Basic Science Aff/Neg
Affirmative
1AC
Contention 1 – Scientific Methods
Status quo ocean exploration and development is asymmetrically focused on the
applied sciences, or the search for knowledge with an applied purpose in mind.
This method of applied science enforces a paradigm of negative institutional support
and bias which shapes the way we execute research and interpret data
Carrier, Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Münster, 1
(Martin, “Knowledge and Control: On the Bearing of Epistemic Values in Applied Science
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/philosophie/personen/carrier/Knowledge%20and%20ControlPU.pdf,
accessed 7/3/14, LLM)
The Primacy of Applied Science
Among the general public, the esteem for science does not primarily arise from the fact that science
endeavors to capture the structure of the universe or the principles that govern the tiniest parts of
matter. Rather, public esteem—and public funding—is for the greater part based on the assumption
that science has a positive impact on the economy and contributes to securing or creating jobs.
Consequently, applied science, not pure research, receives the lion’s share of attention and support. It
is not knowledge that is highly evaluated in the first place but control of natural phenomena. The
relationship between science and technology is widely represented by the so called cascade model. This
model conceives of technological progress as growing out of knowledge gained in basic research.
Technology arises from the application of the outcome of epistemically driven research to practical
problems. The applied scientist proceeds like an engineer. He employs the toolkit of established
principles and brings general theories to bear on technological challenges. The cascade model entails
that promoting epistemic science is the best way to stimulating technological advancement.
The preference granted to applied science increasingly directs university research at practical goals; not
infrequently, it is sponsored by industry. Public and private institutions increasingly pursue applied
projects; the scientific work done at a university institute and a company laboratory tend to become
indistinguishable. This convergence is emphasized by strong institutional links.
Universities found companies in order to market products based on their research. Companies buy
themselves into universities or conclude large-scale contracts concerning joint projects. The interest in
application shapes large areas of present-day science. This primacy of application puts science under
pressure to quickly supply solutions to practical problems. Science is the first institution called upon if
advice in practical matters is needed.
This applies across the board to economic challenges (such as measures apt to stimulate the economy),
environmental problems (such as global climate change or ozone layer depletion), or biological risks
(such as AIDS or BSE). The reputation of science depends on whether it reliably delivers on such issues.
The question naturally arises, then, whether this pressure toward quick, tangible and useful results is
likely to alter the shape of scientific research and to compromise the epistemic values that used to
characterize it.
There are reasons for concern. Given the intertwining of science and technology, it is plausible to
assume that the dominance of technological interests affects science as a whole. The high esteem for
marketable goods could shape pure research in that only certain problem areas are addressed and that
proposed solutions are judged exclusively by their technological suitability. That is, the dominant
technological interests might narrow the agenda of research and encourage sloppy quality judgments.
The question is what the search for control of natural phenomena does to science and whether it
interferes with the search for knowledge.
The prioritization of applied science and utility distorts the epistemology of science
and allows error replication; a new emphasis on pure research can change the ethos
of science
Hansson, Royal Institute of Technology Department of Philosophy and History of
Technology Chair, 7
[Sven Ove, 3/28/07, “Values in pure and applied science,” Foundations of Science, 12:3, p. 258-260,
EBSCO, IC]
The corpus consists of generalized statements that describe and explain features of the world we live in,
in terms defined by our methods of investigation and the concepts we have developed. Hence, what
enters the corpus is not a selection of data but a set of statements of a more general nature. Whereas
data refer to what has been observed, statements in the corpus refer to how things are and to what can
be observed. Hypotheses are included into the corpus when the data provide sufficient evidence for
them, and the same applies to corroborated generalizations that are based on explorative research.1
The scientific corpus is a highly complex construction, much too large to be mastered by a single person.
Different parts of it are maintained by different groups of scientific experts. These parts are all
constantly in development. New statements are added, and old ones removed, in each of the many
subdisciplines, and a consolidating process based on contacts and cooperations between interconnected
disciplines takes place continuously. In spite of this, the corpus is, at each point in time, reasonably welldefined. In most disciplines it is fairly easy to distinguish those statements that are, for the time being,
generally accepted by the relevant experts from those that are contested, under investigation, or
rejected. Hence, although the corpus is not perfectly well-defined, its vague margins are fairly narrow.
The process that leads to modifications of the corpus is based on strict standards of evidence that are an
essential part of the ethos of science. When determining whether or not a new scientific hypothesis
should be accepted for the time being, the onus of proof falls squarely to its adherents. Similarly, those
who claim the existence of an as yet unproven phenomenon have the burden of proof. In other words,
the corpus has high entry requirements. This is essential to prevent scientific progress from being
blocked by wishful thinking and from the pursuit of all sorts of blind alleys. We must be cautious with
what we take for granted in our scientific work. But of course there are limits to how high the
requirements can be. We cannot leave everything open. We must be prepared to take some risks of
being wrong, but these must be relatively small risks.
The entry requirements of the corpus can be described in terms of how we weigh the disadvantages for
future research of unnecessarily leaving a question unsettled against those of settling it incorrectly. This
is closely related to what values we assign to truth and to avoidance of error. In addition, our decisions
on corpus inclusion can be influenced by other values that concern usefulness in future science, such as
the simplicity and the explanatory power of a theory. All these are values, but they are not moral values.
Hempel called them epistemic utilities and delineated them as follows:
“[T]he utilities should reflect the value or disvalue which the different outcomes have from the point of
view of pure scientific research rather than the practical advantages or disadvantages that might result
from the application of an accepted hypothesis, according as the latter is true or false. Let me refer to
the kind of utilities thus vaguely characterized as purely scientific, or epistemic, utilities.” (Hempel 1960:
465)
Whereas epistemic values determine what we allow into the corpus, influence from non-epistemic
values is programmatically excluded. According to the ethos of science, what is included in the corpus
should not depend on how we would like things to be but on what we have evidence for. Therefore, it is
part of every scientist’s training to leave out non-epistemic values from her scientific deliberations as far
as possible. This, of course, is not perfectly achieved. As was noted by Ziman, we researchers all have
interests and values that we try to promote in our scientific work, “however hard we try to surpass
them”. But as he also noted, “the essence of the academic ethos is that it defines a culture designed to
keep them as far as possible under control” (Ziman 1996: 72).2
The focus on applied science ignores the fundamental constitutive value of pure
science research; pure science is necessary to view knowledge and life as intrinsically
valuable.
Kirschenmann, University of Amsterdam Department of Philosophy of Religion and
Comparative Study of Religions Professor, 1
[Peter P., 2001, “”INTRINSICALLY” OR JUST “INSTRUMENTALLY” VALUABLE? ON STRUCTURAL TYPES OF
VALUES OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE,” Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32, EBSCO, p. 254-255,
IC]
In particular, I have pointed out that, and in what sense, scientific knowledge, like everyday knowledge,
also possesses functional value and constitutive value. Furthermore, my investigation could, in general
terms, be said to have issued in a certain defense of the intrinsic value of scientific knowing, along with
the inherent value of scientific knowledge. In this connection, I have cautioned those who might be
inclined to draw hasty moral conclusions from the intrinsic value of things.
Taking a broader perspective, I should maintain that all forms of knowing can be attributed a
fundamental constitutive value. Knowing is an essential part of our being and acting in the world, which
in general is considered to be a good thing. The cognitive dimension pervades all of our lives, e.g. our
emotions, our relations with things and with other people. At the same time, on the considerations and
analysis presented here, many cases of knowing can be experiences that as such are intrinsically
valuable, e.g. an everyday perception of some object or getting acquainted with a stranger.
There are various views which would question, maybe not the conceptual distinctions proposed, but the
value-type attributions countenanced here. I mentioned sociological views which prevent the question
of an “intrinsic value” of scientific knowledge from arising. I referred to pragmatist views which in their
way refuse to grant any “intrinsic value” of knowledge or truth. In a Hegelian perspective, clearly, one
would not speak of the intrinsic or inherent value of finite, individual things or experiences at all;
similarly, one would not accord them any final value. In a Christian theological perspective, one might at
least hesitate to do so, holding that nothing in created reality has the source of its value in itself (with
the possible exception of autonomous persons leading a God-pleasing life). As concerns knowledge, this
idea is backed up by quite a theological tradition which confines itself to discussing differences in its
“usefulness” and its “uselessness”, or vanity.
