Click for next page ( 17


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 16
1 Introduction The oceans are our common global heritage. They cover 70 percent of the Earth's surface, regulate our weather and climate, and connect the people of many nations. The oceans sustain a large portion of Earth's biodiversity, and they provide humanity with substantial living and non- living resources. The oceans still conceal artifacts that document human civilizations' relationships with the seas and with one another. Histories of trade routes, coastal civilizations, and maritime technology can be found within the oceans. Despite our intimate connection with the sea much of the world's oceans and ocean floor remain unexplored.4 This is the last frontier on Earth and the potential for discovery is largely untapped. Discoveries made in the past three decades offer exciting economic and scientific oppor- tunities, and they speak to the need to continue expeditions in search of the unknown (Watkins, 20021. For example, in 1976 organisms, including crabs and clams, were discovered at the Galapagos Rift hydrothermal vent field by a geologist conducting the first photographic survey of the region (Lonsdale, 1977; Weiss et al., 1977; Spiess et al., 1980~. Maps and photo- graphs lead to manned submersible dives the following year, and the dis- covery of massive tube worm colonies. Those unique chemosynthetic life forms were photographed inadvertently, but knowledge of their existence has revolutionized our understanding of where and how life occurs and intensified our discussions of the possibility of life on other planets (Rothschild and Mancinelli, 20011. The vent communities also provide new materials for use in biomedical research. Exciting archaeological discoveries of vessels, pottery, and even ancient coastal villages are shedding new light Come estimates suggest about 95 percent of the world's oceans and 99 percent of the ocean floor are unexplored (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000). 16

OCR for page 16
INTRODUCTION on human history. Exploration of the oceans must continue not only to discover new phenomena and seek new information, but also to facilitate a more integrated and comprehensive understanding of the marine environ- ment and the interconnected processes that control it. As defined by the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and the recording of findings. Ocean exploration has included rigorous, systematic observation and docu- mentation of the biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archaeo- logical aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time. This definition of exploration is much broader than the definition one would find, for example, within the context for the extractive industries, where exploration is a search for hydrocarbon or mineral deposits. More general approaches allow researchers to develop and ask questions that are not rooted in specific hypotheses and that often lead to unexpected answers- a difficult task to promote within the current approaches to research funding. Exploration is an early component of the research process; it focuses on new areas of inquiry and develops descriptions of phenomena that inform the direction of further study. It is the collection of basic observations that later allow hypotheses to be posed to connect those observations with the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. In some disciplines, such as physics, exploration has been pursued aggressively, and the resources are best invested in testing hypotheses and conducting controlled experiments. In other disciplines, the system under investigation is so vast, complex, or remote that exploration is still the necessary first step. Outer space, the human genome, and the oceans are excellent examples. This nation and others have invested heavily in the exploration of outer space and the functioning of the human genome, and each program has both captured the imagination of the public and produced tangible, valuable discoveries. No similar systematic program exists for ocean exploration, despite its promise. In June 2000, a panel of experts from the ocean science community was convened to fulfill a presidential request to provide recommendations for a national ocean exploration strategy (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 20001. In October, the President's Panel on Ocean Explora- tion recommended that the United States add a national program of ocean exploration to its current marine research portfolio (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 20001. Thatprogramwouldprovidetheoppor- tunity to explore the Earth's oceans through broad-based observations and through interdisciplinary and cross-cultural investigations. The panel's vision was to "not only go where no one has ever gone, but to 'see' the 1 7

OCR for page 16
18 EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS oceans through a new set of technological 'eyes,' and record those journeys for posterity" (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 20001. In December 2000, the U.S. Congress requested that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences conduct a study to examine the possibility of develop- ing and implementing an international ocean exploration program. An ad hoc study committee was formed under the advisement of the National Research Council's (NRC) Ocean Studies Board to address the charge (Box ES.11. This report constitutes the work of the NRC's Committee on Exploration of the Seas, and it contains recommendations for the implementation of an international ocean exploration program. International input was sought during a May 2002 workshop, which was hosted by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC). Participants representing national and international organizations from 22 nations addressed the committee and discussed ideas for an international program. Summaries of the workshop sessions are included in the report as Appendix D. . HISTORY OF OCEAN EXPLORATION People have explored the oceans since the dawn of human history, even as we used oceans as highways to new lands. Scientific exploration of the oceans can be traced back at least to Captain James Cook's three Pacific expeditions between 1768 and 1779. At that time, most of the globe was unexplored and maps were drawn as much from imagination as from expe- rience. By the time Cook died, he had mapped much of the Pacific's shoreline from Antarctica to the Arctic. Cook's explorations opened the way for Darwin's voyages on the Beagle (1831-18361. The scientific bonanza from Darwin's observations, which led to his theory of evolution, was the consequence of including a naturalist on the expedition, almost as an afterthought. The influence of discovery associated with those expeditions is nearly impossible to overestimate in terms of science and popular culture alike. The first expedition undertaken purely for the sake of science was the voyage of the RMS Challenger (1872-1876), which set out to investigate "everything about the sea" (Figure 1.11. The researchers made physical, chemical, biological, and geological measurements in all the oceans except the Arctic. With support from the British Admiralty and Royal Society, the expedition systematically collected observations of the oceans, stopping every two hundred miles. The results were staggering: they filled 50 volumes (Murray, 18951. The researchers discovered thousands of new species, and

