What Ocean Exploration Needs

On March 25, filmmaker James Cameron funded and completed the first solo dive into the Challenger Deep, the deepest point on earth, about seven miles down in the ocean. While many praised his scientific approach, others were uneasy having someone so wealthy getting such a big role in discovery because their interests in hiding or extorting information could interfere the pursuit of knowledge. Even some who approve of Cameron’s dive argue that using robotic vehicles is the best exploration option. Although remotely operated vehicles are important and beneficial to scientific research and exploration, scientists should utilize human operated vehicles. Whether funded by wealthy patrons or not, human operated vehicles grab the public’s attention as well as experts, which can lead to more funding opportunities to keep research and scientific companies alive and an increase in public interest.  

Since 1960, scientists have sent remotely operated vehicles, or ROVs, into the Challenger Deep to collect samples from the trench’s bottom (“Into the Depths”). Scientists on land use a camera to see, and remote-controlled arms grab samples. They have explored “hydrothermal vent communities, the

ROV Nereus http://www.flickr.com/photos/btmspox/5155029241/

exploration of mid ocean ridges, the census of marine life and discovery of deep reefs, brine pools,
cold seeps and other extraordinary habitats that prove that the deep sea is anything but a cold lifeless desert.” Using human operated vehicles, HOVs, adds difficulty since they need life support systems and oceanic pressure protection. ROVs are also cheaper and easier to build than HOVs, and they can spend more time on the bottom while HOV passengers have time constraints (Dove, McClain). The ROV Nereus and Kaiko represent some ROVs that have actually been to the Challenger Deep and returned with “video, sediment, and biological samples” (Andrew). Cameron’s dive experienced a hydraulic leak and this hindered his view from the submersible’s window; he brought back nothing vital or noteworthy (Jaggard). Because ROVs have brought back samples and information effectively, they seem like perfectly good tools to use in deep-sea exploration.

However, even though ROVs seem like a better option, the science field needs the publicity that HOVs can give it. Viewers watched with baited breath as Cameron descended, and “the excitement [the dive] generate[d] around the valuable deep sea scientific exploration already being conducted” gives science the public support it needs (Mims). These submersibles make great marketing tools because they give the people watching at home the sensation of actually being there (Andrew) and participating. Even though ROVs don’t have time constraints and are cheaper, they don’t create media excitement, like Cameron’s trip did, making his dive valuable (Dove, McClain). Aside from just gaining public interest, humans can react to spontaneous findings and spur-of-the-moment events while machines cannot; scientists just look through a camera into the abyss. HOVs also have better control than ROVs, and they don’t have to be attached to a ship, so they can roam farther to collect more samples and possibly find species and sediments that an ROV couldn’t (Andrew). With the possibilities of failure and triumph that surround sending a real live person, HOVs create the wonder and awe that science needs to keep public interest alive.

Some believe Cameron’s privately funded dive has placed science farther out of public hands because he is a wealthy patron, not a scientist (“Into the Depths”), but his celebrity status has allowed science to gain publicity, which can provide support and funding for research companies and spark interest in children to pursue science careers. The Canadian government announced a shift from environmental science to industry-collaborated science (Sam), so it does seem a little questionable that the rich and powerful have such strong influence in science. With industry funding science explorations, research regarding public health, the environment, and ocean exploration could see a downfall (Sam) because big industries could want to avoid research that causes their company to lose money. The cutbacks at hand, however, deal with research companies. The United Kingdom National Oceanography Centre, NOC, announced that it would be getting rid of one-quarter of its scientific staff because its main funding source, the Natural Environmental Research Council, was moving towards strategic environmental research (“Into the Depths”). Companies devoted to scientific exploration are experiencing funding and job cutbacks, so it’s important that the public becomes concerned with science. Because of the attention that celebrities and high-interest persons bring to scientific exploration, money may flow back to companies like the NOC. People like James Cameron grab attention, and then the general population starts to care about an issue, and once they care, they can fight for scientific organizations to receive funding. Science also needs public interest so children will want to become scientists themselves one day. Scientists need something, like an important figure, to make new discoveries and do something cool, so that children will want to pursue exploration as their career.

Even though ROVs have been beneficial to science, it is important to facilitate HOVs because they bring excitement and the spark of life, literally, to exploration and research. While some agree with this but believe the humans aboard the submersibles shouldn’t be wealthy patrons, it is a good idea to utilize those, like James Cameron, who aren’t trying to sway scientific findings or potentially hide important information like a wasteful industry would. Adventure- and knowledge-seeking funders will grab the public’s attention, who can then save companies like the NOC from losing money and encourage children to pursue careers in science.

Kathleen Gildea



Works Cited

Andrew. "I Sing the Praise of My Robot Underlings, the Workhorses of Deep Sea Exploration." Southern Fried Science. N.p., 28 Mar. 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=12885>.

Dove, Al, and Craig McClain. "James Cameron's Deep Sea Challenge: A Scientific Milestone or Rich Guy's Junket?" Deep Sea News. Deep Sea News, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://deepseanews.com/2012/03/james-camerons-deep-sea-challenge-a-scientific-milestone-or-rich-guys-junket/>.

"Into the Depths." Nature.com. Nature Publishing Group, 04 Apr. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/484006a.html>.

Jaggard, Victoria. "James Cameron on Earth's Deepest Spot: Desolate, Lunar-Like." National Geographic. National Geographic Society, 27 Mar. 2012. Web. 24 Sept. 2012. <http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/03/120326-james-cameron-mariana-trench-challenger-deepest-lunar-sub-science/>.

Mims, Christopher. "Was Cameron's Deep Dive as Useless as Manned Space Flight? - Technology Review." Technology Review. MIT, 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.technologyreview.com/view/427329/was-camerons-deep-dive-as-useless-as-manned-space/>.

Mustain, Andrea. "Cameron's Dive Stirs Push for Future Deep-Sea Exploration." OurAmazingPlanet.com. OurAmazingPlanet, 12 Apr. 2012. Web. 15 Sept. 2012. <http://www.ouramazingplanet.com/2756-cameron-dive-praise.html>.

Sam. "Challenges, Deep-sea and Budgetary." Oceanographer's Choice. N.p., 31 Mar. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. <http://www.oceanographerschoice.com/2012/03/challenges-deep-sea-and-budgetary/>.