Finally, I owe the reader some answer to the query, mentioned in the beginning, of how one could even
consider attributing “intrinsic value” to such diverse things as knowledge and nature or animals. Apart
from my arguing that not intrinsic value, but at most inherent value, can be attributed to concrete
particular things, the answer is rather straightforward. Intrinsic value, like all other types of value
discussed here, is a structurally characterized value type; such value types can in principle be applied to
knowledge and sundry other things. Saying that something has intrinsic value just means that the source
of its value lies in the thing itself. This does not imply that the intrinsic value of knowing is the same, or
of the same kind, as the intrinsic value of natural activities of animals. There of course remains the
laborious task of specifying what these intrinsic values substantially consist of. That of knowing surely
includes some satisfaction of curiosity, while that of animal activity may include enjoyment of
movement. Whether something morally ought to be striven for or be protected will also depend on such
further substantial specifications.31
Applied science is a failing model for ocean policy; only a return to pure exploration
can build understanding between scientists, policymakers, and science educators.
Baptista et al, Ph. D in Civil Engineering from MIT and director of NSF Sci & Tech
center, 8
[Antonio, 2008, “Scientific exploration in the era of ocean observatories,”
http://vgc.poly.edu/~juliana/pub/cmop-cise2008.pdf, 7-6-14, FCB]
Future scientific exploration is likely to involve groups that are occasionally geographically distributed
and often diverse in expertise. The disparity of expertise in handling and interpreting complex scientific
data will be even wider when comparing trained scientists with managers and policy makers who will
attempt to use observatories to inform their decisions or with students whose education will depend
crucially on unfettered access to observatory data and products.
A major challenge (and opportunity) is thus to facilitate a redefined scientific exploration of ocean data,
in which we no longer expect that expert scientists who collect or generate the data sets will also
conduct the first line of data analysis. Instead, analysts will face an abundance of heterogeneous data
and tools, and they will lack expert knowledge of at least some of these ingredients. Under these
circumstances, it will be necessary to expertly assist these analysts. It’s useful, as an abstraction, to
conceptualize that such assistance will be provided in part by a multi--sensorial softwareand--data
environment that we refer to as RoboCMOP, as Figure 3 shows. RoboCMOP could advance scientific
exploration by accelerating the cycle of science and education, fostering creative thinking, reducing
opportunities for key data going unnoticed, and providing tools for capturing, managing, and reusing
abstract representations of scientific expertise.
Plan
The United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in
the Okeanos Explorer program.
Contention 2 - Solvency
Current ocean budgets are cutting funds for pure science – the Okeanos Explorer
needs increased federal investment
Adams, NRDC Ocean writer, 14
[Alexandra, 3/25/14, NRDC Switchboard, “A Blue Budget Beyond Sequester: Taking care of our oceans,”
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html, accessed 7/11/14,
TYBG]
Unfortunately, some critical programs won’t get what they need this year. This year’s budget cuts
funding for Ocean Exploration and Research by $7 million. This funding has supported exploration by
the research vessel Okeanos of deep sea corals and other marine life in the submarine canyons and
seamounts off the Mid-Atlantic and New England coasts that fisheries managers and ocean conservation
groups, including NRDC, are working to protect. Even though funds are stretched, shortchanging
exploration and research will lead to weaker protections for species and resources that are already
under stress.
Now is the key time to shift our federal budget priorities for ocean exploration – the
potential benefits are endless
Etzioni, Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University, 14
(Amitai Etzioni is University Professor and professor of International Affairs and director of the Institute
for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, “Final Frontier vs. Fruitful Frontier:
The Case for Increasing Ocean Exploration, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 14,
http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)
Every year, the federal budget process begins with a White House-issued budget request, which lays out
spending priorities for federal programs. From this moment forward, President Obama and his
successors should use this opportunity to correct a longstanding misalignment of federal research
priorities: excessive spending on space exploration and neglect of ocean studies. The nation should
begin transforming the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into a greatly
reconstructed, independent, and effective federal agency. In the present fiscal climate of zero-sum
budgeting, the additional funding necessary for this agency should be taken from the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The basic reason is that deep space—NASA’s favorite
turf—is a distant, hostile, and barren place, the study of which yields few major discoveries and an
abundance of overhyped claims. By contrast, the oceans are nearby, and their study is a potential source
of discoveries that could prove helpful for addressing a wide range of national concerns from climate
change to disease; for reducing energy, mineral, and potable water shortages; for strengthening
industry, security, and defenses against natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis; for increasing
our knowledge about geological history; and much more. Nevertheless, the funding allocated for NASA
in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for FY 2013 was 3.5 times higher than
that allocated for NOAA. Whatever can be said on behalf of a trip to Mars or recent aspirations to revisit
the Moon, the same holds many times over for exploring the oceans; some illustrative examples follow.
(I stand by my record: In The Moondoggle, published in 1964, I predicted that there was less to be
gained in deep space than in near space—the sphere in which communication, navigations, weather,
and reconnaissance satellites orbit—and argued for unmanned exploration vehicles and for investment
on our planet instead of the Moon.)
The Okeanos Explorer is a unique vessel; it has the best equipment and planning for
exploration and best coordination with research scientists
Lobecker et al, Physical Scientist with the NOAA, 12
[Elizabeth, 3-12, Oceanography VOL. 25 NO. 1, “Always Exploring,” 7-5-14, FCB]
NOAA’s Okeanos Explorer, “America’s ship for ocean exploration,” systematically explores the ocean
every day of every cruise to maximize public benefit from the ship’s unique capabilities. “Always
Exploring” is a guiding principle. With 95% of the ocean unexplored, we pursue every opportunity to
map, sample, explore, and survey at planned destinations as well as during transits. Throughout the
ship’s geographically diverse 2010 and 2011 field seasons, multiple opportunities arose to transform
standard operational transit cruises into interdisciplinary explorations by acquiring high-quality,
innovative scientific data around the clock, and rapidly disseminating those data to the public.
During cruise planning, transits are optimized to allow mapping of unexplored or unmapped regions. We
review input received from ocean science and management communities to identify unexplored regions
for possible inclusion. We also consult those scientists and managers to verify that potential targets
remain a high priority and were not recently explored.
The Okeanos Explorer Program also supports surveys of opportunity to add layers of scientific value to
cruises. We conduct nonmapping surveys of opportunity and include well-defined exploratory
operations that help transform standard ship shakedown and transit mapping cruises into multilayered
voyages of discovery. Surveys selected are those that reflect the exploration mission or provide an
opportunity to test additional capabilities that could be incorporated into systematic exploration
operations.
Institutional support of exploration is necessary to advance marine science
Deacon et al, historian specializing in oceanography and fellow @ School of Ocean and
Earth Southampton U, 01
[Margaret, Understanding the Oceans: A Century of Ocean Exploration, pg. 1, FCB]
Expedition was a pioneering venture that had a profound impact both on the contemporary
development of marine science, and on its subsequent metamorphosis into an international scientific
discipline. This is why it continues to capture the imagination of successive generations of
oceanographers. But what has its true legacy been? While the scale of the scientific achievement, and of
its impact on later work, are amply borne out by examples given in this book. Chapters I and 2 take a
rather more critical look at the expedition than perhaps might have been possible at the time of the
celebrations, in (1972), of the centenary of its departure. They reveal that, in spite of being a truly
remarkable achievement, both in terms of its organization and in the work it carried out, the Challenger
Expedition did not provide the sort of impetus that its subsequent reputation might lead us to expect in
cither of the particular aspects of marine science highlighted in this book, that is, the significance of
technological innovation and of adequate institutions in scientific development.
History plainly shows that, in science, institutions as well as individuals have an important role to play.
Science is not an abstract body of knowledge, but represents the human activity of observing and
interpreting independently existing complex natural phenomena. To encapsulate the closest
approximation possible at any one time concerning how these operate, scientists use concepts that they
constantly seek to extend and refine, but do not necessarily agree over. The formulation of ideas may be
the present; of the individual, but those ideas only gain their power and influence through being
promulgated and discussed in scientific societies and journals, and the detailed and interdisciplinary
work needed to con- firm or transform them, especially when directed towards an objective as large and
complex as the ocean, needs to be done through organizations or groups. The Challenger’s enduring as
the ocean, needs to be done through organizations or groups. The Challenger’s enduring influence on
marine science was due in great measure to the publication of the report of the expedition, but after
this promising start there remained no public organization to carry on its work. It is only in the twentieth
century that permanent institutions dedicated to occanographic research have been established, mostly
since 1945.
Basic research is a precondition to applied research – without open-ended scientific
questions, we can never determine the frame within which we need to solve problems
Roll-Hansen, Historian and Philosopher of biology at University of Oslo, 9
[Nils, Centre for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, “Why the distinction between basic
(theoretical) and applied
(practical) research is important in the politics of science,”
http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/concludedResearchProjects/ContingencyDissentInScience/DP/DP
Roll-HansenOnline0409.pdf, accessed 7/5/14, TYBG]
Basic research, on the other hand, is successful when it discovers new phenomena or new ideas of
general interest. The general scientific interest is judged in the first instance by the discipline in
question. But in the long run the promotion of other scientific disciplines is essential, and in the last
instance the improvement of our general world picture is decisive. The aim of basic research is
theoretical, to improve general understanding. It has no specific aim outside of this. But it is, of course,
not accidental that improved understanding of the world increases our ability to act rationally and
efficiently. It improves our grasp of what the world is like and is thus also a basis for developing efficient
technologies. Some degree of realism with respect to scientific theories is inherent in basic research in
this sense.