OCR for page 16
INTRODUCTION 19 FIGURE 1.1 Expedition route of HMS Challenger. (From Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science (Non-info Trac Version) 4th edition by Garrison. ~ 2002. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning: www.thomsonrights.com, fax 800-730-2215.) they observed that the oceans are not deepest at the middle and that ocean sediments are far more homogeneous than are those found on land. The 1 925-1 927 Meteor expedition, undertaken by the German navy, was one of the first modern oceanographic research cruises. The Meteor traversed the South Atlantic 13 times, collecting 67,400 soundings and detailed current, salinity, temperature, and oxygen measurements at 310 stations. The Meteor conducted plankton tows, collected a large number of bottom samples, and executed systematic atmospheric (using instrument balloons and kites) and geologic studies. The expedition captured the imagination of people around the world, demonstrating conclusively the power of ocean exploration for educating the public. The economic depression of the 1 930s stifled opportunities to follow up on the success of the Meteor expedition. During World War 11, the value of oceanographic information assumed new importance with the advent of submarine warfare, and national security drove data-gathering efforts. With

OCR for page 16
20 EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS the exception of participants in the International Decade of Ocean Explora- tion (IDOE) broad international cooperation was not encouraged in the Cold War years, and the best data were not often made freely available. The landmark achievements of oceanographic exploration over the past 50 years have been well documented in NRC's 50 Years of Ocean Dis- covery: National Science Foundation 1950-2000 (National Research Council, 2000a), and are not reiterated here with the exception of those activities that represented efforts to achieve international cooperation because those efforts informed the committee's deliberations on the proposed organization and structure of a new international exploration program. The International Geophysical Year (IGY; 1957-1958) was a significant step for the improvement of international cooperation on large-scale oceano- graphic projects and other studies of the physics of the planet. Observations collected during ICY resulted in several breakthroughs, including the body of work that led to the formulation of the theory of plate tectonics. One visible program that resulted from international cooperation dur- ing ICY was the Indian Ocean Expedition. The Indian Ocean was the least explored of the world's oceans, and it held much promise for major dis- coveries. Advice and ideas from 40 scientists representing a variety of nations and all oceanographic disciplines were used to develop the pro- gram. Originally, planning and direction were accomplished by a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, but beginning in 1964 the National Science Foundation (NSF) managed the program. The scientific community continued to provide program direction. Loose coordination among the three major oceanographic institutions (the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observa- tory of Columbia University; the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California; and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts) resulted in disparate data sets. Because the data gathered on different cruises by different research groups could not be integrated, the usefulness of the resulting databases was severely compromised. Nautical Archaeology Archaeologists uncover information on ancient civilizations, and marine archaeologists examine sunken communities or ships for tools, pottery, and cargo, for example, that can reveal details about a culture. Marine archae- ology was slower to develop than the ocean sciences. Despite the sustained efforts of archaeology generally, marine archaeology has been hampered by the difficulty of locating and excavating sites. Underwater archaeology dates to the late 1 800s and from the beginning the field relied on advances

