People

As I have said before, at-sea work is a collaborative affair. No one does oceanographic measurements alone. In fact, the success of your work likely resides as much in the hands of others as in your own. Your relationships with the other people on board the research vessel - the crew, the technicians and the other scientists - are extremely important. Good relationships can lead to help when you need it, and can help insure a pleasant cruise. Bad relationships can ruin the cruise emotionally and scientifically. The golden rule here is to treat others with respect and professionalism.

Originally this chapter was to be entitled "Personnel", but I changed it for several reasons. Personnel is a rather formal management concept, which I think tends to dehumanize people. As an illustration of modern management thinking, within my laboratory the personnel department has been renamed the "Human Resources Department". To my mind, this was an asinine step backwards, and the people responsible for this nomenclature should have been summarily fired. People are more than just resources to be utilized. On board a cruise, you won't be so much managing personnel, as you will be interacting and working with people. Thus, to emphasize the more personal nature of work at sea, I've renamed this chapter.

Crew Relations

I begin this chapter with a brief discussion of crew relations because although they are critical to any cruise's success, they are usually the most neglected and abused individuals on the ship. I have seen all too many scientists take the attitude that the crew's job is to do exactly what they are told, nothing more and nothing less. This attitude is not one of collaboration or cooperation, but one of power and superiority. After all, we are the mighty scientists. We are the ones bringing in the money to pay for the cruise, and the crew are just the hired hands brought along to do our bidding.

I cannot imagine a more horrible management technique. To see exactly how bad this is, let's turn the tables around for a moment. Suppose a sponsor came to you and offered you just enough research money to support your work. Suppose further, that in order to get this money you had to agree to the sponsor's exact specifications of the research to perform and the methodology to be used. To make matters worse, suppose the sponsor decided that they would move into your office and lab to direct your work and make sure that everything was done properly. Finally, the sponsor monitored your work as you did it; complained loudly if you made any mistakes; and even brought along fellow sponsors, both young and old, to help guide your progress. I know I wouldn't put up with such crap for a minute; I doubt if any self-respecting scientist would. Needless to say, this is basically what we do to the crews on our research vessels every day.

I was on a UNOLS vessel once where the crew initially refused to do anything more than supply a crane operator to deploy and recover buoys. When I asked for more support, such as a deck officer to control the whole operation, I was informed that the crew no longer performed this service. I explained to the crane operator that we had a bunch of novice oceanographers on the cruise and that the lowest member of the crew was likely to know ten times more than any of us did about deployment. He agreed with my assessment, but reiterated the crew's refusal to help. As it turned out, the crew had been berated and criticized for allegedly mishandling instruments on some previous cruises. The crew felt that these criticisms were unjust and had decided to just let all future scientists fend for themselves. After several days of pleading they finally relented and gave us a hand with the more difficult operations.

The sort of crew abuse that led to their unwillingness to lend a hand is all too common. It comes from scientists that don't understand the difficulties of working at sea. It comes from scientists that don't have the first clue as to how to work and get along with other people. And it comes from scientists that care more about their work then about anyone or anything else.

The Crew's Home

Understanding a little of the crew's psychology will help you deal with them. First, the ship is for all intents and purposes the crew's home and you are their guests. The crew spends a lot of time on "their" ship and they do think of it as their home. I can easily understand their feelings as I had similar feelings upon my return from my first two-week cruise. We were busy packing equipment for our offload when the next batch of scientists started moving their equipment and personal effects on board. I couldn't believe how rude these people were coming on to my ship, moving equipment into my lab, and even putting a duffel bag into my state room. It took me a while to recall that I was only a graduate student who had spent all of two weeks at sea on this ship. I had little right to think of anything on this ship as mine. It was only upon reflection that I realized how the crew must feel each time a new group of scientists come on board.

So when you begin an onload, remember to treat the crew with respect. Act as if you are guest coming into their home for the first time. Yes, they are being paid to assist you, but the tone you set during onload may well affect how the crew think of you during the entire cruise.