The social effect of applied research, when successful, is solutions to practical problems as recognized by
politicians, government bureaucrats, commercial entrepreneurs, etc. It is an instrument in the service of
its patron. Applied research helps interpret and refine the patron's problems to make them
researchable, and then investigates possible solutions. The practical problems of the patron set the
frame for the activity. Applied research is in this sense subordinate to social, economic and political
aims. Rewards are primarily for results that help the patron realize his purposes.
The result of basic research, when successful, is discovery of new phenomena and new ideas of general
interest. By shaping our understanding of the world the discoveries of basic science become
preconditions for any precise formulation of political and other practical problems. Sometimes basic
research has a direct and dramatic effect by discovering new threatening problems and thus
immediately setting a new political agenda. The present grave concern over climate change is a striking
example of how politics is completely dependent on science to assess the problem, i.e. make educated
guesses about its future magnitude and development, and think of possible countermeasures.
The differences between applied and basic research in content, in social effects, and in criteria for
success imply a different relationship to politics. Science does not only provide means (instruments) for
solving tasks or problems set by politics, it also shapes social and political values and goals. Applied
research is generally well adapted to serve the first task while basic research is best suited for the
second. From the point of view of liberal democratic decision- making there is an important distinction
between solving recognized problems and introducing and formulating new problems. In the first case
science has an instrumental role subordinate to politics. In the second case the role is politically
enlightening and depends on independence from politics to work well. When science is asked for advice
on a fearful threat like climate change, which has not yet materialized but is only a prediction about
future events, the importance of autonomy becomes particularly acute and correspondingly hard to
maintain.
Now is the key time to reemphasize pure science and exploration; observational data
is necessary to allow subsequent developments in applied science
Martin, Science and Technology Policy Researcher at University of Sussex, and Calvery,
Science Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, 1
[Jane, Ben, 9/2001, SPRU, “Changing Conception of Basic Research,” http://www.oecd.org/science/scitech/2674369.pdf, accessed 7/5/14, TYBG]
3.5.1 Is basic research becoming more important?
Some interviewees judged that conditions were getting better for basic research in the current climate.
Several scientists in the UK commented that the political climate for basic research is better than it was
in the 1970s and 1980s. One reason given for the increased importance of basic research is the
emergence of certain new technologies (such as biotechnology) which require very basic research but
then quickly produce marketable products (Elzinga 1985) – now a ‘fundamental’ breakthrough can
simultaneously be a commercial breakthrough (Crook 1992). This is how ‘strategic’ research is often
described. A UK policy maker observed that now it is often difficult to make a distinction between basic
and applied research.
Because the speed of research is increasing, because the speed of moving from discovery to exploitation
is increasing, and because the same individual people can be involved in any point of the cycle.
One US policy maker ascribed this phenomenon to more advanced instrumentation; because tools are
better, it is possible to go straight from the modeling stage (often involving computer imaging) to
development, without having to go through the traditional intermediate phases. The interviewee
mentioned pharmaceuticals in this context but implied that this was occurring more generally. This
could also feed into the justification for the funding of basic research; a UK policy maker pointed out
that because of the rapid pull-through from basic research into application it was now easier for the
public to accept the importance of basic research. Yet if these suggestions are correct and basic research
is becoming more important, it may be that because of its closer links with technology the research itself
is changing in subtle ways.
Basic research is necessary to make science a self-correcting process, which resolves
problems in our knowledge and applications. Criticisms of science are targeted
toward applied science, not basic research.
Hutcheon, former prof of sociology of education @ U British Columbia, 93
[Pat, A Critique of "Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA",
http://www.humanists.net/pdhutcheon/humanist%20articles/lewontn.htm, 7-5-14, FCB]
The introductory lecture in this series articulated the increasingly popular "postmodernist" claim that all
science is ideology. Lewontin then proceeded to justify this by stating the obvious: that scientists are
human like the rest of us and subject to the same biases and socio-cultural imperatives. Although he did
not actually say it, his comments seemed to imply that the enterprise of scientific research and
knowledge building could therefore be no different and no more reliable as a guide to action than any
other set of opinions. The trouble is that, in order to reach such an conclusion, one would have to ignore
all those aspects of the scientific endeavor that do in fact distinguish it from other types and sources of
belief formation. Indeed, if the integrity of the scientific endeavor depended only on the wisdom and
objectivity of the individuals engaged in it we would be in trouble. North American agriculture would
today be in the state of that in Russia today. In fact it would be much worse, for the Soviets threw out
Lysenko's ideology-masquerading-as-science decades ago. Precisely because an alternative scientific
model was available (thanks to the disparaged Darwinian theory) the former Eastern bloc countries have
been partially successful in overcoming the destructive chain of consequences which blind faith in
ideology had set in motion. This is what Lewontin's old Russian dissident professor meant when he said
that the truth must be spoken, even at great personal cost. How sad that Lewontin has apparently failed
to understand the fact that while scientific knowledge -- with the power it gives us -- can and does allow
humanity to change the world, ideological beliefs have consequences too. By rendering their
proponents politically powerful but rationally and instrumentally impotent, they throw up
insurmountable barriers to reasoned and value-guided social change. What are the crucial differences
between ideology and science that Lewonton has ignored? Both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn have
spelled these out with great care -- the former throughout a long lifetime of scholarship devoted to that
precise objective. Stephen Jay Gould has also done a sound job in this area. How strange that someone
with the status of Lewontin, in a series of lectures supposedly covering the same subject, would not at
least have dealt with their arguments! Science has to do with the search for regularities in what humans
experience of their physical and social environments, beginning with the most simple units discernible,
and gradually moving towards the more complex. It has to do with expressing these regularities in the
clearest and most precise language possible, so that cause-and-effect relations among the parts of the
system under study can be publicly and rigorously tested. And it has to do with devising explanations of
those empirical regularities which have survived all attempts to falsify them. These explanations, once
phrased in the form of testable hypotheses, become predictors of future events. In other words, they
lead to further conjectures of additional relationships which, in their turn, must survive repeated public
attempts to prove them wanting -- if the set of related explanations (or theory) is to continue to operate
as a fruitful guide for subsequent research. This means that science, unlike mythology and ideology, has
a self-correcting mechanism at its very heart. A conjecture, to be classed as scientific, must be amenable
to empirical test. It must, above all, be open to refutation by experience. There is a rigorous set of rules
according to which hypotheses are formulated and research findings are arrived at, reported and
replicated. It is this process -- not the lack of prejudice of the particular scientist, or his negotiating
ability, or even his political power within the relevant university department -- that ensures the
reliability of scientific knowledge. The conditions established by the community of science is one of
precisely defined and regulated "intersubjectivity". Under these conditions the theory that wins out, and
subsequently prevails, does so not because of its agreement with conventional wisdom or because of
the political power of its proponents, as is often the case with ideology. The survival of a scientific
theory such as Darwin's is due, instead, to its power to explain and predict observable regularities in
human experience, while withstanding worldwide attempts to refute it -- and proving itself open to
elaboration and expansion in the process. In this sense only is scientific knowledge objective and
universal. All this has little relationship to the claim of an absolute universality of objective "truth" apart
from human strivings that Lewontin has attributed to scientists. Because ideologies, on the other hand,
do claim to represent truth, they are incapable of generating a means by which they can be corrected as
circumstances change. Legitimate science makes no such claims. Scientific tests are not tests of
verisimilitude. Science does not aim for "true" theories purporting to reflect an accurate picture of the
"essence" of reality. It leaves such claims of infallibility to ideology. The tests of science, therefore, are in
terms of workability and falsifiability, and its propositions are accordingly tentative in nature. A
successful scientific theory is one which, while guiding the research in a particular problem area, is
continuously elaborated, revised and refined, until it is eventually superseded by that very hypothesismaking and testing process that it helped to define and sharpen. An ideology, on the other hand, would
be considered to have failed under those conditions, for the "truth" must be for all time. More than
anything, it is this difference that confuses those ideological thinkers who are compelled to attack
Darwin's theory of evolution precisely because of its success as a scientific theory. For them, and the
world of desired and imagined certainty in which they live, that very success in contributing to a
continuously evolving body of increasingly reliable -- albeit inevitably tentative -- knowledge can only
mean failure, in that the theory itself has altered in the process.
