To Send or Not to Send?

By: McKensie Wall

In 2006, the former manager of the US Food and Drug Administration’s drug safety unit was verbally reprimanded and excluded from meetings, after recommending that the drug Avandia used for diabetes include a written warning regarding congestive heart failure. When federal scientists decide to “blow the whistle” and report cases of wrongdoing they put themselves at risk of demotion, forced relocation and other forms of retaliation. As a result of failed legislative actions such as Whistleblower protection laws, many federal scientists are hesitant to get involved with controversial topics due to their fear of possible retaliation.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, a non-profit organization dedicated to the research of ocean and coastal-related topics, calculated the volume of oil released during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. BP, dissatisfied with WHOI’s findings, demanded that WHOI scientists turn over emails in which they were uncomfortable doing. Are they right, or does BP have an equal right to these incomplete thoughts? While “Reply to all” asserts that researchers who choose to study controversial topics must go in aware of the risks and be ready to reveal their findings, the article “Academic Freedom” claims “access to personal correspondence is a freedom too far.” This is leaving scientists susceptible to litigants who could discredit their work by using their information improperly and inaccurately. When giving information, you would think most would want official documents rather than incomplete thoughts.




WHOI had already supplied BP with more than 50,000 pages of documents, what else could BP have possibly wanted? WHOI was willing to give BP any information they wanted regarding the oil spill other than the personal thoughts of their employees and students; they reasoned that by surrendering such personal communications that would discourage scientists to study such topics that could be subjects of litigation. This discouragement has a negative effect in the field of science, which hinders innovations and possibly life-changing discoveries.

Why does this matter to us? The recurring requests for intellectual property have already made researchers more cautious of the topics they choose to discuss and the use of e-mail. This is not fair to either the researcher or those who could benefit from their possible findings. Knowing how many controversial issues there are in this world, leaves it impossible to imagine all of the research that is being tampered with and left unfound.

This issue regarding academic freedom, the freedom of teachers and students to pursue research and information used to publish their findings without censorship or restrictions from law, tests our rights as students and our ability to obtain and share research privately ("Academic"). The significance of this freedom being tried is expressed by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution president Susan Avery and research director Laurence Madin in saying that the situation regarding BP’s action to obtain the private emails of scientists “should concern all those who value the principles of academic freedom and responsibility, and believe these principles to be essential to the integrity of the deliberative scientific process” (Keim).

There are numerous legislative acts in states attempting to give scientists more freedom, but there are also many that fail. Under the current whistleblower laws, which are very weak and unsuccessful, scientists have no protection if others retaliate against them for reporting an act of wrongdoing. As mentioned before, these laws are in place so scientists can voice their opinion even if it is not favored. This is just one example of the ineffective protection laws in place for scientists today. In a UCS survey that polled over 3,000 scientist across nine different government agencies, about two out of five said they feared retaliation for confronting their agency about wrongdoing in their work (Scudellari). Scientists are better off not saying anything in order to protect themselves. Legislative action continues to work towards the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act and making the laws more beneficial for its recipients; Angela Canterbury, director of public policy at the Project on Government Oversight, states under the improved act “it would go a long way toward ensuring scientists are not intimidated and research is not tampered with” (Scudellari). The passing of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act is necessary to give federal scientists specific protections they deserve, including anti-censorship protections and the right to trial by jury to challenge disciplinary actions taken against them.

Evidently, accessing scientific documents hampers future research efforts in which hurt not only us, but also the organisms and environment that surrounds us. The idea of anyone being able to gain access to another’s thoughts and research is not right and its obvious how the academic community is sadly unprepared to deal with related challenges.


