On matters of mud, media, and making discoveries: A Q&A with Dr. John Smol

In 1980, as a PhD student, John Smol published his first paper in Canadian Science Publishing (CSP)’s journal portfolio. The topic? Using fossil algae from sediment cores as indicators of environmental change.

Fast-forward 40 years and Dr. John Smol, Editor-in-Chief at Environmental Reviews, still uses sediment cores in this way. As a Distinguished University Professor at Queen’s University in Canada, Dr. Smol co-leads the PEARL group, whose research has identified responses of algae to a myriad of anthropogenic factors ranging from climate change and land use in the Arctic to the application of road salt.

His scientific contributions and service to the global aquatic science community have been recognized with numerous prestigious accolades; most recently, Dr. Smol received the Order of Ontario.

When not in the lab or field, Dr. Smol advocates for discovery research and science literacy and communication.

We asked Dr. Smol about his multifaceted career.

You’re passionate about microscopic organisms in mud—specifically, algae. What makes algae good indicators of environmental change?

Algae are microscopic, primary photosynthetic organisms that thrive mainly in water—both freshwater and marine. They form the bases of many food chains. There are thousands of species, and each has its own ecological optima and tolerances—by which I mean some thrive in acid waters, whereas other species thrive in alkaline waters, and then certain species bloom in polluted waters, whilst others can only survive in clean waters. Meanwhile, some can survive in lakes with lots of ice, and others thrive in warmer conditions, and so forth. Since we can quantify the ecological preferences of different species, we can use this information to reconstruct past environmental conditions from the subfossil algae preserved in dated sediment cores. But, in addition to algae, sediments also archive many other types of indicators of past conditions, so we can reconstruct a wide spectrum of environmental changes.

Earlier this year, you told CBC reporter Dan Taekema, “Every lake has a history book at the bottom.” How have you seen this evidenced in your research?

Since lakes slowly fill with sediment over time, we can recover cores from the lake bottoms and use approaches to determine the ages of different layers. This allows us to reconstruct how a lake has changed over decades, centuries, and even millennia. Perhaps the biggest problem with environmental research is the problem of time—we don’t have monitoring data of sufficient length to determine if lakes are changing and, if so, what is the cause. I recently did an analysis of this and found that most aquatic monitoring studies were less than one year in duration, and the vast majority were under three years in duration. That is typically not enough time to determine why a lake is changing and if so, whether these changes are due to natural or human factors. Paleolimnology, the study of lake histories, can answer these questions.

From time machines to milkshakes, you describe your research to journalists in compelling ways. What is your advice for academics when communicating with the press?

Scientists do a pretty good job of communicating their research to other scientists but not necessarily to politicians, policymakers, and the public at large. If we want others to appreciate what we do as scientists, we have to find better ways to communicate our findings more effectively. Some of this is straightforward – like not using jargon and instead explaining the details of our work more as a story than a scientific paper. I am not saying to “dumb it down” but explaining it in a way that is accessible. The same way that, for example, an economist might try to explain some new ideas on finance to me—the way these concepts would be explained to a group of PhD-level economists may not be the best tactic for trying to explain it to me! But, if I am interested in the answer, then that is a first major step in making progress. Studies show people are very interested in science, but don’t feel they have access to clear explanations. We can do a better job.

In your 2018 editorial in FACETS on engaging with the public, you expressed that “We [as academic scientists] must do a better job of communicating the results of our research.” What progress in this call-to-action have you observed? What still needs to happen?

There has been progress, although not enough. In many universities, for example, there are courses available for students on effective communication. Many universities and other institutes now have communication departments whose main goal is “to get the message out.” Many funding agencies, like the Tri-Council, even have sections on grant applications to discuss your strategies for knowledge transfer, once again reinforcing that this is important. So yes, I think that we are doing a better job, but we can do an even better job. Frankly, it is in our best interests to do this as the public, by and large, pays for the research we do in universities and elsewhere. They have a right to know what we do, and if they knew more about what we did and why, it can only help efforts to support this research in the future.

Interdisciplinarity and inclusivity are increasingly being recognized as critical to scientific research. There’s an entire chapter dedicated to this in the latest edition of Wetzel’s Limnology, which you co-edited. How do you see each of these shaping the future of limnology?