Ocean exploration should be our highest research priority. The benefits from ocean
exploration outweigh any other science expenditure, and are key to understanding
climate change, energy production, medicine, and the economy.
Etzioni, Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University, 14
(Amitai Etzioni is University Professor and professor of International Affairs and director of the Institute
for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, “Final Frontier vs. Fruitful Frontier:
The Case for Increasing Ocean Exploration, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 14,
http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)
Although these technologies are promising, additional research is needed not only for further
development but also to adapt them to regional differences. For instance, ocean wave conversion
technology is suitable only in locations in which the waves are of the same sort for which existing
technologies were developed and in locations where the waves also generate enough energy to make
the endeavor profitable. One study shows that thermohaline circulation— ocean circulation driven by
variations in temperature and salinity—varies from area to area, and climate change is likely to alter
thermohaline circulation in the future in ways that could affect the use of energy generators that rely on
ocean currents. Additional research would help scientists understand how to adapt energy technologies
for use in specific environments and how to avoid the potential environmental consequences of their
use. Renewable energy resources are the ocean’s particularly attractive energy product; they contribute
much less than coal or natural gas to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is worth
noting that the oceans do hold vast reserves of untapped hydrocarbon fuels. Deep-sea drilling
technologies remain immature; although it is possible to use oil rigs in waters of 8,000 to 9,000 feet,
greater depths require the use of specially-designed drilling ships that still face significant challenges.
Deep-water drilling that takes place in depths of more than 500 feet is the next big frontier for oil and
natural-gas production, projected to expand offshore oil production by 18% by 2020. One should expect
the development of new technologies that would enable drilling petroleum and natural gas at even
greater depths than presently possible and under layers of salt and other barriers. In addition to
developing these technologies, entire other lines of research are needed to either mitigate the side
effects of large-scale usage of these technologies or to guarantee that these effects are small. Although
it has recently become possible to drill beneath Arctic ice, the technologies are largely untested.
Environmentalists fear that ocean turbines could harm fish or marine mammals, and it is feared that
wave conversion technologies would disturb ocean floor sediments, impede migration of ocean animals,
prevent waves from clearing debris, or harm animals. Demand has pushed countries to develop
technologies to drill for oil beneath ice or in the deep sea without much regard for the safety or
environmental concerns associated with oil spills. At present, there is no developed method for cleaning
up oil spills in the Arctic, a serious problem that requires additional research if Arctic drilling is to
commence on a larger scale. More ocean potential When large quantities of public funds are invested in
a particular research and development project, particularly when the payoff is far from assured, it is
common for those responsible for the project to draw attention to the additional benefits—“spinoffs”—
generated by the project as a means of adding to its allure. This is particularly true if the project can be
shown to improve human health. Thus, NASA has claimed that its space exploration “benefit[ted]
pharmaceutical drug development” and assisted in developing a new type of sensor “that provides realtime image recognition capabilities,” that it developed an optics technology in the 1970s that now is
used to screen children for vision problems, and that a type of software developed for vibration analysis
on the Space Shuttle is now used to “diagnose medical issues.” Similarly, opportunities to identify the
“components of the organisms that facilitate increased virulence in space” could in theory—NASA
claims—be used on Earth to “pinpoint targets for anti-microbial therapeutics.” Ocean research, as
modest as it is, has already yielded several medical “spinoffs.” The discovery of one species of Japanese
black sponge, which produces a substance that successfully blocks division of tumorous cells, led
researchers to develop a late-stage breast cancer drug. An expedition near the Bahamas led to the
discovery of a bacterium that produces substances that are in the process of being synthesized as
antibiotics and anticancer compounds. In addition to the aforementioned cancer fighting compounds,
chemicals that combat neuropathic pain, treat asthma and inflammation, and reduce skin irritation have
been isolated from marine organisms. One Arctic Sea organism alone produced three antibiotics.
Although none of the three ultimately proved pharmaceutically significant, current concerns that strains
of bacteria are developing resistance to the “antibiotics of last resort” is a strong reason to increase
funding for bioprospecting. Additionally, the blood cells of horseshoe crabs contain a chemical—which is
found nowhere else in nature and so far has yet to be synthesized—that can detect bacterial
contamination in pharmaceuticals and on the surfaces of surgical implants. Some research indicates that
between 10 and 30 percent of horseshoe crabs that have been bled die, and that those that survive are
less likely to mate. It would serve for research to indicate the ways these creatures can be better
protected. Up to two-thirds of all marine life remains unidentified, with 226,000 eukaryotic species
already identified and more than 2,000 species discovered every year, according to Ward Appeltans, a
marine biologist at the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. Contrast these
discoveries of new species in the oceans with the frequent claims that space exploration will lead to the
discovery of extraterrestrial life. For example, in 2010 NASA announced that it had made discoveries on
Mars “that [would] impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life” but ultimately admitted that
they had “no definitive detection of Martian organics.” The discovery that prompted the initial press
release—that NASA had discovered a possible arsenic pathway in metabolism and that thus life was
theoretically possible under conditions different than those on Earth—was then thoroughly rebutted by
a panel of NASAselected experts. The comparison with ocean science is especially stark when one
considers that oceanographers have already discovered real organisms that rely on chemosynthesis—
the process of making glucose from water and carbon dioxide by using the energy stored in chemical
bonds of inorganic compounds—living near deep sea vents at the bottom of the oceans. The same is
true of the search for mineral resources. NASA talks about the potential for asteroid mining, but it will
be far easier to find and recover minerals suspended in ocean waters or beneath the ocean floor.
Indeed, resources beneath the ocean floor are already being commercially exploited, whereas there is
not a near-term likelihood of commercial asteroid mining. Another major justification cited by advocates
for the pricey missions to Mars and beyond is that “we don’t know” enough about the other planets and
the universe in which we live. However, the same can be said of the deep oceans. Actually, we know
much more about the Moon and even about Mars than we know about the oceans. Maps of the Moon
are already strikingly accurate, and even amateur hobbyists have crafted highly detailed pictures of the
Moon—minus the “dark side”—as one set of documents from University College London’s archives
seems to demonstrate. By 1967, maps and globes depicting the complete lunar surface were produced.
By contrast, about 90% of the world’s oceans had not yet been mapped as of 2005. Furthermore, for
years scientists have been fascinated by noises originating at the bottom of the ocean, known creatively
as “the Bloop” and “Julia,” among others. And the world’s largest known “waterfall” can be found
entirely underwater between Greenland and Iceland, where cold, dense Arctic water from the
Greenland Sea drops more than 11,500 feet before reaching the seafloor of the Denmark Strait. Much
remains poorly understood about these phenomena, their relevance to the surrounding ecosystem, and
the ways in which climate change will affect their continued existence. In short, there is much that
humans have yet to understand about the depths of the oceans, further research into which could yield
important insights about Earth’s geological history and the evolution of humans and society. Addressing
these questions surpasses the importance of another Mars rover or a space observatory designed to
answer highly specific questions of importance mainly to a few dedicated astrophysicists, planetary
scientists, and select colleagues.
Science Diplomacy Advantage
1AC
Pure science is key to sustainable science diplomacy and global leadership
Coletta, PhD in Political Science at Duke University, 9
(Damon, Masters in Public Policy @ Harvard, Assoc Prof of Geopolitics & National Security Policy @ US
Air Force Academy, September 2009,
http://www.usafa.edu/df/inss/Research%20Papers/2009/09%20Coletta%20Science%20and%20Influenc
eINSS(FINAL).pdf, accessed 7/9/14, LLM)
Less appreciated is how scientific progress facilitates diplomatic strategy in the long run, how it
contributes to Joseph Nye‘s soft power, which translates to staying power in the international arena.
One possible escape from the geopolitical forces depicted in Thucydides‘ history for all time is for the
current hegemon to maintain its lead in science, conceived as a national program and as an enterprise
belonging to all mankind. Beyond the new technologies for projecting military or economic power, the
scientific ethos conditions the hegemon‘s approach to social-political problems. It effects how the leader
organizes itself and other states to address well-springs of discontent—material inequity, religious or
ethnic oppression, and environmental degradation. The scientific mantle attracts others‘ admiration,
which softens or at least complicates other societies‘ resentment of power disparity. Finally, for certain
global problems—nuclear proliferation, climate change, and financial crisis—the scientific lead ensures
robust representation in transnational epistemic communities that can shepherd intergovernmental
negotiations on to a conservative, or secular, path in terms of preserving international order. In today‘s
order, U.S. hegemony is yet in doubt even though military and economic indicators confirm its status as
the world‘s lone superpower. America possesses the material where withal to maintain its lead in the
sciences, but it also desires to bear the standard for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, patronage
of basic science does not automatically flourish with liberal democracy. The free market and the mass
public impose demands on science that tend to move research out of the basic and into applied realms.