Privacy

Once the ship has set sail, you must respect the privacy of the crew and everyone else on board. Ships are small confined spaces and most people need some time and space to themselves. You should especially be aware of creating noise and disturbances around the crew's sleeping quarters. Modern research vessels are operated 24 hours a day, so there is always some portion of the crew resting or sleeping. Try to keep the noise in adjacent labs to a minimum and be aware that slamming hatches are particularly bothersome. Due to the confined spaces, most ship's laundries are near someone's bunk, so find out if there are scheduled hours for use of the machines.

Mess Etiquette

Another place that scientists get themselves into trouble is with respect to feeding schedules and seating arrangements. The cooks on board usually have a very full workday providing three or four meals a day for the scientific party and crew. For this reason, the meal schedule is usually quite rigid on board ship. If you are real nice to the cooks and have a real legitimate need to work through a meal, they may be able to bend the rules; but don't abuse the privilege.

Seating in most messes is insufficient to seat everyone at the same time. Thus the rule is to eat and leave, freeing up your seat for someone else. Even if you are the last to eat at a given meal, don't linger after you are done. The cooks need to finish cleaning up before starting the next meal and it will drive them crazy if you hold them up or even if you're just sitting around doing nothing.

The seating in the mess is often segregated with the crew sitting at their own tables or sometimes in a separate mess. If this is the case, respect the crew's wishes and stick to sitting at the tables for the scientists. I always ask a crew member where the scientists should sit and where the Captain sits when I first arrive on a new ship. Believe me when I say that you don't want to begin a cruise by taking the Captain's place at a meal.

And while it usually doesn't bother the crew, I'll include one more point about mess etiquette here. Namely, the strict adherence to a watch schedule would mean that the scientists on a particular watch would regularly miss certain meals. I agreed with one friend's comment that he particularly liked being on the 4-8 watch, so he could see the sunrise and sunset. The major problem with standing this watch is the conflict with breakfast and dinner, which happen to be two of my three favorite meals a day. The solution is for the conflicted watch to eat in shifts, or for someone in another watch to fill in while the nominal watch stander grabs a quick bite. For this reason, those standing watch are usually given priority in the mess. Just be aware that these conflicts exist and be prepared to help all involved work around the problem. Remember, that it may be you that needs some help on the next cruise.

These points about meals are quite important. Meals are a major social event on board ship for the crew, although I doubt if they would think of it in quite those terms. This is a time for them to relax and to catch up with other members of the crew who's jobs may keep them far apart during their watch. The last thing that most crew want to hear are the intense and often incomprehensible ramblings of the scientists.

If you have the privilege of serving on a foreign ship with an open bar, don't assume the alcohol is free! The first time I was on board a Scottish ship, they crew invited me for a drink. After I had finished my work that day, I went to the lounge to find several of the officers relaxing. I asked the first mate how the bar tabs were maintained, inquiring whether I should pay cash or just run up a tab that I could pay off later. His surprise at the question was evident as he explained that I could just pay as I go. I then offered to buy a round of drinks for the few officers in the room. I had a few beers, a pleasant conversation, and thought little more of the incident. Several days later, one of the officers mentioned to me that all of the officers had been impressed with my behavior. He claimed that I was the first scientist that had not just helped himself to the bar, thinking that if it was not under lock and key, it must be free! Scientists had abused the system so frequently that the crew had instituted a special policy allowing new scientists to drink for free the first day. On the second day someone would then sit them down and explain the rules of the bar. The officers were amazed that I would ask about paying before I got a drink and even more amazed that I would offer to buy a round, even though the total cost was just a few dollars. Small things like this create a sense of friendship and mutual respect that can really help out on a cruise.

