so we can judge whether we collected a quantitative sample or not. The first time we used this, outside of a few tests that is, we collected our sample and stowed it on the sub. We looked into the ring and dozens upon dozens of crabs were coming from meters around us scurrying to where we took the sample. They must have sensed there were damaged snails or something. But it was really creepy. They appeared out of nowhere and were fighting with each other…climbing over each other to get inside the rings! That was pretty cool. But everything down there is way cool, like seeing a black smoker hydrothermal vent, fields of beautiful anemones as far as the eye can see, swaying their tentacles in the currents – all the worms, crustaceans, snails, and other creatures. Each is so unique and so little is known about them all.

FMB: You recently wrote a piece in SEED on why you love to do science. Without giving too much away, can you tell us what gets you up?

KZ: Its really about the sense of adventure, but keeping it in context. You still have to lots of work. Its far from glamorous. But for those with a natural curiosity, a stomach for rough seas and a hard-working personality its great fun! The article is now up at SEED Magazine's website (follow this link).

FMB: Your piece is nicely written and I know from reading your two blogs – Deep Sea News and The Other 95% (see above links) – that you are drawn to science writing. What draws you to it?

KZ: I really enjoy writing about science. To steal a line from one my science writer/blogger gurus, Ed Yong of the fabulous Not Exactly Rocket Science blog, it brings me closer to science than the lab work and data analysis. Don't get me wrong, that stuff is extremely important, but writing about other people's research helps me understand it better and appreciate it more.

FMB: What keeps so many scientists away from communication? Lab hours? Stage fright? Geeky dispositions? I know a geneticist who says that it's practically a congenital disorder among scientists.

KZ: It’s hard to say. I think it lots of cases there is a culture that teaches young scientists that it is a waste of time. Your time is better-spent writing grants and papers. That is what gets you jobs. Sure, after working all morning, day and night most scientists don't want to go home and then write about science for free or for few readers whom they do no know. There is no reward structure for communication. Many funding agencies have requirements for "broader impacts", but a lot of it BS. Some well-known scientists have excellent programs in place. I'm lucky enough to have an advisor who supports communication to a certain degree. He definitely doesn't approve of me blogging, but we do tours and talks for teachers and grade school students, I judge science fairs, that sort of thing.

One huge problem: there is no training for communicating science in grad school! Going back to the science culture thing: communication is not the scientist's job, it’s the journalists. But it has been pointed out time and again by several astute scientists and bloggers that many journalists (with notable exceptions like Carl Zimmer) just lack the understanding needed to accurately convey the basic concepts or ideas behind all the fascinating research being done. If scientists are trained, even a little bit, as part of their graduate program in science communication and journalism, it would not only improve their ability to communicate but prepare them better for alternative careers in science. Let’s face it: faculty jobs are just plain rare in the grand scheme of things.

FMB: I know that you've noted on The Other 95% that you and some of your colleagues felt ill-prepared by high school science classes for college-level science. I take that you mean even the most basic college science classes like Penn State's Bio 110: Introductory Biology and its equivalents at other universities. What should be done about that? Is there something that you'd like to see in either teacher training or in policy that would make a difference?

KZ: First let me explain that I never had an interest in science during high school and was determined to become a rockstar or a chef. I only took Basic Science (got a C) and Chemistry (barely passed with a D) in high school. My math background was at basic Algebra and had to start completely over at community colleges in California. Luckily, at the time the California community college system was practically free for me. When I learned about science, I was instantly hooked. I devoured as much of it as I could. But my mindset was completely different. I was learning because I wanted to, not because I had to.

You just have to get the kids interested in wanting to learn science. It’s taught so pedantically in high school. Memorize this vocabulary. Learn this name and their theory. Derive that equation. Hands-on science makes a difference.

Learning needs to be interactive and relevant to students’ everyday lives. It’s been over 10 years since I was in high school and I am out of touch with the way things are done now. But during my time teachers felt afraid to make learning fun. I would like to see science teachers with science backgrounds, give them the flexibility to teach classes in novel ways that excite them and their students, give them the incentive to care. In other words, pay them what they deserve for the amount of work and time that goes into teaching grade school. The most important years of learning – remember not everyone goes to college – are wasted in a prison-like environment meant to keep children contained and behaved. Treat students like individuals, let them discover the concepts at their pace and they will flourish.