Absent the lead in basic discovery, no country can hope to pioneer humanity‘s quest to know Nature.
There is a real danger U.S. state and society could permanently confuse sponsorship of technology with
patronage of science, thereby delivering a self-inflicted blow to U.S. leadership among nations.
US Science Diplomacy promotes solutions to multiple systemic issues
Federoff, Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of USAID, 8
(Nina, April 2, 2008, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION, http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf,
accessed 7-11-2014, LK)
The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort
by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to
fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic
opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As
well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public
health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism.
These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly.
Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats.
The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges
facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and
necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly
harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with
the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our
allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy.
2AC – Pure Science Solves SD
Pure science is key to international science diplomacy
Anthis, Rhodes Scholar Post-Doctoral Researcher, 9
(Nick, September 17th, “THE UNIVERSALITY OF BASIC SCIENCE MAY BE THE DEEPEST LINK BETWEEN THE
US AND THE MUSLIM WORLD”, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/a_universal_truth/, accessed
7/9/14, LLM)
In more general terms, scientific diplomacy is an idea that makes a great deal of sense. Most simply, in
our 21st century society, science and technology so permeate our everyday lives that few areas of
government policy can regularly ignore such considerations. More poignantly, however, science is
fundamentally an international endeavor. Even the least senior scientists (i.e. grad students and postdocs) may travel internationally at a frequency that rivals that of the more senior members of many
other professions. A lab in the US may have ongoing scientific collaborations (or heated competitions)
with labs in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere. Advances in technology have aided these collaborations
tremendously, making differences in time zones the only real obstacle still preventing regular face-toface communication (by voice-over IP video conferencing) between scientists on opposite sides of the
globe. Finally, scientific findings are published in international journals accessible to anyone who reads
English and whose institution subscribes to the journal (although the rise of open-access publishing is
easing this final constraint).
This internationality stems from another fundamental aspect of science: that its truths are universal.
Independent of location, culture, or religion, the process of evaluating scientific knowledge should—in
principle, at least—remain the same. Of course, as Jasanoff points out, the successful application of
scientific findings to address societal needs is affected by all of these subjective factors. But the
universality of basic science may be the deepest link that the US and the Muslim world share. (On the
flipside, we also share many of the same enemies of scientific progress; as in the US, creationism has
flourished in many majority-Muslim countries.) Today, the US can still claim to be the world’s greatest
scientific power—though maybe only tenuously. A thousand years ago, however, the Middle East would
have unequivocally held that designation—another common link and an important reminder that
preeminence is not permanent.
So, where does this leave us in terms of actual scientific diplomacy? Centers of scientific excellence and
science envoys are both good ideas, and I expect that we’ll see a vamped-up corps of science envoys in
the very near future. Beyond these actions, though, the Obama administration should look for ways to
encourage further collaborations between practicing scientists in the US and the Muslim world, and
programs along these lines may be simpler to implement and more likely to yield the desired results.
New education and travel grants to send American scientists to work in the Middle East and
elsewhere—and vice versa—would be one avenue. One of the greatest gifts the US has to offer the
outside world is graduate education at our many research universities, and we need to ensure that this
option is as accessible as possible—and not hampered by the visa and immigration difficulties that
became so much more common after 9/11. Additional grants to bring outside scientists to the US to
attend conferences or workshops or to meet with collaborators could also be helpful.
These actions should help foster the exchange of ideas between scientists in the US and Muslim
countries. New scientific collaborations will help advance scientific progress and may help focus
resources to pertinent problems that would otherwise be neglected. Such collaborations also have the
immediate benefit of improving the scope and impact of the scientists’ work, assisting with career
advancement and raising the prestige of local research communities. In the long run, the hope is that
this exchange of scientific ideas will contribute to greater cross-cultural appreciation and understanding.
Given the vast resources that have been wasted creating an enormous credibility gap between the US
and the Muslim world (particularly through the Iraq war), scientific diplomacy is certainly a cause worth
funding.
2AC – SD Solves WoT
Science diplomacy is key to the war on terror – it fosters development that weakens
the impetus and secures loose WMDs
Federoff, Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the
Administrator of USAID, 8
(Nina, April 2, 2008, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND
SCIENCE EDUCATION, http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf,
accessed 7-11-2014, LK)
The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to
combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed
to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve
An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas.
people’s lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and
developmental goals.
Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the
proliferation of the weapons’ of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed ‘brain drain’.
Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative
international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving
biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase
global partnerships, and create sustainability.
2AC – SD Solves Warming
International science diplomacy key to international solutions to warming
Hulme and Mahony, Fellows on the Science, Technology and Society Program at
Harvard University 10
[Mike and Martin, “Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC?”, http://mikehulme.org/wpcontent/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf, accessed 7/12/14, LK]
The consequences of this ‘geography of IPCC expertise’ are significant, affecting the construction of IPCC
emissions scenarios (Parikh, 1992), the framing and shaping of climate change knowledge (Shackley,
1997; Lahsen, 2007; O’Neill et al., 2010) and the legitimacy of the knowledge assessments themselves
(Elzinga, 1996; Weingart, 1999; Lahsen, 2004; Grundmann, 2007; Mayer & Arndt, 2009; Beck, 2010). As
Bert Bolin, the then chairmen of the IPCC remarked back in 1991: “Right now, many countries, especially
developing countries, simply do not trust assessments in which their scientists and policymakers have
not participated. Don’t you think credibility demands global representation?” (cited in Schneider,
1991). Subsequent evidence for such suspicions has come from many quarters (e.g. Karlsson et al., 2007)
and Kandlikar and Sagar concluded their 1999 study of the North-South knowledge divide by arguing, “...
it must be recognised that a fair and effective climate protection regime that requires cooperation with
developing countries, will also require their participation in the underlying research, analysis and
assessment” (p.137). This critique is also voiced more recently by Myanna Lahsen (2004) in her study of
Brazil and the climate change regime: “Brazilian climate scientists reflect some distrust of ... the IPCC,
which they describe as dominated by Northern framings of the problems and therefore biased against
interpretations and interest of the South” (p.161).
Ext - Inherency
Underfunding
The USfg is underfunding ocean exploration – it’s key to solve the economy and
strengthen leadership
Bidwell, US News, 13
[Allie, 9-25-14, “Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean Exploration Program,”
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientists-release-first-plan-for-national-oceanexploration-program, US News, FCB]
More than three-quarters of what lies beneath the surface of the ocean is unknown, even to trained
scientists and researchers. Taking steps toward discovering what resources and information the seas
hold, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Aquarium of the Pacific released on
Wednesday a report that details plans to create the nation's first ocean exploration program by the year
2020.
The report stems from a national convening of more than 100 federal agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, nonprofit organizations and private companies to discuss what components should make
up a national ocean exploration program and what will be needed to create it.
"This is the first time the explorers themselves came together and said, 'this is the kind of program we
want and this is what it's going to take,'" says Jerry Schubel, president and CEO of the Aquarium of the
Pacific, located in Long Beach, Calif. "That's very important, particularly when you put it in the context
that the world ocean is the largest single component of Earth's living infrastructure ... and less than 10
percent of it has ever been explored."
In order to create a comprehensive exploration program, Schubel says it will become increasingly
important that federal and state agencies form partnerships with other organizations, as it is unlikely
that government funding for ocean exploration will increase in the next few years.
Additionally, Schubel says there was a consensus among those explorers and stakeholders who gathered
in July that participating organizations need to take advantage of technologies that are available and
place a greater emphasis on public engagement and citizen exploration – utilizing the data that
naturalists and nonscientists collect on their own.
"In coastal areas at least, given some of these new low-cost robots that are available, they could actually
produce data that would help us understand the nation's coastal environment," Schubel says.
Expanding the nation's ocean exploration program could lead to more jobs, he adds, and could also
serve as an opportunity to engage children and adults in careers in science, technology, engineering and
mathematics, or STEM.
"I think what we need to do as a nation is make STEM fields be seen by young people as exciting career
trajectories," Schubel says. "We need to reestablish the excitement of science and engineering, and I
think ocean exploration gives us a way to do that."
Schubel says science centers, museums and aquariums can serve as training grounds to give children
and adults the opportunity to learn more about the ocean and what opportunities exist in STEM fields.
"One thing that we can contribute more than anything else is to let kids and families come to our
institutions and play, explore, make mistakes, and ask silly questions without being burdened down by
the kinds of standards that our formal K-12 and K-14 schools have to live up to," Schubel says.