Including the Crew

Another way that you can work with the crew as a team is to fill them in about your scientific objectives, techniques, equipment, etc. While many crew members won't be interested, you may be surprised at how many are interested and who want to learn. I am not suggesting that you hold mandatory seminars for the crew, but when someone asks a question, take the time to answer it. By encouraging interest in your work and equipment you will be giving the crew more of a stake in the success of your work. I know explaining things takes some time and energy, but your efforts will be rewarded by a crew that is more attentive to your needs and more careful with your equipment.

I once had to make several flights on a U. S. Navy P3 aircraft in support of a small remote sensing experiment. After the orders had been transmitted to the squadron head, I phoned him and offered to arrive a few hours before the first flight to a give a short presentation on what we were doing in the experiment as a whole and how their P3 flights fit into the grand scheme. He was surprised when I suggested that in addition to the officers, the crew be allowed, but not required, to attend. He readily agreed and I ended up giving a half hour briefing on the promises and problems of remote sensing to a packed briefing room. The officers were grateful for the presentation, but what struck me most was that several enlisted men approached me during the flights and thanked me for including them in the briefing. One told me that they had flown missions with other scientists and that I was the first that had taken the time to explain to them the purpose of the research.

Coming down to a more typical altitude for oceanographers, it is important to remember that just about every crew member will have more experience at deck operations than you will. Consult with them regarding your plans for deck operations. Ask their opinion about things and listen to their answers. Act as if they are a member of the team, because they are. When you are discussing your plans with the crew, be sure to seek out the opinions of the deck hands and not just the officers. After all, the deck hands will actually be the ones handling the equipment, not the captain!

My first time in Scotland, I was nervous about the deployment of our wave spar. It is not particularly heavy, but it is awkward and is best deployed in a rather particular way. I talked over the plans for deployment with the bridge crew, but I was aware that the young deck officer who would be in charge of the operation was new to the ship and the maritime service. I was concerned about this, so I sought out the ship's Bos'n, who would actually do the work. That evening, over a couple of beers, I told him about our buoy, about the possible difficulties in putting it into the water and my concerns about how it would go. The Bos'n assured me that he could deploy the buoy without so much as a scratch and spent several minutes going over the procedures with me. The next day, true to the Bos'n's word, the deployment went like clockwork. While the young officer was ill-prepared, the Bos'n had thought the whole operation through rather carefully and did a fine job of directing his crew. I think if I had just left it in the hands of the deck officer, I might have ended up with two short spars instead of one long one.

Sociology of Scientists and Crew

After substantially finishing this section, I came across a fascinating article by H. Russell Bernard and Peter Killworth that appeared in the April 1976 issue of the Marine Technology Society Journal entitled, "Scientists and Mariners at Sea." Dr. Bernard is a sociologist who teamed up with Dr. Killworth, a well known theoretical oceanographer, to study the interactions of scientists and crew at sea. Stories about at-sea strife, friction, and even sabotage, led them to participate in several cruises in order to evaluate the relationships between the scientists and the crew. The picture that they present is in nearly complete agreement with the one I have put forward here in this section.

They do make a strong case that some of the friction present between scientists and crew are due to the differing social classes of the two groups. They point out that on land, scientists and crew would rarely be the types to interact together. Their view is that a certain amount of stress is natural in these relationships. Still, the stories that they relate indicate that in most cases, strife could have been eliminated or at least reduced if the scientific party had treated the crew with a modicum of respect. Their article is well worth reading and I recommend it highly.

Adjustments

This section is called adjustments because it addresses your own behavior on board ship. While the rest of this chapter addresses your relations with others at sea, there are some broad adjustments that you'll have to make in your own habits to successfully work at sea. These aren't hard, but they do take some getting used to.

"Water, water, everywhere, nor any drop to drink," was a famous line from The Rime of Ancient Mariner by Samuel Coleridge. Well that's would it would be like on ships without water distillers, those wonders of modern engineering which make fresh water the old fashioned way, one drop at a time. On most modern research vessels the distillers can produce plenty of water. On other vessels the distillers are smaller and less productive, making water a somewhat precious commodity. In either case, if the distillers break, then serious problems can occur including water rationing and the premature end of an experiment. This information is but a long-winded introduction into the wonderful world of military showers.