Works Cited

“Academic Freedom” Nature
http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/summon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Academic+freedom&rft.jtitle=Nature&rft.date=2011-11-10&rft.volume=479&rft.issue=7372&rft.spage=149&rft_id=info:pmid/22071722&rft.externalDocID=22071722

Keim, Brandon. "BP Demands Scientist Emails in Gulf Oil Spill Lawsuit." Wired Science. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/06/bp-scientist-emails/

“Reply to All” Nature 486
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7402/full/486157a.html

Scudellari, Megan. “Whistleblower protections for US government scientists flounder.” Nature Medicine. 17.3
http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v17/n3/full/nm0311-234a.html

The Destruction of Our Oceans: Bottom Trawling

By Wesley Cotter

 Over the past few decades, more fisherman have turned to bottom trawling as opposed to traditional fishing methods. With a mouth over 200 feet wide, trawling nets swallow everything in their path. They destroy countless habitats and put numerous marine species on the brink of extinction. However, it wasn’t until recently that technology allowed scientists to fully examine all of trawling’s negative effects.

With recent innovations such as effective underwater cameras and advanced satellite imaging, it is evident that bottom trawling is slowly destroying the world’s oceans. Not only does trawling kill off entire marine populations, but it also makes marine ecosystems inhospitable for years to come.

Although bottom trawling has been damaging the marine ecosystem for generations, not many people actually know what bottom trawling is, or how it works. Bottom trawling is a common fishing practice that has gained popularity among fisherman for its ability to reel in huge catches. Basically, the process of bottom trawling involves dragging a huge net across the sea floor, scooping up anything in its path (Oceana).

The overfishing caused by bottom trawling is destroying our planet’s ecosystem. Bottom trawling leads to overfishing, which means that fisherman are catching fish faster than they can reproduce. As a result, scientists have estimated that the world’s fisheries will be depleted by the year 2048 --> (Eilperin). However, we do not need to wait another 36 years until a fish species dies out. Trawling has already put the Orange Roughy and Barndoor Skate fish species at the brink of extinction. Disturbingly, trawlers are not even interested in catching Barndoor Skate, as they are just by-catch, meaning they were caught unintentionally while trying to catch other fish. Regardless of the intentions, the Barndoor Skate are killed along with the intended species (Barndoor Skate). Scientists estimate that for every 1 pound of usable fish caught trawling, 16 pounds of marine life are killed (Oceana).

However, it wasn’t until the creation of an effective underwater camera that scientists fully understood trawling’s negative results. It was previously assumed that trawling benefited the fish populations because recently trawled areas, when re-trawled, held even larger catches the second time around. Originally, it was assumed that like plowing a field, trawling benefited growth (Chestney, Nina). Though once investigated, it was discovered that it was just marine animals feeding on all of the dead marine life, rather than a regrowth of the population.

Along with killing off entire marine populations, trawling severely damages the marine environment as a whole. Trawling has been compared to forest clear cutting, where hundreds of years of coral and other natural structures that are vital in sustaining life are destroyed (Chestney, Nina). This process devastates many marine habitats, and the erosion caused by the nets takes decades to be reversed. Its estimated that an average trawler can destroy 580 square miles of seabed per day, and that annually, the world’s trawling fleet goes over an area twice the size of the continental United States (Oceana). The rate at which the ocean is being destroyed is significantly faster than the deforestation of the rainforest.

Additionally, as the nets are dragged along the seafloor, enormous plumes of sediment will be disturbed. At first thought, this is of no consequence, but as scientists looked deeper, they realized it had many negative effects. With the recent creation of satellite imaging, it’s easy to see how far the plumes will spread. Google earth images will show distinct sediment trails that continue for miles. Due to the currents, the plumes will drift and displace the oxygen in the water, creating an oxygen deficient dead zone. This dead zone will either kill off all plant and animal species in the area, or force them to relocate (Teach Ocean Science). Also, the disturbed sediment will reintroduce pollution that had once settled into the seafloor. This pollution is extremely harmful to both the plant and animal life, often being fatal. 

