November 5, 2002
Little things mean a lot ... Let's take five with Moira Gunn. This is "Five Minutes".
I think we all know by now that tiny things can make a huge difference. One little flu bug, and you can be out for days, if not weeks. Yet, tiny things are hard to see, and even harder to observe in detail.
This has always been a challenge for scientists. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle itself states that the simple act of observing has an effect, and the total extent of that effect we can't be certain about. That's right, the act of observing alters - at some level - the observed. Shine a light on something, and the effect of the light itself must be accounted for. This is even more challenging when we don't yet have the technology to measure important tiny effects.
So in our best scientific experiments we strive for two great goals: any technology we use should minimally interfere with the object or process being observed, and secondly, little or no permanent change will be left in its wake.
--
This brings us to recent events in the news. In two independent but seemingly similar cases, Federal judges have shut down major scientific research pending the further examination of the damage they may cause.
The specifics are that ocean-going scientific research vessels, sponsored separately by the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Navy, have employed technologies, which send massive sound waves through the water. In one, huge airguns are directed toward the ocean floor to map the seismic landscape. In the other, powerful sonar signals are sent out in an attempt to hunt submarines. The fear is that they are damaging whales and other large mammals.
As you can imagine, there are impassioned arguments on all sides, each buoyed, I'm afraid, by insufficient science. I didn't say bad science; I said "insufficient" science. We just don't have enough data.
And that's what haunts me about the arguments to proceed.
--
Let's take the Navy. On its website, it defines injury to marine life as "tissue damage, permanent threshold shift in hearing, and in some cases, resonance on internal organs" while immediately noting that "resonance does not necessarily equal damage and damage is not always linked to resonance."
While puzzling over this circular disclaimer, I saw that the web site goes on to state that "misunderstandings and difficulties of communication between scientists and the public have led to opposition by environmental organizations and concerned individuals."
Oh... I see. These are just misunderstandings. Difficulties in communication. I can understand that. It's just hard to ignore a dead whale.
--
In all seriousness, let's remember that our ocean floors are largely unmapped. As they fall away from the continental shelves, they become completely raw frontier, and we know very little about them.
It's just been 25 years since Marine Scientist Bob Ballard sent a robotic submersible down to the ocean depths and found previously unknown life forms living in total darkness, feeding on bacteria and minerals emerging from vents in the ocean floor.
If our standard for assessing damage has to be as big as a whale, who knows what destruction will be wrought in the name of science?
Barring a compelling reason to proceed quickly, it seems to me that it's best to proceed more slowly, especially out there in the great depths of our oceans.
I'm Moira Gunn. This is Five Minutes.