Conducting more data collection and exploration quests is also beneficial from an economic standpoint
because explorers have the potential to identify new resources, both renewable and nonrenewable.
Having access to those materials, such as oils and minerals, and being less dependent on other nations,
Schubel says, could help improve national security.
Each time explorers embark on a mission to a new part of the ocean, they bring back more detailed
information by mapping the sea floor and providing high-resolution images of what exists, says David
McKinnie, a senior advisor for NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration and Research and a co-author of the
report. On almost every expedition, he says, the scientists discover new species. In a trip to Indonesia in
2010, for example, McKinnie says researchers discovered more than 50 new species of coral.
"It's really a reflection of how unknown the ocean is," McKinnie says. "Every time we go to a new place,
we find something new, and something new about the ocean that's important."
And these expeditions can have important impacts not just for biological cataloging, but also for the
environment, McKinnie says.
In a 2004 expedition in the Pacific Ocean, NOAA scientists identified a group of underwater volcanoes
that were "tremendous" sources of carbon dioxide, and thus contributed to increasing ocean
acidification, McKinnie says. Research has shown that when ocean waters become more acidic from
absorbing carbon dioxide, they produce less of a gas that protects the Earth from the sun's radiation
and can amplify global warming. But until NOAA's expedition, no measures accounted for carbon dioxide
produced from underwater volcanoes.
"It's not just bringing back pretty pictures," McKinnie says. "It's getting real results that matter."
US funding of ocean exploration is chronically underfunded
Dove, Georgia Aquarium director of research, and McClain, Assistant Director of
Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center 12
[Craig, 10-16-12, Deep Sea News, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now,”
http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-1/, 7-12-14, FCB]
For too long ocean exploration has suffered from chronic underfunding and the lack of an independent
agency with a dedicated mission. Here, Al Dove and I call for the creation of a NASA-style agency to
ensure the future health of US ocean science and exploration. Over a decade ago, one of us (CM) made
his first submersible dive off of Rum Cay in the Bahamas. At the surface the temperature was a warm
91˚F and at the bottom 2,300 feet down the temperature was near freezing. Despite my large size, I
don’t remember feeling cramped inside the soda can-sized sub at any moment. The entire time I
pressed my face against a 6-inch porthole, my cheek against the cool glass, and focused my eyes on the
few feet of illuminated sea floor around me and the miles of black beyond. Here in the great depths of
oceans I got my first look at the giant isopod, a roly-poly the size of a large shoe. This beast and the
surrounding abyss instantly captured my imagination, launching me on a journey of ocean science and
exploration to unravel the riddles of life in the deep.
A thousand miles away, off the coast of Yucatan Mexico, the other of us (AD) experienced equal wonder
at the discovery of the largest aggregation ever recorded of the largest of fish in the world, the whale
shark. These spotted behemoths gather annually in the hundreds off the coast of Cancun, one of the
world’s most popular tourist destinations, and yet this spectacular biological was unknown to science
until 2006. Swimming among them, I reverted to a childish state of wonder, marveling at their size,
power and grace, and boggling that they have probably been feeding in these waters since dinosaurs,
not tourists, inhabited the Yucatan.
Whether giant fish or giant crustaceans, are opportunities to uncover the ocean’s mysteries are quickly
dwindling.
The Ghost of Ocean Science Present Our nation faces a pivotal moment in exploration of the oceans. The
most remote regions of the deep oceans should be more accessible now than ever due to engineering
and technological advances. What limits our exploration of the oceans is not imagination or technology
but funding. We as a society started to make a choice: to deprioritize ocean exploration and science.
In general, science in the U.S. is poorly funded; while the total number of dollars spent here is large, we
only rank 6th in world in the proportion of gross domestic product invested into research. The outlook
for ocean science is even bleaker. In many cases, funding of marine science and exploration, especially
for the deep sea, are at historical lows. In others, funding remains stagnant, despite rising costs of
equipment and personnel.
The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a committee comprised of leading ocean scientists, policy
makers, and former U.S. secretaries and congressmen, gave the grade of D- to funding of ocean science
in the U.S. Recently the Obama Administration proposed to cut the National Undersea Research Program
(NURP) within NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a move supported by the
Senate. In NOAA’s own words, “NOAA determined that NURP was a lower-priority function within its
portfolio of research activities.” Yet, NURP is one of the main suppliers of funding and equipment for
ocean exploration, including both submersibles at the Hawaiian Underwater Research Laboratory and
the underwater habitat Aquarius. This cut has come despite an overall request for a 3.1% increase in
funding for NOAA. Cutting NURP saves a meager $4,000,000 or 1/10 of NOAA’s budget and 1,675 times
less than we spend on the Afghan war in just one month.
One of the main reasons NOAA argues for cutting funding of NURP is “that other avenues of Federal
funding for such activities might be pursued.” However, “other avenues” are fading as well. Some
funding for ocean exploration is still available through NOAA’s Ocean Exploration Program. However,
the Office of Ocean Exploration, the division that contains NURP, took the second biggest cut of all
programs (-16.5%) and is down 33% since 2009. Likewise, U.S. Naval funding for basic research has also
diminished.
The other main source of funding for deep-sea science in the U.S. is the National Science Foundation
which primarily supports biological research through the Biological Oceanography Program. Funding for
science within this program remains stagnant, funding larger but fewer grants. This trend most likely
reflects the ever increasing costs of personnel, equipment, and consumables which only larger projects
can support. Indeed, compared to rising fuel costs, a necessity for oceanographic vessels, NSF funds do
not stretch as far as even a decade ago.
Shrinking funds and high fuel costs have also taken their toll on The University-National Oceanographic
Laboratory System (UNOLS) which operates the U.S. public research fleet. Over the last decade, only
80% of available ship days were supported through funding. Over the last two years the gap has
increasingly widened, and over the last ten years operations costs increased steadily at 5% annually.
With an estimated shortfall of $12 million, the only solution is to reduce the U.S. research fleet size.
Currently this is expected to be a total of 6 vessels that are near retirement, but there is no plan of
replacing these lost ships.
The situation in the U.S. contrasts greatly with other countries. The budget for the Japanese Agency for
Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) continues to increase, although much less so in recent
years. The 2007 operating budget for the smaller JAMSTEC was $527 million, over $100 million dollars
more than the 2013 proposed NOAA budget. Likewise, China is increasing funding to ocean science over
the next five years and has recently succeeded in building a new deep-sea research and exploration
submersible, the Jiaolong. The only deep submersible still operating in the US is the DSV Alvin, originally
built in 1968.
The Ghost of Ocean Science Past 85% of Americans express concerns about stagnant research funding
and 77% feel we are losing our edge in science. So how did we get here? Part of the answer lies in how
ocean science and exploration fit into the US federal science funding scene. Ocean science is funded by
numerous agencies, with few having ocean science and exploration as a clear directive. Contrast to this
to how the US traditionally dealt with exploration of space. NASA was recognised early on as the vehicle
by which the US would establish and maintain international space supremacy, but the oceans have
always had to compete with other missions.
We faced a weak economy and in tough economic times we rightly looked for areas to adjust our
budgets. Budget cuts lead to tough either/or situations: do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose
what appeared to be most practical and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied
science because it was perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was
easier to justify politically the expenditures involved.
In addition to historical issues of infrastructure and current economic woes, we lacked an understanding
of the importance of basic research and ocean exploration to science, society, and often to applied
research. As example, NOAA shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and exploration but
greatly increased funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased funding for climate
change research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our environment and
economy. Yet, did this choice, and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our country’s
capability to conduct basic ocean exploration and science and which climate change work relies upon?
Just a few short decades ago, the U.S. was a pioneer of deep water exploration. We are the country that
in 1960 funded and sent two men to the deepest part of the world’s ocean in the Trieste. Five years
later, we developed, built, and pioneered a new class of submersible capable of reaching some of the
most remote parts of the oceans to nimbly explore and conduct deep-water science. Our country’s
continued commitment to the DSV Alvin is a bright spot in our history and has served as model for other
countries’ submersible programs. The Alvin allowed us to be the first to discover hydrothermal vents
and methane seeps, explore the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and countless other scientific firsts. Our rich history
with space exploration is dotted with firsts and it revolutionized our views of the world and universe
around us; so has our rich history of ocean exploration. But where NASA produced a steady stream of
occupied space research vehicles, Alvin remains the only deep-capable research submersible in the
service in the United States.