Different perspectives from different disciplines and regions can only strengthen scientific interpretations, and limnological studies are no exception. This new limnology textbook has authors from all six inhabited continents, emphasizing that different regions have different water issues. Many earlier textbooks tended to focus on North America and/or Western Europe, but we are now dealing with many global issues, like climate change. These require global perspectives.

You were recently honoured by the Royal Society of Canada (RSC) with your 4^th RSC medal, this time the Sir William Dawson Medal for sustained excellence in two domains (biology and geology in your case). We’re increasingly seeing interdisciplinary research published among CSP journals. How can publishers and journals help support interdisciplinary researchers?

I believe fostering interdisciplinary research is key to finding evidence-based solutions to all sorts of scientific issues. For example, in the environmental field we have complex problems and so they will require complex solutions, and complex solutions need input from different disciplines. I see a lot of journals evolving more and more into interdisciplinary areas—and this is a positive sign—but it also poses some challenges. For example, as editor of Environmental Reviews, there are already challenges in acquiring timely comments from referees. The task is even harder when you have interdisciplinary papers that need expertise from even more referees to ensure that the various subjects in the paper are being assessed properly. The end product, however, is often worth the effort.

Collaborative research with Indigenous Knowledge Holders is highlighted in parts of your recent book, Lakes in the Anthropocene: Reflections on Tracking Ecosystem Change in the Arctic. Can you tell us more about these collaborations? Why is engaging with local knowledge and perspectives necessary for understanding changes in Arctic lakes?

Many Indigenous peoples have lived closely associated with the land and water and have been observing changes in their local environments for decades, even though many of these observations are not written down. It would seem logical that those living closest to the land would understand local conditions well and can provide key information about how the environment is changing. Importantly, often these sources of information are the only direct observations available. There is now rich documentation showing how these types of data are being used to better understand environmental change and help predict future conditions. We have developed several such Indigenous partnerships which are proving to be highly successful and informative collaborations.

You recently discussed with the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) how discovery research is needed to mitigate outcomes of global environmental change. What barriers exist for strengthening discovery research programs in Canada, and what are potential solutions to these barriers? What are the cascading effects of these barriers on students and early-career researchers?

There seems to be a growing trend in this country, and perhaps it is even worse elsewhere, that funding is being directed more to so-called “applied issues”—basically short-term projects with a clear deliverable. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this type of research and funding, but what is key is that this directed research is completely dependent on a foundation of basic research. In the NSERC interview, I was asked to talk about my work using paleolimnology to show some of the earliest effects of human-induced climate change in the High Arctic, and how people seem to remember the 1994 Science paper. What people tend to forget was the 11 years of foundational, discovery research (such as the basic limnology of High Arctic lakes and ponds and the taxonomy and ecology of the algae and other organisms that lived in these aquatic environments) that we had to do prior to reaching the conclusions we made in the 1994 Science paper. Politicians tend to focus on the end-products of directed research and seem reluctant to appreciate (and fund) the foundational research it’s based on. I see research as a pyramid: applied research is the small part on top of the pyramid, supported by a large foundation of fundamental research below it. You can’t have applied research products without foundational research, and I would argue that Canada, being a G-7 country, should play a bigger role in funding fundamental research.

Your research has revealed environmental transformations. As an editor with Canadian Science Publishing, you’re part of our transformation into an open access publisher. Why do you think Open Science practices, such as open access to publications or open data, are important for discovery and applied research?

The products of our research, which are primarily scientific papers, should be available to everyone. For democracies to function effectively, we need an open exchange of ideas and information. I suspect very few will argue against this statement. Of course, the challenge is “who pays?” While many funding agencies encourage or even require open access, they seem less enthusiastic about paying for it!

During a recent call we had, your grandchild gleefully arrived at your home for a visit. When you consider future generations on a future Earth, how do you think scientific outputs of paleolimnology will help us achieve environmental sustainability?

The first step in dealing with any environmental problem is to show that in fact we have an environmental problem. Many industries linked to different types of pollutants can be very creative in suggesting alternative explanations for environmental change! We live in a multiple-stressor world, but paleolimnology can play a clear role in showing how ecosystems have changed with human impacts. History is not just re-telling of the past—it provides context for the present. History tells us where we were and where we may be going. The past can encourage us, but it can also warn us. If we care about our children and grandchildren and their children, it is time to start exploring how we got to where we are with our various environmental crises. Information contained in dated lake sediment cores can answer many questions that need answering to develop effective and evidence-based mitigation strategies.