The Deep Irony Of Deep Sea Vent Research Ethics

Woods Hole's Alvin sub sampling from a vent
Fresh back from attending a conference on chemosynthesis in Japan, Andrew posted a fascinating piece over on his blog Southern Fried Science. Entitled Responsible Research at Deep-Sea Hydrothermal Vents and Beyond, Andrew outlines a set of guidelines for responsible research practices at deep-sea hydrothermal vents that has been developed over years by InterRidge.

As listed in the InterRidge statement on responsible research practices at deep-sea hydrothermal vents, these guidelines are:

1) Avoid, in the conduct of scientific research, activities that will have deleterious impacts on the sustainability of populations of hydrothermal vent organisms;
2) Avoid, in the conduct of scientific research, activities that lead to long lasting and significant alteration and/or visual degradation of vent sites;
3) Avoid collections that are not essential to the conduct of scientific research;
4) Avoid, in the conduct of scientific research, transplanting biota or geological material between sites;
5) Familiarize yourself with the status of current and planned research in an area and avoid activities that will compromise experiments or observations of other researchers. Assure that your own research activities and plans are known to the rest of the international research community through InterRidge and other public domain data bases; and
6) Facilitate the fullest possible use of all biological, chemical and geological samples collected through collaborations and cooperation amongst the global community of scientists.

InterRidge frames the importance of developing such guidelines in its overview,

As marine research scientists we especially appreciate the uniqueness and complexity of the deep-sea hydrothermal vent fauna and environments, and are particularly interested in preserving vents for their scientific, aesthetic, ecological, and potential economic values.

Andrew himself concludes,

I think a variation on these guidelines should be adopted by all scientist who do field work. At the very least it will serve to remind us that as scientist, we do have an environmental impact, and we need to do everything in our power to minimize that impact.

Let me go on the record in saying that I fully endorse Andrew's sentiments that all scientists (deep sea and otherwise) should adopt similar guidelines. And I appreciate the InterRidge efforts in establishing criteria for deep sea vent scientists to minimize environmental impacts to their complex and sensitive study sites.

But here's the thing. It strikes me as not just a little ironic (and perhaps even smacking of greenwashing) for InterRidge to claim scientists are minimizing their environmental impacts while fully aware that deep sea vent systems are on the chopping block for commercial mining.

Deep sea mining companies such as Nautilus Minerals are hot on the heels of the scientific community to get their manipulator claws into the polymetallic sulfides found associated with deep sea vent systems. If you think deep sea vent scientists can have a negative environmental impact in the day-to-day aspects of their field research, what sort of condition do you think mining interests will leave the delicate vent ecosystems? Deep sea mining will likely result in orders of magnitude greater environmental disruption. Granted, mining may still result in less ecological damage than volcanic/tectonic activity. But in considering resource management and biodiversity conservation of a fragile and utterly unique ecosystem, do our choices need to be between the lesser of two cataclysmic environmental disruptions?

Perhaps the greatest irony is when you consider that a hefty portion of the financial underwriting for scientific research of deep sea vent ecosystems is coming from the very mining interests that are so anxious to strip deep sea vents of their mineral riches. Duke University, home to some of the world's leading research in deep sea vent biology, received a little over a quarter of a million dollars ($230,836) from Nautilus Minerals for their research. Duke's not alone in relying on the largesse of Nautilus. Australian National University deep sea research also benefits from Nautilus dollars.

I'm not naive. Research and scientific understanding, especially in relatively frontier areas such deep sea vent systems, requires funding. All too often, scientific research must accept funding from sources with very self-serving interests. Deep sea vent biology is NOT junk science. It's revealing answers not just about evolution of life on Earth, but perhaps how life might currently exist on other planets. But as fascinating as it may be, it's not exactly at the top-of-mind of a lot of private foundations or major donors.

Again, let me be clear, I support the InterRidge efforts at sustainable research guidelines and think all scientists should adopt or establish similarly clear criteria for minimizing environmental impacts to their study sites. But efforts by scientists to adhere to stringent guidelines--knowing that mining interests are circling overhead and will not be bound by such criteria --sounds a lot like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.