Neglected
US neglecting ocean exploration now
McClain 12 (Craig, the Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and
has conducted deep-sea research for 11 years and published over 40 papers in the area, October 16,
2012, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now,” http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasanow-pt-1/, LK)
Whether giant fish or giant crustaceans, are opportunities to uncover the ocean’s mysteries are quickly
dwindling. The Ghost of Ocean Science Present Our nation faces a pivotal moment in exploration of the
oceans. The most remote regions of the deep oceans should be more accessible now than ever due to
engineering and technological advances. What limits our exploration of the oceans is not imagination or
technology but funding. We as a society started to make a choice: to deprioritize ocean exploration and
science. In general, science in the U.S. is poorly funded; while the total number of dollars spent here is
large, we only rank 6th in world in the proportion of gross domestic product invested into research. The
outlook for ocean science is even bleaker. In many cases, funding of marine science and exploration,
especially for the deep sea, are at historical lows. In others, funding remains stagnant, despite rising
costs of equipment and personnel. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a committee comprised of
leading ocean scientists, policy makers, and former U.S. secretaries and congressmen, gave the grade of
D- to funding of ocean science in the U.S. Recently the Obama Administration proposed to cut the
National Undersea Research Program (NURP) within NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, a move supported by the Senate. In NOAA’s own words, “NOAA determined that NURP
was a lower-priority function within its portfolio of research activities.” Yet, NURP is one of the main
suppliers of funding and equipment for ocean exploration, including both submersibles at the Hawaiian
Underwater Research Laboratory and the underwater habitat Aquarius. This cut has come despite an
overall request for a 3.1% increase in funding for NOAA. Cutting NURP saves a meager $4,000,000 or
1/10 of NOAA’s budget and 1,675 times less than we spend on the Afghan war in just one month. One of
the main reasons NOAA argues for cutting funding of NURP is “that other avenues of Federal funding for
such activities might be pursued.” However, “other avenues” are fading as well. Some funding for ocean
exploration is still available through NOAA’s Ocean Exploration Program. However, the Office of Ocean
Exploration, the division that contains NURP, took the second biggest cut of all programs (-16.5%) and is
down 33% since 2009. Likewise, U.S. Naval funding for basic research has also diminished. The other
main source of funding for deep-sea science in the U.S. is the National Science Foundation which
primarily supports biological research through the Biological Oceanography Program. Funding for
science within this program remains stagnant, funding larger but fewer grants. This trend most likely
reflects the ever increasing costs of personnel, equipment, and consumables which only larger projects
can support. Indeed, compared to rising fuel costs, a necessity for oceanographic vessels, NSF funds do
not stretch as far as even a decade ago. Shrinking funds and high fuel costs have also taken their toll on
The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) which operates the U.S. public
research fleet. Over the last decade, only 80% of available ship days were supported through funding.
Over the last two years the gap has increasingly widened, and over the last ten years operations costs
increased steadily at 5% annually. With an estimated shortfall of $12 million, the only solution is to
reduce the U.S. research fleet size. Currently this is expected to be a total of 6 vessels that are near
retirement, but there is no plan of replacing these lost ships. The situation in the U.S. contrasts greatly
with other countries. The budget for the Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology
(JAMSTEC) continues to increase, although much less so in recent years. The 2007 operating budget for
the smaller JAMSTEC was $527 million, over $100 million dollars more than the 2013 proposed NOAA
budget. Likewise, China is increasing funding to ocean science over the next five years and has recently
succeeded in building a new deep-sea research and exploration submersible, the Jiaolong. The only deep
submersible still operating in the US is the DSV Alvin, originally built in 1968.
Ext - Solvency
US Key – Heg, Environment
The US maintains the “largest most capable” fleet of ocean exploration vehicles, they
rely on federal ocean pure research funding, and they’re key to naval power and the
environment
UNOLS, The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System, 96
[2/96, UNOLS, “The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System: Celebrating 25 Years as the
Nation's Premier Oceanographic Research Fleet,” https://www.unols.org/info/25annpap.html, 7-12-14,
FCB]
The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is a consortium of 57 academic
institutions with significant marine science programs that either operate or use the U.S. academic
research Fleet. It is now entering its 25th year as the world leader in oceanographic facilities. The 27
research vessels in the UNOLS Fleet stand as the largest and most capable Fleet of oceanographic
research vessels in the world.
UNOLS owes its success to a unique management strategy. The UNOLS Council, which consists of
seagoing scientists, vessel operators and marine technicians, ensures that ship and equipment schedules
are coordinated to make efficient use of finite resources. This coordination is governed by one simple
reality - every dollar used to support ships is one less dollar for science. Part of the UNOLS management
philosophy is to maintain an entrepreneurial spirit among the various operators of the ships. This fosters
a competition among the ships for science operations that has resulted in a level of effectiveness not
found in any other oceanographic fleet. The close integration between the users of the Fleet and the
academic institutions that operate the research vessels also results in a substantial financial savings. The
academic institutions that operate the vessels subsidize the costs through a variety of direct and indirect
means. Operations of the Fleet are highly responsive to changes in the annual science needs. Each
operator of a UNOLS vessel functions on a year to year grant basis. Funding is only available as required
to provide the services needed by the scientific community.
In the past three years, the level of Federal funding for ocean science has decreased nearly 30%. The
decrease in science funding is projected by UNOLS to lead to a long term excess capacity in the Fleet. If
the trends in funding that we have seen over the past three years continue, the Fleet will have to change
in one of two ways. Its size can be reduced to match its capacity to the smaller amount of research that
will be performed with decreased budgets. Alternatively, other Federal and State users of the Fleet must
be found.
The UNOLS Council is charged with planning for future facility requirements for ocean science research
to ensure that the Fleet maintains its vitality. This includes planning for replacement of ships as they age
(with a lifetime of about 30 years and 27 ships, that's nearly one a year). Despite the reduction in
Federal support for oceanographic research, UNOLS must continue to plan for new facilities to replace
our existing assets as they age, and to explore the requirements for new types of facilities as the needs
of ocean science change.
The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is a consortium of 57 academic
institutions (Appendix) with significant marine science programs that either operate or use the U.S.
academic research fleet. In the early 1960's operators of oceanographic research vessels formed a
Research Vessel Operators Committee (RVOC) to coordinate work on operational and regulatory issues.
UNOLS was established in 1971, in recognition of the need to ensure scientific access to research vessels
and to extend the work of RVOC. It is now entering its 25th year as the world leader in oceanographic
facilities. The 27 research vessels in the UNOLS Fleet (Table 1) stand as the largest and most capable
Fleet of oceanographic research vessels in the world. It is a substantial national asset. The UNOLS Fleet
provides the platforms on which the bulk of American oceanographic research is performed. Research
performed on ships of the UNOLS Fleet contributes to our understanding of interannual changes in
climate that are driven by El Nino, formation of tropical storms, and fisheries management. The Fleet
supports studies of global ocean circulation, fundamental studies of ocean acoustics and light scattering
that are basic to the Navy's mission of national defense, and the pure research needed to manage the
ocean wisely.
US Key – Laundry List
Only the USfg solves - military power, heath, education, intellectual property
Kaysen, MIT Political Economy Professor, JFK advisor, 65
[Carl, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, pg. 147 – 167, FCB]
The foregoing classification of the kinds of benefits that basic research can be expected to provide
makes clearer why this activity qualifies for support from the Government budget. Of the benefits listed
above, those relating to military capability fall directly within the sphere of Federal responsibility, and
only the Federal Government can and will pay for them. This applies both to military requirements for
applied research and development, and to the insurance value of the scientific reserve corps. Those
relating to health are increasingly an area of social concern, in which governmental responsibilities are
recognized. The same can be said of those relating to higher education. It can be argued that
beneficiaries of services should pay their full costs in both higher education and health. However, this is
not the direction that public policy appears to be currently taking.
Thus only two classes of benefits arc potentially the basis for support through the market system: The
value of research outputs as inputs for technical developments of direct value to business firms, and the
value of basic scientists as stimuli to the better functioning of scientists and engineers working directly
on applied research and development projects in the same laboratory. (So far as the latter are involved
in defense and related enterprises, this too is a matter of Government finance.) On the second count,
we may say that, by and large, the market system will work so as to provide for the support of a level of
basic research activity appropriate to that purpose taken in isolation. On the first, as we have seen
already (p. 2 above), there are good reasons for expecting that business firms, acting individually, will
systematically underinvest in basic research to a substantial degree. These reasons—the difficulty of
appropriating the benefits of basic research to any single firm, and the uncertainty in the character,
magnitude, and timing of the payoff in new technology of the fruits of any particular piece of basic
research—are not absolutes; they are rather a matter of degree. The longer the time horizon over which
a particular business can look ahead, the broader the scientific basis of the technology underlying its
processes and products, the more its activities cover the whole range of that technology, the less its
position in the markets in which it operates is subject to competitive inroads, the more likely it is to
invest in basic research. Thus the relatively few firms that make large investments in basic science—
outside those financed through defense contracts in any event—are those like Bcil Telephone, General
Electric, Du Pont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and the like. Indeed, to a significant extent, the
competitive positions and prospects of these firms are such that the question of whether it pays to
make these expenditures is not one which they need face too sharply. But for the generality of firms, the
extent to which such expenditure appears wise is limited.