Military showers are the preferred mode of bathing on most vessels that I have been on. The idea is simple. You begin by turning on the shower just long enough to wet yourself down. With the shower off, you then lather up and wash. Finally you turn the shower back on just long enough to rinse off. Think of it as a real shower just without the water in the middle. Military showers are required on many ships, so ask before you first wash, and keep the water usage down to a minimum.

In an earlier section, I suggested that your job was to do whatever needed to be done. Well on board ship, that will include cleaning your own quarters. You'll usually be sharing quarters with other people, so you can't just let a mess pile up. Clean sheets are typically issued once a week, usually by the ship's steward or cook. On one cruise I was on, the scientists were even required to take turns cleaning the head.

At the end of each cruise it will be your responsibility to strip all of the laundry from your bunk and return it to the steward. You must clean your room and space, leaving it in the same or better condition then you found it. These are not unreasonable requirements, but please don't tell my wife that I clean at sea, because she could start expecting the same at home.

I told a story above about drinking beer with the crew of a foreign ship in the context of crew relations. If you do find yourself on a foreign vessel, don't abuse the privilege. If you are on a U. S. vessel though, don't even take it along, as alcohol is prohibited on all U. S. research vessels I have ever been on. While I enjoy a cold beer at the end of a hard day as much as the next guy (maybe even more), it really can cause a lot of problems and so it has been banned. Although I shouldn't have to say it, illegal drugs are even more strictly prohibited. If you are caught with drugs on a research vessel you will in all likelihood be prosecuted and your sea-going career will certainly be over. U. S. laws allow for the confiscation of any vessel where drugs are found, including research vessels. Believe it or not, this law has been applied, at least temporarily, depriving one major oceanographic institution of their research vessel for some period of time. If you for one moment think that your value to your organization offsets the possible risk of losing a multi-million dollar research vessel, think again. Drugs aren't worth it. Just don't do it.

Leadership

Once you start going to sea you may aspire to a leadership role, either within your research team, or of the entire scientific crew. The best scientists naturally progress towards the responsibilities of leadership. It is a natural progression because you can only truly control your own work when you are running things. There is also an element of ego involved in wanting to be a leader. Everyone that has been on a few cruises has at one time or another felt that that they could do a better job than the chief scientist. Well I have been a team leader numerous times and have acted as chief scientist on a major cruise, and the first thing I discovered was that it's not easy. Everyone depends on you, looking to you to make all of the decisions. You'll also find that surprisingly you have less freedom to control your work then you did before. This is because you are now responsible for everyone else's work as well as your own. True leadership is very demanding.

The topic of leadership, how to be a good leader, and what pitfalls to avoid, is a massive subject. I can't provide you with all of the answers. Each time I act as team or a cruise leader I become more aware of my own limitations in such roles. I can comment though about the common traits I have observed in others that I consider to be good leaders. I can also warn you of some of the problems that I encounter when I have acted as leader, problems that you should try to avoid.

First and foremost I think leaders need to have the respect of the team. In this context there are two elements to respect: scientific and personal. Scientific respect arises from the team's recognition of the leader's command of the overall problems to be studied on the cruise. To gain scientific leadership you must know your field, you must know your instruments and techniques, and you should attempt to know the work of the others on your team. A cruise leader has the responsibility to learn as much about the other investigators instruments and techniques as possible. Only by knowing the other investigators capabilities and interests can you truly evaluate the competing demands that occur for ship resources and time.

To gain personal respect from people requires that you set a good example for the others, and that you treat everyone as valued contributors to the team. I personally prefer not to act as a strict leader but more as a facilitator. This helps insure the equality of everyone on the team, and makes everyone feel like a contributor. I have found that most, but not all, people respond best to this form of leadership. (I'll admit that I'm still trying to figure out what, beyond strict management, to do with those that don't respond well to responsibility.)