OCR for page 16
INTRODUCTION in technology to improve identification of and access to sites. From diving bells to tethered diving helmets, each new contraption increased the amount of time divers could spend under water. But it was not until the advent of the self-contained underwater breathing apparatus SCUBA in the middle of the twentieth century that ready access to shallow ocean bottoms could be achieved. Scuba allowed the systematic excavation of sites, and it allowed divers to complete delicate work in fragile ships' hulls. In the 1 960s archaeologists began to dive to direct true excavations of underwater relics, and the field of underwater archaeology soon became one of the most important branches of its field. International Decade of Ocean Exploration For the purposes of this report, the most significant modern precursor to the proposed program in ocean exploration was IDOE (1971-19801. This systematic program of ocean exploration was motivated both by anticipated uses of marine resources and by scientific curiosity. Questions about the health of the world's oceans led scientists to argue for systematic baseline surveys that were not possible from randomly spaced observations. The IDOE program, a good example of exploration, which was established as a result of the congressional Marine Sciences Act of 1966, reflected the view that exploration of the ocean required a sustained global effort with inter- national participation. Justification for IDOE was based on the oceans as a source of food for an expanding world population; maritime threats to world order; waterfront deterioration in coastal cities; increased pollution in coastal areas; expand- ing requirements for seabed oil, gas, and minerals; and expanding ocean shipping. The National Academies of Science and Engineering involved the U.S. marine science community in planning IDOE. The resulting report, An Oceanic Quest: The Internationa/ Decade of Ocean Exploration (National Academy of Sciences, 1969), specified science and engineering programs and resources needed to address goals. The stated objective of the program was "to achieve more comprehensive knowledge of ocean characteristics and their changes and more profound understanding of oceanic processes for the purpose of effective utilization of the ocean and its resources." More specifically, it was expected that the program would help increase the yield from ocean resources, improve predictions of and responses to natural phenomena, and protect or improve the quality of the marine environment. Some important features distinguished the IDOE programs from other marine science initiatives of the day. At that time, cooperation between 21

OCR for page 16
22 EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS U.~. and foreign investigators was unique. The emphasis on long-term and continuing studies required resources from several groups, and partnerships between government and private parties in the United States evolved. A steering committee was formed to develop and refine criteria for the proposed programs. Keystone programs among them the Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment, for the exploration of physical oceanographic eddies, and Climate: Long-range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction (paleoceano- graphic mapping of global temperatures at the last glacial maximum) were called for in the NRC report. The Geochemical Ocean Sections (geo- chemic~l mapping of the oceans' program was brought into Intro otter it was developed independently. r do NSF was responsible for planning, management, and funding of IDOE, initially with a budget of $15 million. IDOE began as an office in NSF's Division of National and International Programs, separate from the research program that contained ocean and earth sciences. When NSF was reorga- nized in 1975, IDOE, the NSF oceanography section, and the oceano- ~ranhic facilities and support section were combined to form NSF's C)cean O , , , . _ ~ . ~ . . . . . . . .. . . ~ . ~ . . . bclences Ulvision. A working group was established at N5F that consisted of program managers and members of the research community. The IDOE working group set the ground rules for IDOE funding, one of which was that projects had to be multiple-institution initiatives. Although the working group did not try to promote specific science goals, it did encourage projects that fell into one of four categories: environmental quality, living resources, seabed assessment, or environmental forecasting (National Research Coun- cil, 1999). One important force behind the adoption of IDOE was the advocacy of Vice President Hubert Humphrey (We nk, 19721. With his support, the U.S. Marine Council successfully sought and secured commitments from other nations, and in 1968, the IOC of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization recommended support for IDOE. United Nations support for the program was obtained in Proposition 3 of General Assembly Resolution 2467 (XX111), which was cosponsored by 28 nations. This reso- lution ensured government-to-government support for the program. The Marl ne Counci I and the N RC report cal led for sign if icant participa- tion i n I DOE by other federal agencies. I n the fi rst year, it became clear that such an arrangement was unworkable. Each agency had its own mission, which did not necessarily coincide with the kinds of projects identified for emphasis by IDOE program managers. Proposals from agency scientists did not fare well in peer review because the scientists often were unfamiliar with the process and were unknown to academic reviewers. Program