Sediment Plumes off the Coast of Louisiana

Its evident that bottom trawling has serious environmental consequences. Trawling kills off entire marine species, and creates regions of oceans that can no longer harbor life. The actions taken in the next few years are pivotal for the revival of our oceans. If regulations and laws are quickly imposed and strictly regulated, we may have a chance to save our oceans (Save Our Seas). Specifically, we need to create more Marine Protected Areas (MPA) where fishing and other environmentally harmful activities are forbidden (About MPAs). Currently, 1.17% of the ocean is a MPA, but in order to make a significant difference, we need to protect more of the ocean. However, none of this will really matter until the world’s citizens take a stand, and we become aware of our global impact.

The following is a very informative video on bottom trawling. If you’re actually interested in the subject, I definitely suggest watching it. Also, it’s narrated by Sigourney Weaver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0616msQC_M

About Marine Protected Areas, Department of Commerce, http://www.mpa.gov/aboutmpas/

Barndoor Skate, journal.nafo.int, http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=6&ved=0CEQQFjAF&url=http%3A%2F%2Fjournal.nafo.int%2F35%2Fgedamke%2F19-gedamke.pdf&ei=FR9qUPqqJ4ru9AStlYCYAQ&usg=AFQjCNHSqWaBOZLVMvbO4apUT7Zy2STmlg&sig2=VN_EFB53Eqenjsk8imAM6w

Bottom Trawling, Greenpeace, http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/oceans/bottom-trawling/

Dead Zones, Teach Ocean Science, http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resources/education_modules/dead_zones/learn_about/

Eilperin, Juliet, World’s Fish Supplies Running Out Researchers Warn, Washington Post, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html

Nina Chestney, Trawling Could Harm Oceans Like Plowing Land, Scientific American, http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trawling-could-harm-oceans-like-plo

Overfishing, Save Our Seas, http://saveourseas.com/threats/overfishing

What is Trawling?, Oceana, http://oceana.org/en/category/blog-free-tags/deep-sea-trawling

Innovation and Science at the Brink of Extinction

NASA is a critical player in America’s economy that drives the country to the frontier of science and innovation. Yet, the business is struggling due to the 2013 Presidential Budget Proposal, a budget that estimates a twenty percent decrease in NASA’s budget. This budget cut will having devastating effects on America such as terminating various planetary expeditions, hindering the growth of the economy, and inhibiting advancement in innovation. Inadequate funds are an immense drawback towards NASA’s principle mission: pioneering towards the frontier of science and increasing America’s innovative capacity.

Currently, there are several NASA space missions planned; however, the 2013 budget proposal would cripple these plans due to insufficient funds. The estimated funds for the planetary science program are slashed by $309 million, which is more than a twenty percent reduction from the previous year (Plait). Due to these reductions, planned missions such as ones to Jupiter and Saturn would be terminated. More specifically, MAVEN, a space mission planned to study the upper Martian atmosphere in 2013, would also be immediately terminated. These ceased space missions ultimately steal NASA from its main goal: uncovering groundbreaking discoveries from the frontier of science. The termination of the Mars exploration program is a prime validation for this assertion. The 2013 budget also proposes a $130 million cut in the agency's Mars exploration program, which is $226 million less than the previous year (Plait). This estimated 38.5% cut would effectively cease new explorations of Mars. NASA is a currently participant of ExoMars, a mission in conjunction with the European Space Agency planned to launch two robots to Mars in 2016 and 2018 (Wall). However, the budget would force NASA from the ExoMars mission and leave the European Space Agency to scour for extra funds. John Logsdon, professor emeritus at George Washington University, stated, “NASA has, I think, already told ESA it’s not going to be able to provide a launch vehicle in 2016. This is going to cause a big international uproar in one dimension. (Wall)” According to media reports from ScienceInsider, ESA has already begun talking to Russia about picking up the slack due to NASA pulling out (Wall). Evidently, America is already losing its position in the frontier of space, solely due to proposed budget cuts. Ceasing various space missions such as ExoMars, will unquestionably pull the United States from the frontier of space exploration. In effect, other nations such as Russia, will surpass the United States in space travel and exploration.