FMB: You have to deal with evolution all the time as someone working in biology. Can you tell us what your first powerful encounter with evolution was and how it moved you?

KZ: My intro biology teacher at Monterey Peninsula College, Dr. D, made the principles of evolution very clear in his lectures. His year-long class was probably the first time I really thought in depth about evolution. It certainly hit me though in community college.

The diversity of life astounded me. I frequently checked out websites to know how many species there were of whatever group of organisms. I was immediately drawn into study of the invertebrates because of their immense diversity. I started asking questions – the natural history type of questions not real hypotheses – about how there could be so many different types of organisms and how well-adapted they were to their lifestyles. Morphology always fascinated me. My favorite examples of evolution usually involve symbiotic interactions, especially critters living on other critters. Natural selection made so much sense to me though. Now that I've been learning about evolution for several years, I know that natural selection is one of but several ways animals can evolve. Evolution brings a lifetime of intellectual stimulation because it opens up so many doors of inquiry.

FMB: What role should evolution play in science education in general and biology in particular?

KZ: This is a no-brainer. Evolution should play a critical role in biological education. It forms a central foundation that explains so much. I would like to see more biology courses organized around evolution. It shouldn't be a chapter or module, but should be a recurring theme to one-back to every day of a biology course. As for biology in particular, I fail to see how anyone can call themselves a biologist and not study evolution to some degree, even if it’s only in your broader thinking.

FMB: Do you think that conveying the reality of evolution to the public – not in schools – needs to be couched in seductive terms? Lawrence Krauss talks about seduction. Chris Mooney and co. are into "framing." Ken Miller and Eugenie Scott both seem to engage in a kind of Gould-esque Non-Overlapping Magisteria (NOMA) argument. PZ Myers, Dawkins, and Larry Moran take a no-holds-barred approach and accuse the Miller and Mooney cohorts of being the Neville Chamberlains of evolution advocacy. How do you think this should be handled? What role can blogs play in this and how do you think it's going?

KZ: The beautiful thing about evolution is that is doesn't need to be "framed.” No excuses need to be made for it and it is seductive in and of itself without any manipulation.

It is such a beautiful concept with such amazing explanatory power that all you need to do is understand it. Sometimes I feel students are trying too hard to memorize the arguments. The light bulb went off for me in my undergraduate years when I started thinking of how evolution applies to real-life problems ranging from pollination, infectious diseases, antimicrobial resistance, human traits like eye color, and agriculture. The examples are endless and only limited by imagination.

I see one of the keys being that those who are talking about evolution to the public need to be confident that they understand it. The creationists have nothing: no arguments, no data, no analyses. They have already lost. This is why their tactics are so inflammatory in my opinion. When you have nothing, you attack the scientist as an individual or nitpick on grammar and irrelevant inconsistencies. It’s very tiring. But if you go in with confidence and know you shit, you don't even have to know the standard creationist arguments, you'll pwn them to moon. Its not hard, just tiring because you'll never convince them of anything. But at the same time you can't let it slide. Because other people may be listening that don't know enough and can be swayed by pseudoscientific arguments.

Scientists sometimes forget they are educations, I believe this extends beyond the classroom. I think this is where I agree with Dawkins and PZ Myers, but sometimes I feel they have a bit too much of an elitist attitude. I respect what they have done for biology, evolution, and science communication tremendously though, but you have to be able to relate the science to the average person without coming off like a jerk. PZ and Dawkins usually do this with science. I think they get their bad rep from the atheist rants more than the science.

I think having so many evolutionary-minded bloggers out there is great. We need to make evolution seem like it is just normal everyday scientific work, ‘cause it actually is. The more people who are out there discussing the latest research in evolution, the more it appears normal. I don't believe in framing for a variety reasons, but mostly because it is not a novel tactic though Nisbet and Mooney seem to like to think they created this a "tool" for biology.

