open letter to marine science

Open Letter to the Marine Science Community: Has Personal Bias Derailed

Science?

Has Personal Bias Been Allowed to Derail the Normal Progression of

Ocean Fertilization Science?

An Open Letter to the Marine Science Community

Given the extreme hazard of global warming, the recent revelations of

ocean acidity, and reports of bio-system collapse of various sorts,

one would think that the concept of Ocean Iron Fertilization would get

be treated most seriously. Although controversial and not yet

completely proven, this technology still might be very important to

the world. As Ken Johnson of Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute

said: "We're headed towards climate conditions that Earth hasn't

experienced in millions of years...We can't afford to ditch any

potential solutions just now."

For a technology of such potential, one would think that marine

scientists would have been diligently researching it, discovering in

detail the underlying mechanisms, proposing methods to optimize or

control such a process, and preparing to advise, in a rational and

unbiased fashion, the decision makers and public of the world.

Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to have happened. Reviewing the

literature of the past decade, there seems to be an inexplicable lack

of progress understanding the science. Worse, there seems to be a

general hesitation and even hostility by the marine sciences to the

progress of this field, and in many cases arguments of political

feasibility are being substituted for factual arguments.

We cannot help but suspect that this is because certain key

individuals are personally opposed to the concept. These people have

political and personal convictions that the process is immoral, or

that the world community cannot be trusted to have it. Based on these

personal convictions, these scientists have steadily opposed the field

the field, in some cases quite openly, slowing down research and

discouraging advancement. It's a process of "negativization" of

science which is so pernicious and difficult to fight.

Some may believe that scientists have an ethical and moral right to

discourage research that they believe is dangerous. That may be true

in the case of weapons or obvious dangers. But this is not that kind

of technology. It is not obviously harmful or destructive. In fact, if

finally proven out and used smartly and carefully, this technology

could be extremely beneficial to world, not only as a carbon sink but

as a one tool for restoring damaged sections of the ocean. Contrary to

the somewhat frantic rhetoric of the opponents, there is absolutely no

reason to assume that the technology will be "easy to abuse" or will

spin out of control; quite the contrary, the very size of the ocean

and the scale of effort precludes such abuse. There is every reason to

assume it will be possible to control and monitor to the satisfaction

of all, especially on a small-to-medium scale. Yes this will require a

lot of hard science and engineering, to identify the proper procedures

and protocols, but this is nothing unusual - other fields such as

terrestrial ecological restoration have successfully overcome similar

uncertainties, and there is no reason ocean fertilization couldn't do

the same.

Critics are opposed not because it's inherently bad, or because they

possess a complete understanding of it, but because they "believe"

that it's impossible for the human race to use it smartly or

carefully, they "worry" that it "might" be misused at some unspecified

time in the future. They believe that commercial firms or

corporations, driven by the profit motive, are inherently abusive and

will "pollute the commons" for greed. These people don't appear to

have come to these conclusions based on facts or analysis, but because

they disliked the concept from the very first moment they heard it,

and have subsequently filtered all new data to fit their pre-conceived

views.

These views aren't science, not based on facts are logic. They are

just opinions (and rather emotional, extreme opinions at that) of a

few individuals. And so may we ask: why are personal beliefs detouring

the progress of a major science? Is this appropriate?

Case in Point: Dr. Sallie Chisholm

Dr. Chisholm is an accomplished and respected head of an MIT

laboratory and a member of the first iron experiment cruise. Yet Dr.

Chisholm's entire contribution to the field has been to oppose it,

apparently from the very beginning.

From Science News, September 30 1995, p 220:

(Before the first cruise, which Chisholm was on) Oceanographer

Sallie W. Chisholm of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

often argued with him (Martin) about the ethics of geo-engineering,

or even of conducting research toward that goal...

"I think it's folly. It would just cause another environmental

problem," says Chisholm. "It's so naive to think that we can do one

thing and it's going to have a predictable effect. The arrogance of

human beings is just astounding."