Additionally, NASA’s 2013 proposed budget would have harmful effects on America’s economy. Initially, the insufficient funds would cease space mission, which would pull America back from the frontier of space exploration. Consequently, the American economy would experience major drawbacks. NASA has a long history of exploration and economic growth. Since its creation, NASA has become a source of financial resources that spurs innovation, create jobs, and spark the economy. For example, Florida’s Space Coast in Brevard County, Florida is a key location of business and jobs. The Brevard Workforce has about 9,000 space industry related jobs, along with 14,000 “indirect” jobs such as restaurants, hotels, and stores, which are dependent on the space center at Cape Canaveral (Sucui). However, the proposed budget would cripple many factors of NASA such as Cape Canaveral. With the budget, 23,000 Cape Canaveral workers would be unemployed. Now on a bigger scale, it is estimated that there are currently 125,000 people working in aerospace-related jobs (Oleson). The budget cut would indefinitely cut many of these workers and leave them unemployed, similar to the example of Florida’s Space Coast. Aforementioned, NASA is a source of financial resources that would spur America’s economy. The opportunity to increase national revenue from space, develop sustainable commercial markets, and employ hundreds of more qualified workers would have considerable advantageous effects on the economy (Oleson). The government should support space commercialization, rather than cut funds for the space organization. NASA is not only a space organization, but also a profiting business that requires government support to expand opportunities for economic growth. Therefore, the budget cut would not only threaten the future of space missions and America’s position in the frontier of science and exploration, but the cut would also force America’s economy to take a toll.



Furthermore, the budget proposal restricts the advancement of innovation. NASA is an enterprise that adventures into the frontier of innovation, which is the main source of the growth of an economy. Neil deGrasse Tyron, the director of the Hayden Planetarium in New York, asserted “Space is a $300 billion industry worldwide. NASA is a tiny percent of that. But that little bit is what inspires innovation and innovation drives economy.” Tyson states that whatever needs the country may have –geopolitical, military, economic- space becomes that frontier (Chow). NASA is composed of several STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) subjects, such as biology, chemistry, geology, mechanical engineering, and electrical engineering, which assist the growth of innovation. These subjects that are consistently utilized in NASA operations have significant influence in advancing innovation (Fox News). For example, the precision and accuracy in Lasik eye surgery was capable due to the groundbreaking technology used in space shuttles and stations (Fox News). This is a prime example of how taking the frontier of space will increase innovation. NASA is not only a space organization, but also a source of STEM growth and ultimately innovation.

The 2013 proposed NASA budget would have overwhelming negative effects that will fundamentally decrease America’s innovative capacity and global competitiveness. The insufficient funds will cease space missions, which will draw America back from the frontier of science. Consequently, the inadequate funds will inhibit NASA’s advancement in the American economy and innovative volume. The 2013 proposed budget steals NASA from its main mission: steer America towards the frontier of science and innovation. In order to uphold this mission, the projected NASA budget must be restructured.



Works Cited
1. “How will the White House’s brutal budget cut affect NASA?” Phil Plait. io9. http://io9.com/5885042/how-will-the-white-houses-brutal-budget-cuts-affect-nasa

2. 2. “Big NASA Budget Cuts to Slash Mars Missions, Experts Say.” Mike Wall. Yahoo! News. http://news.yahoo.com/big-nasa-budget-cuts-slash-mars-missions-experts-020004601.html

3. “End of Space Shuttle Program to Have Far Reaching Impact.” Peter Suciu. CNBC News. http://www.cnbc.com/id/43469916/End_of_Space_Shuttle_Program_To_Have_Far_Reaching_Impact

4. “Cutting NASA’s budget would be a bad move.” Gary Oleson. The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/commentary-cutting-nasas-budget-would-be-a-bad-move/2012/01/30/gIQAZh19rQ_story.html

5. “Boosting NASA’s Budget Will Help Fix Economy: Neil deGrasse Tyson.” Denise Chow. Space.com. http://www.space.com/15310-nasa-budget-future-space-exploration.html

6. “The Costs of Cutting NASA’s Budget.” FOX News. http://video.foxbusiness.com/v/1483676909001/the-costs-of-cutting-nasas-budget/