The best leaders I have encountered set a good example for the rest of the team. They work hard, are level headed, and are focused on the success of the cruise. I have been in the field with people who are lazy. Teams quickly lose respect for someone who does not pull their own weight. That doesn't mean that the leader needs to do every job on the ship, but it does mean that the leader should be visibly working hard to insure the success of the cruise. I have been in the field with people who are depressed, excitable, and even manic. Unevenness in a leader tends to destroy the morale of the team because of the inherent irrationality and fear that it causes. People don't work well if they are afraid. Finally, I think a leader needs to appear focused on the success of the cruise. The best time to project such leadership is when things go wrong. If you chose to spend your time trying to assess blame then the members of the team will get the message that the results are not the most important thing. Focusing on the solution sends the message that the results are what are important.

I personally have difficulty with the delegation of responsibility. Most of the time I have no problem supervising a group of well-trained and motivated individuals. Delegation is easy in these situations because I know that the job will nearly always be done right. Still, I check on others work, just as I encourage others to check on mine. I find that a constant dialog between all members of the team, involvement of everyone in decisions and having each job checked by another, builds team confidence and helps cut down on costly errors. I may be the senior member of a cruise, but I have been saved from errors by the most junior members of my team more often than I care to recall.

My problems in delegating responsibility instead stems from those cases where a team member consistently has difficulty in carrying out their assigned tasks. I understand that in these types of situations standard management theory suggests the progressive application of increasingly intrusive management. For example, some experts suggest that you want to progressively make each assigned task simpler while increasing the amount of supervision, until the individual can satisfactorily perform the assigned tasks. Additional training, or teaming the individual with a more capable colleague are also suggested remedies. All of this theory may be fine on land, but with the high costs of ship time I have great difficulty with people who cannot perform their jobs. My typical response to such a situation is to just bypass the person at sea, and to not sail with them again in the future. I have never been satisfied with this solution, but it is the best I have been able to devise. I hope you can devise a better strategy in your work.

I suggested above that a good leader will include others in the decision making process. Nevertheless I'll caution you that a leader must be decisive. A good leader encourages input, weighs the options and then makes a decision. Leaders that can't make decisions are not truly leading.

I recall the planning of one experiment in particular involving a colleague who is, shall we say, decision impaired. I had suggested to him a minor addition to the experiment which was essentially zero cost, but that might yield some interesting results. He asked for a memo detailing my suggestion, which I didn't mind writing. He then had copies of the memo sent to eight separate colleagues at our lab, all of whom he invited to a meeting to discuss my suggestion. When we got to the meeting it became apparent that no one had actually read my memo, so I had to give a presentation on my proposal. Afterwards, the discussion went on for an hour. At the end of the hour, despite the fact that no one had any objections to my proposal, and everyone agreed it involved zero cost and low risk, the experiment leader decided it should be evaluated in more detail by a subcommittee, that was to make a written recommendation to him regarding my proposal. To me the whole exercise wasted several man-days of effort in making a decision that was essentially a no-brainer. In the end, the experiment leader gained a written recommendation that served to clear him if anything went wrong, but at the cost of my respect for him. I'll leave it to you to decide if such a tradeoff is worth making.

In those cases where I am a member of a team, I always remember that the team leader gets to make the decision. As a member I will sometimes argue forcibly for my beliefs and views, but unless it is a matter of safety, I will in the end respect and support the decision of the leader. This is an important lesson to take to heart when the chief scientist on the cruise makes a decision against your research interests. Just remember that in doing so they are trying to balance the competing interests of others and that in the end someone has to make these decisions.