OCR for page 16
INTRODUCTION management was another challenge. Even when an IDOE objective fell squarely within the mission of a given agency, funding procedures, manage- ment style, and long-range research objectives became obstacles. In the first year of the program, half of the funds were transferred from NSF to other federal agencies, with few tangible results. The one exception was the North Pacific Experiment for environmental forecasting, because it addressed the Office of Naval Research's interests directly. Over time, the North Pacific Experiment was jointly funded by the Office of Naval Research and IDOE, with close coordination of managers from both agencies. International participation did not materialize to the desired extent because other nations were not able to organize themselves as quickly as the United States had done. v . , The U.S. IDOE submitted annual plans and programs to IOC and received the endorsement of member states. Never- theless, scientists from other countries did not receive financial support in a timely manner. IOC had little funding for international participation, and U.S. IDOE funds could not be used to support scientists from other nations. Two international programs created through bilateral agreements were exceptions: the French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study and the U.S.- U.S.S.R. follow-on to the Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment, which was truly cooperative in planning and execution (National Research Council, 2000a). The French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study, which was to conduct a detailed exploration of a section of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, was already in the planning phase when IDOE was established, and it was carried out jointly by the two nations during the early years of the program. Despite some criticisms that international participation could have been more robust, IDOE is considered a major success. It provided the observa- tional database on the physics, geochemistry, paleoceanography, biology, and geophysics of the ocean that fueled hypothesis-driven research for decades. The oceanographic research community recognized the achieve- ments that were possible only through large, multidisciplinary, cooperative programs. When IDOE ended, program funding remained at NSF and was redistributed into the research sections along the disciplinary lines of the major physical, chemical, geological, and biological programs within IDOE. The research community proposed important follow-on programs, such as the Ridge Interdisciplinary Global Experiments, an initiative to study the m idocean ridges and hydrothermal vent ecosystems, and the Joi nt G lobal Ocean Flux Study, a geochemical follow-on to the Geochemical Ocean Sections. However, none of these programs embraced the interdisciplinary emphasis on exploration that had been envisaged for IDOE. 23

OCR for page 16
24 EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS LESSONS FROM EARLIER OCEANOGRAPHIC PROGRAMS Discussions in past NRC reports (National Research Council, 1999, 2000a), the capsulated summary of the Indian Ocean Expedition, and expe- riences of the members of the Committee lead to the following finding. Finding: A new era for ocean exploration should build on lessons from earlier experiences. Primary among them are the following: A program (IDOE) housed entirely within one agency (NSF) can have difficulty engaging other federal agencies as partners in explo- ration. An exploration program entirely within a mission-oriented agency can have difficulty remaining independent from the agency mission. A program that sets out long-term goals and priorities, but that selects proposals for funding by a competitive process, can be quite successful. Decadal achievements can be significant, but there is a need and a demand for a more sustained effort. Bilateral, international efforts are more likely to be successful in joint planning, funding, and execution than are large-scale inter- national programs, but they require careful planning and tailoring of projects to the interests of the partners. Coordination is essential to ensure that data sets from different projects can be integrated into a global picture. . EXPECTATIONS FOR A GLOBAL OCEAN EXPLORATION PROGRAM Progress in oceanography over the next decade will occur both in the traditional marine science disciplines and, as this report will show, through ocean exploration at the fringes and intersections of those disciplines. Multidisciplinary ocean exploration will most likely lead to discoveries that might refocus basic research regarding the oceans' contributions to global climate change, the hydrodynamics of midocean ridges, and the nature of coastal processes. New i nternational col laborations, with new capabi I ities in technology, should be combined to maximize discoveries and benefits from a large-scale ocean exploration effort. The ocean provides physical and cultural connections for people from many nations. An ocean exploration program could open a dialogue to increase oublic awareness of the oceans as a common global bond, high-

OCR for page 16
INTRODUCTION lighting the importance of the oceans in their lives. Exploration presents a spirit of challenge and rich opportunities to engage students, educators, and the public in the excitement of search and discovery through the pursuit of knowledge about our planet and our people. ORGANIZATION OF THE REPORT This report is organized into eight chapters and a series of appendixes. Chapter 2 describes the benefits of initiating a global ocean exploration program, and Chapter 3 presents recommendations for broadly defined and specific goals of a new international ocean exploration program. Areas of particular promise are emphasized for the early phases of a new program. Chapter ~ discusses international arrangements, and Chapter 5 presents discussion and recommendations for a new program's domestic structure. The existing technology and infrastructure that might be applied to a global effort are presented in Chapter 6, and developing technologies are identi- fied. In Chapter 7, outreach, education, and capacity building are dis- cussed. Proposed funding is discussed in Chapter 8 to provide readers with the committee's best estimate of costs for equipment, center operations, and staff support. Appendix C includes the agenda and list of participants for the International Global Ocean Exploration Workshop, and Appendix D is the summary of the workshop presentations and discussions. A list of oceano- graphic and fishery vessels of the world fleet is presented in Appendix E to introduce current global capacity for shipboard ocean research. Details of each ship are limited, however, and the seaworthiness of some vessels is not established. Appendix F isa listof international autonomous underwater vehicles. 25