Everyone presents their research or ideas differently depending on the audience. I certainly wouldn't use latin names of species around my parents, for instance. So it is disingenuous of them (Nisbet and Mooney), but at the same time they opened up a lot of debate that I know many blog readers found very useful and enlightening – even if they are wrong.

As for how I think its going? I am an optimist by nature so I think its going great! I love to see undergraduates feel inspired enough in their studies to get out there, start a blog and dive into research. I am very impressed by Brian Switek of Laelaps and Anne-Marie Hodge of Pondering Pikaia. They are several more in blog reader that are certainly up and coming!

FMB: Do you think that the findings of modern science –from evolutionary biology to Big Bang cosmology – are compatible with religious faith? Are science and religion NOMA or is there a real conflict?

KZ:I view religion and faith and the lack thereof all very personal experiences. Each person has a different interpretation of the world. I cannot see why religion has to impose a certain view on everyone. Some sects of a religion have no problem with evolution or Big Bang theories. Some view it as the end of times.

If religious authorities just butted out of people's lives we might be breathing a little easier. But the fact is the Magisterium has ruled with an iron fist for thousands of years in form or another and likes being in charge. Religion is all about power and subordination.

I have my own reasons for being an athiest. I live a very full life without belief and with science. I think most people would. It’s like having the weight of the world's gripes lifted off your shoulders. Sadly, some people need to believe in something just to get through their day. I've always found it curious that many faithful people do not see a conflict with science, while others see science and faith as opposed. I find it more curious that those so opposed to evolution eat food and use medicine, both of which are significantly derived products evolution. I'm happy to provide examples if any readers disagree.

Science and religion are "non-overlapping magisterial,” (NOMA) but to me religion is irrelevant to anything meaningful. The only reason I consider it at all is because it rears its ugly head in everywhere, forcing you to pay attention to it. They force this non-existent conflict because of their own insecurities with the inconsistencies of their texts and preachings. When something doesn't work, you scrap it and move on. Instead religious leaders try to manipulate the world around them into their twisted, and failed, belief structure.

FMB: I deal with the intelligent design/creationist racket a lot. Why is what you do science and why is what the ID and creationist lot do not science?

KZ: Science is journey of discovery that standardized around a certain procedure of hypothesis testing and is OK with failures. Creationism – let’s call it what it is – generates no testable hypotheses, has no explanatory power, and makes no predictions. It fails as observational or descriptive as well because you can generate testable, fallible hypotheses from your observations and descriptions. This is why taxonomy is science. Though it is very descriptive and observational, you end up with a hypothesis about the organism that can be later refuted or supported with further evidence.

FMB: Did you see Expelled? If so, what did you think?

KZ: I did not see it.

FMB: You’re lucky. It was awful.

You have a few arm tattoos. As a tattooed person myself, I wonder what each they are. Do you have plans on getting more? I hope to one day get either the progression from the ape to modern man on my back and/or a deinonychus running up my leg.

KZ: I love tattoos. On my left arm is a a fire and water dragon intertwined around my arm above my elbow. Above it is a face of snarling mean ole wolf breaking out of my skin, a holdover from my teen days. The Chinese character for wolf is above it on my shoulder. The right shoulder has the Chinese character for Sheep. It was the year I was born in and my astrological sign (Aries, not that I believe in astrology). On the right arm below the character is a large Celtic knotwork armband with the biohazard symbol in the middle. My back has a male and female tiger squaring off in a ying yang style design, with the Chinese character for song or harmony in the center. I do plan on getting more. I described a new species of shrimp form hydrothermal vents. When the paper gets published I will get it tattooed on my calf I think. I also have 4 anemone descriptions. Thinking of getting them tattooed tentacle holding onto tentacle in a band around my other calf. We'll see.

FMB: Any closing thoughts or plugs for your future employment you'd like to do? Go for it.

KZ: Actually, I just found recently that I got a job at Duke University's Marine Lab. I am very excited, but I'll post more about it on my blog in the next week or two. Also, everyone should keep tuned to Deep Sea News, we'll have some major announcements in August (hopefully). I am always interested in more writing opportunities outside of my blog. Contact me if you are interested! Thanks for having me here Peter, you can buy me my next Macchiatto at Websters ;)

FMB: Thanks a lot Kevin. Vive la evolucion!