The final key to leadership is communications with others. The rest of the team, and likely the crew, need to know what you expect of them at all times. They also need to know what is going on with the cruise as a whole and in particular with the team's work. The team needs to know what decisions are being made and why. This takes more time than you can imagine, but it is a necessity. Chief scientists that stay in their cabin and interact with just the captain and one or two other scientists reduce the efficiency of the entire team. Team leaders need to communicate the rest of the team on a continuing basis.

On one international cruise where I was acting as the U. S. chief scientist I was so busy that I started neglecting to fully brief my colleagues on exactly what was happening. Several of my colleagues got angry with me, accusing me of purposely withholding information from them to cut them out of the decision making process. I didn't view my error in quite so dramatic terms, but in the information vacuum that I had created, these colleagues were left to imagine and create some framework for my behavior. The simpler explanation of my being too busy was rejected in favor of a more active and belligerent explanation. After all, they reasoned, what is more important on a cruise than to provide the scientists with sufficient information to do their work? I now realize that they were right. A leader must communicate with his team.

Finally, on this topic of leadership I'll say a few confessional words about our expectations of others. It is a fact that we judge the behavior of others, not by some explicit set of rules, but against our own expectations. Personally, my expectations of others, varies widely from a rather high standard for those who I work with regularly to a lower standard for people I don't know. The fact that others are judged by our own standards and the fact that our standards and expectations differ from individual to individual is often overlooked in this day of rationalism and scientific certainty. I think it especially easy for scientists to fall into the trap of thinking that everyone should behave as they do. I know it has been easy for me to fall into this trap myself.

Here I am writing a book about the conduct of oceanographic experiments wherein I express an opinion about just about every aspect of working at sea. As a theoretician might study the Navier-Stokes equations, I have studied what makes for a successful oceanographic experiment. Although some will think it an immodest comment, I am reasonably good at what I do. Unfortunately, from this rather arrogant viewpoint I have sometimes made the mistake in assuming that all of my close colleagues uphold the same expectations of themselves as I do. Don't get me wrong, I think the people I work with on a day to day basis are some of the best researchers I know. It is just that at times my expectations for their behavior have been unrealistically high. For example, I have caused unnecessary friction by assuming that a colleague, who is responsible for an agreed-upon set of instruments, has taken the time to learn about someone else's instruments just because he'll be at sea with them. When I found out differently, I was upset and an argument ensued. In retrospect I have come to understand that this wasn't my colleague's shortcoming, but mine.

As you gain in experience, you must keep in mind that the experiences of others will necessarily differ from yours. I think it best to keep high expectations for your self, but to be realistic about what to expect from others. It is far better to be occasionally surprised by someone exceeding your expectations than it is to be continually disappointed by others failing to meet your expectations.

Other Scientists

Because of the expense of ship time, you will typically be working on a cruise with other groups of scientists. This means that you have to find ways to cooperate with these other scientists. This is important not only to insure that you get your data opportunities on a cruise, but may also be important for the post-test collaborations that may result. In the end, every scientist is judged by their peers for the work they do. These judgments are not cold and dispassionate, but are heavily influenced by how well you get along with others.

Let's face it: many good scientists have big egos. I sometimes think it is the price that we pay for being good at what we do. At the same time, many scientists are competitive and some are downright antisocial. (I just love broad generalities, don't you.) There are times when putting a group of scientists into the confined space of a ship for several weeks does not seem like the smartest of ideas.

If you find yourself on a cruise with a bunch of egos, it is important to be aware of the possible difficulties, and to make the best of each situation. I have found that if you treat people with respect, they will respect you, even when they disagree with you. When the chief scientist makes a decision that is contrary to my point of view, I understand that it is nothing personal, and I move on. I try to be careful about not denigrating other scientist's work on board a ship, even if I think they're dumber than a stump. I have not always been so careful and the results can be disastrous. Remember, there are no secrets on a ship, so if you put someone down, everyone will know it.

