In my previous column (June 2017) I
wrote about the history of ocean sciences
funding, focusing on the Ocean Sciences
Division at the US National Science
Foundation (NSF) as an example. It notes
long-term budget erosion, and suggests
that if we are going to reverse this trend,
we need to create a viable implementa-
tion plan that demonstrates the real value
of oceanography.
I firmly believe that ocean science and
technology are more important than ever.
We need to address ocean issues that
have worldwide consequence, including
the ocean’s role in climate change, sus-
tainability of environments and ecosys-
tems under human impacts, appropri-
ate long-term use of resources from the
sea, technology development and eco-
nomic opportunities related to the ocean,
the scientific basis for global security,
and other ocean-related issues that tran-
scend specific fields, agencies, or national
boundaries. It is time to put some ideas
on the table. It is time to make a plan.
So what should we do? First, we need
to start talking. I envision this conver-
sation as an expanded collaboration
between the United States and non-US
communities; there are ocean sciences
research assets in many countries. Just
as the high-energy physics community
leverages infrastructure among nations,
ocean sciences could, too (e.g., sharing
expensive assets like ships).
To be sure, ocean scientists have
worked across national boundaries for
decades—in this regard, scientists are
mostly apolitical and go where the inter-
esting problems lead them. We have
some good examples of large shared
efforts. These are mostly parallel fund-
ing efforts with trans-national coordina-
tion (e.g., Joint Global Ocean Flux Study,
World Ocean Circulation Experiment),
but there are some that have comingled
funds and co-supported facilities and
science implementation (International
Ocean Discovery Program). Nevertheless,
for the most part, national funds pay for
national programs, and these programs
are sometimes at least partially redun-
dant in various countries. Some redun-
dancy can be a good thing—replication of
results confirms significance of findings.
But we might think about how much
duplication of effort is really needed.
An implementation planning pro-
cess could encourage community build-
ing; support the development of early
career scientists; enhance interdisciplin-
ary, interagency, and international col-
laborations; and provide vehicles for con-
nections between government, academic,
and private-sector ocean sciences. We
need diversity of thought as we plan, and
this requires diversity of people; scien-
tists and stakeholders of all kinds in both
developed and developing nations must
be involved. An inclusive process will
increase access and effectiveness of ocean
science and technology on a global scale.
We already have a start at planning,
at least at the strategic level. For exam-
ple, the US National Research Council’s
Sea Change: 2015–2025 Decadal Survey
of Ocean Sciences (NRC, 2015) was com-
missioned by NSF in 2013 to review the
changing nature of ocean sciences and its
funding structures and to propose prom-
ising themes worth addressing in the
coming decade. Other nations have pub-
lished similar framework documents,
for example, in the UK, Scanning the
Horizon (Kennedy and Liss, 2013), and in
Europe, Eurocean 2020 (McDonough and
Calewaert, 2010). In order to implement
community goals, we must engage the
whole of the ocean science community
in an open, inclusive, bottom-up process.
My hope is that the global ocean sci-
ences community will not retreat in the
face of political and budget pressure
but instead will join together to craft a
synthesis of current knowledge and to
shape a productive future agenda with a
specific action plan. I hope we can encour-
age transdisciplinary innovation, with an
eye toward incorporating rapidly evolv-
ing technologies into rigorous scientific
frameworks. We need concrete mecha-
nisms for retaining early career scientists
and empowering them to envision the
future of the field. Universities can step
up to some extent in this area, acknowl-
edging the difficulty of starting careers on
“soft” (grant-funded) money. With a goal
of helping to encourage young scientists,
The Oceanography Society is putting its
policies where its mouth is, and now pro-
vides free membership to students and
reduced-cost membership to early career
scientists within three years of receiving
their PhD degrees.
Accomplishing bottom-up planning
demands time commitment. It requires
volunteers to step up and funding agen-
cies to cover costs. TOS is willing to part-
ner in facilitating a planning process—
as a first step, perhaps we can engage in
spirited discussion at this year’s upcom-
ing professional meetings worldwide.
Let’s get started!
REFERENCES
Kennedy, H., and P. Liss. 2013. Scanning the
Horizon: The Future Role of Research Ships and
Autonomous Measurement Systems in Marine and
Earth Sciences. The Challenger Society for Marine
Science and the National Oceanography Centre
(NOC) Association, UK, 31 pp, http://noc.ac.uk/files/
documents/about/2013_Scanning the Horizon.pdf.
McDonough, N., and J.-B. Calewaert, eds. 2010.
EurOcean 2010: Grand Challenges for Marine
Research in the Next Decade. Conference
Report and Ostend Declaration. Thermae
Palace, Oostende, Belgium, October 12–13,
2010. Belgian Science Policy Office (BELSPO),
Brussels. VLIZ Special Publication 49 Flanders
Marine Institute (VLIZ), Oostende, Belgium, 57 pp,
http://www.belspo.be/ belspo/northsea/publ/
EurOCEAN2010_report_declaration.pdf.
NRC (National Research Council). 2015. Sea Change:
2015–2025 Decadal Survey of Ocean Sciences.
The National Academies Press, Washington, DC,
98 pp., https://doi.org/10.17226/21655.
Planning the Future of Ocean Sciences
Alan C. Mix, TOS President
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Oceanography | September 2017