The picture here is quite clear. Dr. Chisholm has thought the concept

was "folly" and was actively lobbying to prevent even the research

towards it, even before the first cruise. She

believes that the human race - the other 6 billion human beings and

their elected representatives - are too arrogant to even have the

chance to choose. Her mind appears set was set before any data was

even collected, and has not changed since.

In keeping with her views, Chisholm has written papers, convened

symposiums (see below), and lobbied government agencies, all for the

single purpose: to ensure that her view of right and wrong is upheld.

None of these actions are by themselves inappropriate. Dr. Chisholm

has ever right to lobby for her views. However, it is important to

understand that by these actions, Dr. Chisholm is has assumed the role

of an activist, or political partisan, not a scientist. She has made

it her mission to stop any development of the field, and has used her

scientific position to do this, fighting by every means possible to

slow down or block this technology, for reasons of personal ideology.

Most likely her views will continue to be debated in the political

sphere, at some point in the future when and if a large scale process

is proposed. But right now, it's important to ask the question: Is the

ocean science community making a clear distinction between Chisholm

the activist and Chisholm the respected scientist? Are they making the

necessary allowance for her personal bias? And finally, are her

personal views, as strongly worded as they are, acting to obstruct or

prevent the normal process of scientific investigation for this

nascent field, thus preventing the world community from getting a

complete presentation of the facts necessary to make informed

decisions?

Case In Point: Dr. Kenneth Coale

From Science News, September 30 1995, p 220:

"We had predicted the response, but none of us was really prepared

for what it would look or feel like," says (Kenneth) Coale, a

researcher at the Moss Landing (Calif.) Marine Laboratories. "There

were some of us who were quite pleased and others of us who would

walk out on the fantail and burst into tears. It was a profoundly

disturbing experience for me"

Coale and many others who witnessed iron's tremendous greening

effect loathe the idea of tinkering with the globe in such a

heavy-handed way.

From Discover, October 2003 "Watery Grave"

Coale thinks it's unfair, if not impossible, to expect the oceans

to absorb more than 6 billion tons of excess carbon each year.

"There are many of us who consider the oceans to be sacred," he

says. But "we've let the cat out of the bag. We have to keep

looking at it now, whether we like it or not."

"Iron fertilization for geo-engineering or fish product has been

driven by a kind of quick-buck philosophy..."

Note the phrases "burst into tears" "profoundly disturbing" "loath"

"sacred". Clearly Dr. Coale has strong emotional feelings about the

entire business. Again, Coale is entitled to his opinions, but we must

point out: he is the director of the Moss Landing Laboratory, and is

therefore in charge of what is arguably the central lab studying the

effect.

If Coale has such virulent feelings on the topic, which he expresses

in almost every article written on the subject, how can he support

unbiased research into the topic? How could any young researcher or

student working under him dare to work optimistically on the subject

when the leader of their group is so firmly opposed to it?

It seems more likely that Coale's conflict of conscience spills over

into the field that he leads, and that this negativity creates a wet

blanket smothering progress.

Again, this should not be taken as personal criticism of Coale. We

have no doubt that he is a dedicated leader of his group who honesty

tries to do justice to the problem. But it seems unlikely he is able

to do so.

Case in Point: American Society of Limnology and Oceanography (ASLO)

2001 Ocean Fertilization Symposium.

The ASLO conference was billed as a symposium with presentations by a

wide variety of interested parties. From this description, an average

scientifically-literate citizen or government regulator would suppose

that it represented an unbiased, or at least broad, view of the

issues. This symposium created a "Policy Statement" which warns

against ocean iron fertilization. Such a warning might very strongly

affect the views of the public.