On one cruise, I went to sea with a scientist who didn't understand his instrument, had not properly checked it out, who tried to take credit for other's work, and who knew virtually nothing about oceanography. This guy was, and still is, an absolute idiot. One day on board ship, in an incident that to this day I regret, I blew up and told him exactly what I thought of him. In this case, everyone else on board happened to agree with me, so there were almost no visible repercussions. Still, I have never felt that what I did was right. It is non-professional to allow personal feelings to interfere with your work. I can think of almost no circumstances where chewing out someone at sea will actually do anything to further the objectives of the cruise. It will usually do just the opposite and create friction and strains within the team and crew. Instead of blowing up at this person at sea, I should have been more patient. I should have tried to make the best of the situation by helping out wherever I could, and then, once we had gotten back to dry land, I could have yelled at him. After all, while I never again have to go to sea with this scientist, and I use the term loosely, I did have to finish the cruise with him. Try not to make the same mistake that I did.

Another thing that I do to aid my relationship with my colleagues on ship is to try to help them with their work whenever possible. My rule is to get my work done first, but if I have prepared well then there is usually plenty of free time. If I spend this time helping others with their equipment, their deployments, their problems, then everyone benefits. The sponsor is happy because the experiment may be slightly more successful. The scientist that I help is grateful. And I have spent my time productively and have usually learned more in the process than if I had watched videos in the lounge. I like going to sea with people that are willing to help others, and have a strong aversion to working with those that are only interested in their own work. This is only natural. You have the power to decide which type of scientist you will be. Remember, though to get your own work done first.

I have just presented my plea for cooperation on cruises. Now I'll present a little warning. At sea, you will often have to rely on data products from the ship or other scientists. On a recent cruise for example, one group made wave measurements, one group atmospheric measurements, and I recorded currents and navigation data. In this case, I had to rely on the other groups to do their jobs in order to obtain data critical for my research. On this particular cruise things went well, but my advice is to rely on others with caution. There are too many scientists in the world that place undue faith in the accuracy of their instruments. There are too many ways that measurements can go wrong for me to trust others blindly. After all, I typically don't trust my own measurements until I have worked with them for some period of time, so why I should I trust someone else's measurements, especially if that person is not as careful as me.

Matters are even worse if you must rely on measurements made from the ship's instruments. Newcomers may find this hard to believe, but even on our best research vessels, it is hard to find any instruments that can be trusted. On a recent UNOLS cruise, I discovered a several minute error in the ship's navigation data when compared with data I had recorded. It turned out to be a software bug in the ship's data acquisition system that added exactly 3, 4, or 5 minutes to the recorded time; the offset being dependent on some odd confluence of conditions which occurred at the system boot time.

On a German research platform I was once on, I went to read the wind speed and direction from the official platform wind display. A few minutes later I went outside and realized that the wind was blowing from the North but that the display had indicated a wind from the South (180°). After some investigating we discovered that the platform's meteorological system averaged the direction data before it was recorded and that the average of an anemometer which is swinging between 355° and 5° is close to 180°. Amazingly the investigators responsible for this system told me that they had an algorithm for removing the errors introduced by this averaging. It has been several years since the end of that experiment and I am still awaiting the details of this miraculous algorithm.

I could go on and on and on. Ships' instruments are rarely calibrated and are rarely to be believed. You may in fact wonder, if things are so bad, what are you to do. My best advice is to double check the people and instruments that you are relying on. I sometimes annoy other scientists with my persistent questions about calibrations, timing, instrument biases, and data recording and analysis algorithms. But it is only by asking lots of questions and carefully evaluating the responses that I can come to a decision about whether to trust a particular data stream. In deciding to trust a data stream I am choosing to trust the instrument, its recording system, and typically the analysis of the scientist responsible for that instrument. I have to be convinced that all is in order before I use someone else's data.

One solution is to acquire duplicate data. This is usually a good idea in any case, because the redundancy acts as a check on each system. Still this is not always practical. In these cases, pick the people you work with carefully, and ask lots of questions.

Women at Sea

I just know that I'm going to get into some problems with feminists over this section, but there are some things that I believe need to be said. First let me clearly state that women at sea are not a problem. While women oceanographers are unfortunately rare in our society, I have never been to sea with a woman who has acted in any way but professionally.

In my mind the problem is not the women, but it is the men. More specifically, the problem is with a very few men that see women at sea as more than just professional colleagues. (Now I'm probably in trouble with members of the men's movement.) This shouldn't be a problem, but it is, and so I am writing this section as a friendly warning to those men who view the opportunity of working with women on board a ship in something other than a professional way.

There are two distinct types of problem men at sea, men that go looking for trouble and those that don't, but find it anyway. I have worked with a few lecherous, Neanderthal oceanographers in my days, who feel that it is acceptable to hit upon whatever women they might come across. Other than avoidance or prosecution, I know of no way to discourage such men from their onerous behavior. Luckily, I think such men are becoming rarer.

The larger problem are those otherwise good men that get themselves entangled in shipboard romances. I realize that a shipboard romance requires two people, but it has been my observation that men are usually the aggressors in these situations. It is interesting to note that the remoteness and confinement of a ship cruise where you are forced to work side by side with members of the opposite sex can be somewhat intoxicating. The romantic aspects of sea cruises, which I have already noted, tend to heighten some people's attraction to members of the opposite sex. Lest you believe that I am exaggerating the psychological significance of these effects, let me point out that the spouses of oceanographers at Woods Hole once put out a booklet on shipboard romances. This booklet was placed in each cabin of the WHOI research vessels to remind the oceanographers of the traps that awaited them at sea and the possible repercussions of illicit romances to their lives on land. Another indication of the problem can be found in A Manual for Seagoing Scientists, a brief introduction to working at sea that arose from a special Women on Ships committee at Scripps. Over two pages of this 25-page manual are devoted to a discussion of at-sea interpersonal relations and sexual harassment.

I won't get into a discussion of the morality of shipboard romances. That I think is best left to each individual's conscience. Besides which, unless one or both of the individuals are married, most people today have no moral problem in two consenting single adults entering into a relationship. Despite the laxness of post-industrial sexual mores (I'm not sure quite what that means, but it definitely sounds cool), relationships on board ship are not professional and inevitably lead to problems.

First, I have seen adult men quarrel at sea over the favor of a woman. This is ridiculous. We go to sea to work, and in fact large sums of money are invested in that work. Working at sea is difficult enough without interjecting romantic conflicts and competitions into the mix. Even when men don't overtly quarrel there is a certain competitiveness in many men that is enhanced when someone else is involved in a romantic relationship. You'll find people commenting about the relationship, telling jokes, and denigrating the individuals that are romantically involved. This hurts team work and the cohesion of the group that is so vital for success at sea.

Second, people who are infatuated will often not work at their full potential. I have seen cases where scientists overslept their shifts because of their late night activities with members of the opposite sex. Again, in my view we were put on the ship to work, not to fool around. I admit to being rather spartan in my views but I am against anything that decreases the efficiency of the cruise.

Third, think about how shipboard romances affect the ship's crew. From experience, I can tell you that the crew doesn't think much of the scientists involved. The crew on a research vessel works hard to support the scientists. When they see two people carrying on a relationship they come to the conclusion that the science is not the most important thing to those people. And why shouldn't they think that?

Finally, shipboard romances are simply not professional. Over the years I have been amazed at the stories that I hear about people fooling around on sea cruises, cheating on their spouses, and lying to their colleagues to cover it up. There are no secrets on a ship. Furthermore these stories never seem to die. Humans as a whole are a gossipy bunch (for example, see most of the stories in this book!). Once these stories begin, they have a life of their own. It seems to me that a married man who fools around on a ship need not worry too much about his wife finding out, but should instead be worrying about what his colleagues think of him.

If after reading this section, you still desire a romance at sea, pay for a trip on a cruise ship. Research vessels should not be the Love Boat.