The problem is, this conference appears to have been biased from the

start, organized for the sole purpose of creating such a warning. The

lead-off speakers for the conference were the two mentioned above,

Chisholm and Coale. Chisholm gave the overview presentation, in which

she made it very clear the purpose of the conference was to warn

against the technology. So the question must be asked: how can such an

event, organized in this way, possibly have arrived at an unbiased

consensus of views? Of course it couldn't and wasn't intended for that

purpose. Thus it is not a "scientific" event but an "activism" event,

the equivalent of a political rally, which has been clothed as science

to gain it increased respect.

If this meeting was nothing more than a meeting of activists for one

particular side of the debate, then it needs to be clearly labeled as

such, so that future decision-makers won't give it more consideration

than is due such activism.

Withholding Science From Society?

Scientists are entitled to their political opinions. But when those

opinions become the driving force for an entire scientific field, we

question if this veers into ethical conflict.

Individuals, no matter how strongly they may feel, do not have the

right to obstruct the normal progress of scientific discovery and

commercialization, in order to satisfy their personal beliefs. In

fact, to some extent scientists have a larger obligation to research

diligently and present unbiased facts so that the world community and

elected representatives can make their own decisions. There are

billions of citizens of the world who, through taxes, grant money, and

goodwill, are funding scientific research, and who expect in return to

get conclusions untainted by the personal beliefs.

Therefore:

� We respectfully suggest that the ocean science community needs do

some "soul searching" if systemic bias has affected the progress of

this research.

� We believe that the literature of the field deserves a complete

review to identify places where "negative spin" has been added

prematurely, or where political or social commentary has been used to

argue feasibility.

� We suggest that the 2001 ASLO Symposium findings (Summary Statement

April 25, 2001) be formally stricken and a new symposium be convened,

in which a legitimate and valid cross-section of opinions, both pro

and con, are represented.

� Finally, we suggest that researchers refrain from such negative

remarks about commercial firms. Academic-commercial partnerships are a

well-proven structure for making progress and solving problems. There

is no need for scorn.

If we are off-base or over-stating the problem, then we apologize.

This letter is certainly not meant as an accusation, but instead, a

serious question: has the Marine Science community gotten "off track"

in regards to Ocean Fertilization, and if so, can it get back on

track?

Steve Kerry

CarbonSequestration Blog

Note: Responses welcome, and will be published in entirety in the

Carbon Sequestration Blog. Please address sbkerry@hotmail.com or visit

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/

For more information on Ocean Iron Fertilization visit Wikipedia, the

Free Encyclopedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization

Prior posts on this subject:

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2006/05/10-years-ago-iron-fert

ilization-battle.html

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2006/05/wiki-entry-on-iron-fer

tilization-more.html

http://carbonsequestration.blogspot.com/2005/12/investigating-iron-fer

tilization-is.html

7/26/2006 Addendum

Once criticism that might be levelled at this open letter--it didn't

address any of the specific pros and cons of iron fertilization. Some

might complain that we've only discuss the tone of the debate but not

the actual issues. This omission was intentional. There simply wasn't

room to address the issues in detail.

We did make a few points in the "Top 3" post. In summary:

1. It seems the biggest problem is that iron fertilization is debated

primarily as a "geoengineering" technology. This is fallacious. The

world climate change community is not looking for "big" technologies

that are going to "fix the entire problem." That is no longer viewed

as a realistic or even preferred approach. Instead the current

consensus is for a large mix (or portfolio) of many efforts, some that

reduce carbon emissions and some that sequester or remove carbon,

which are applied across the globe in a multitude of ways, and which

add up to the solution.

Iron fertilization therefore should be viewed just as one of many of

these different techniques -- yes, a very promising one, but not a

single point solution. By looking at it on this more moderate scale,

we can avoid the exaggerated claims and extremist arguments seen from

both sides.

2. It has not been clear which arguments are scientific and which are

philosophical. For example, when someone says, "we shouldn't use iron

fertilization, we should reduce energy consumption" that argument has

nothing to do with science or even risk--it's about ideology.

7/27/2006 Addendum

This article has received a few emails both pro and con. One thing I

want to make very clear: this is not intended specifically as an