US Key – Best Universities
US is key, we have the best university facilities for integrating pure research, but that
leadership is eroding due to lack of support
Kigotho, University World News Writer, 14
(Wachira, February 28th, “China’s rapid rise in global science and engineering”,
http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20140227152409830, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 identified the quality of higher education in science,
technology, engineering and mathematics – STEM – as critical to providing the advanced work skills
necessary to strengthen an innovation-based economic landscape.
In thi regard, the US awarded the largest number of science and engineering PhDs of any country
followed by China, Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom.
“Of 200,000 doctorates in science and engineering earned worldwide in 2010, about 33,000 were
awarded by universities in the United States, China 31,000, Russia 16,000, Germany 12,000 and the
United kingdom 11, 000,” says the report.
But China leads the world when factoring in doctorates in the biological, physical, Earth, atmospheric,
ocean and agricultural sciences and computer sciences.
“The issue is that the numbers of doctoral degrees in natural sciences and engineering have risen
dramatically in China, whereas the numbers awarded in the United States, South Korea, and many
European countries have risen more modestly,” says the report.
Also, in the United States only 57% of doctorates were earned by citizens and permanent residents,
while temporary visa holders obtained the remainder.
Available statistics indicated that in 2010 more than 5.5 million first degrees were awarded in science
and engineering worldwide, with students in China earning about 22% against the European Union’s
17% and the United States’ 10%.
“Currently, science and engineering degrees account for about one-third of all bachelor degrees
awarded in the United States, 60% in Japan and about 50% in China,” said Jaquelina Falkenheim, senior
analyst in the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics at the US National Science
Foundation.
In her analysis of the global higher education system, Falkenheim noted that only 5% of all bachelor
degrees awarded in 2010 were in engineering – compared to 31% in China. Other places with a high
proportion of engineering degrees were Singapore, Iran, South Korea and Taiwan.
Emerging global competition for scientific innovation leadership seems to be encouraging governments
to boost university enrolments in science and engineering fields. The number of these degrees awarded
in China, Taiwan, Turkey, Germany and Poland more than doubled between 2000 and 2012.
“During this period, science and engineering first university degrees awarded in the United States,
Australia, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Korea also increased between 23% and 56%,”
said Falkenheim. Marginal declines were noted in France (14%), Japan (9%) and Spain (4%).
US sets the bar in influence
Despite intense competition in visibility, performance and investment in STEM fields, the United States
continues to set the bar in terms of influential research results. For instance, from 2002-12, researchers
in the US authored 48% of the world’s top 1% of cited papers.
American inventors were also awarded the highest number of high value patents registered in the
world’s largest markets – the US, European Union and Japan. According to the report, there were few
such patents issued in China and India.
One outstanding aspect that cannot be missed in the 600-page Science and Engineering Indicators 2014
report is China’s catch-up efforts. Apart from upping spending on R&D, China now has the largest
contingent of doctoral students in American research universities.
Between 1991 and 2011, more than 63,000 Chinese students were awarded doctorates in science and
engineering from leading research universities in the United States, accounting for 27% of 235,582 such
awards to foreign students.
“Over the 20-year period, the number of science and engineering doctorates earned by Chinese
nationals has more than doubled,” says the report.
And so the battle for supremacy in the fiercely contested areas of global leadership in science and
technology will likely be decided in laboratories in American universities.
US Key - NSF
Specifically, the NSF is key – US S&T is funded by NSF
Bement, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO, 8
[Arden, 4/2/2008, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm, FCB]
The U.S. portion of international S&E research and education activities is funded by all NSF directorates
and research offices. International implications are found throughout all of NSF's activities, from
individual research awards and fellowships for students to study abroad, to centers, collaborations, joint
projects, and shared networks that demonstrate the value of partnering with the United States. As a
result of its international portfolio encompassing projects in all S&E disciplines, NSF effectively partners
with almost every country in the world. The following examples illustrate the international breadth and
scope of NSF's international portfolio.The Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, an NSFwide activity, gives undergraduate students the opportunity to engage in high-quality research, often at
important international sites. One of these sites is CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in
Switzerland, and one of the world's premier international laboratories. Undergraduate students work
with faculty mentors and research groups at CERN, where they have access to facilities unavailable
anywhere else in the world. NSF also provides support for the Large Hadron Collider housed at CERN.
Collaborations among individual NSF-supported investigators are also common in NSF's portfolio.
Recently, scientists at the University of Chicago created a single-molecule diode, a potential building
block for nanoelectronics. Theorists at the University of South Florida and the Russian Academy of
Sciences then explained the principle of how such a device works. They jointly published their findings.
There are also examples where NSF partners with the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) to support international S&T programs to facilitate capacity building. For example,
the U.S.-Pakistan Science and Technology Program, led by a coordinating committee chaired by Dr.
Arden Bement, NSF Director, and Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, Pakistan Minister of Education and Science
Advisor to the Prime Minister. USAID funds the U.S. contribution of the joint program and supports
other programs in Pakistan involving NIH and other agencies. This U.S.-Pakistan S&T program supports a
number of joint research projects peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and approved by
the joint S&T committee. Over the past year, the Committee has also established sixteen S&T working
groups that involve interagency participation in Pakistan and in the United States to carry out joint
research projects of mutual interest (with direct benefit to Pakistan). Through this collaboration, NSF
just completed a network connection of Internet 2 with Pakistan to facilitate research and education
collaborations and data exchanges under the program. This project embodies one of NSF's top priorities,
the development of the national science and engineering cyberinfrastructure, enabling a prime role for
the United States in global research networks. NSF's goals for the national cyberinfrastructure include
the ability to integrate data from diverse disciplines and multiple locations, and to make them widely
available to researchers, educators, and students. Already, the Grid Physics Network and the
international Virtual Data Grid Laboratory are advancing IT-intensive research in physics, cosmology, and
astrophysics. In today's highly sophisticated, technology-driven science, many international partnerships
center around major, high-budget research facilities that are made possible only by combining the
resources of more than one nation. For example, NSF's facilities budget includes construction funds for
the IceCube neutrino detector, antennas for the Atacama Large Millimeter Array (ALMA), and
observation technologies for the Arctic Observing Network (AON). The IceCube Neutrino Observatory--
the world's first high-energy neutrino observatory--offers a powerful example of an international,
interagency research platform. Agencies in Belgium, Germany, and Sweden have joined NSF and
Department of Energy (DOE) in providing support for IceCube, which will search for neutrinos from deep
within the ice cap under the South Pole in Antarctica. Neutrinos are hard-to-detect astronomical
messengers that carry information from cosmological events. The Atacama Large Millimeter Array,
currently under construction near San Pedro de Atacama, Chile, will be the world's most sensitive,
highest resolution, millimeter wavelength telescope. The array will make it possible to search for planets
around hundreds of nearby stars and will provide a testing ground for theories of star birth, galaxy
formation, and the evolution of the universe. ALMA has been made possible via an international
partnership among North America, Europe, and East Asia, in cooperation with the Republic of Chile. NSF
is the U.S. lead on this ground-breaking astronomical facility. As part of the aforementioned IPY
activities, NSF serves as lead contributing agency for the Arctic Observing Network (AON)--an effort to
significantly advance our observational capability in the Arctic. AON will help us document the state of
the present climate system, and the nature and extent of climate changes occurring in the Arctic
regions. The network, organized under the direction of the U.S. Interagency Arctic Research Policy
Committee, involves partnerships with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, Department of Interior, Department of Defense, Smithsonian
Institution, National Institutes of Health, DOE, and USDA. NSF coordinates AON activities across the U.S.
government, as well as with international collaborators, including Canada, Norway, Sweden, Germany,
and Russia. Such international infrastructure projects will continue to play a key role in advancing S&E
capacity worldwide. NSF leadership and proactive involvement in large international research projects
helps ensure that U.S. S&E stays at the frontier.
Basic-Applied Integration
Basic science is a pre requisite to applied science
Douglas, Department of Philosophy at the University of Waterloo, 12
(Heather, “Pure Science and the Problem of Progress”,
https://www.academia.edu/4547054/Pure_Science_and_the_Problem_of_Progress, accessed 7/9/14,
LLM)
First efforts were made by chemist Alexander Williamson in Britain, whose 1870 “Plea for Pure Science”
argued that “pure science [is] an essential element of national greatness and progress”, and thus that
State support of pure science was also essential. (quoted in Gooday 2012, p. 548) The charge was taken
up by both T. H. Huxley (in the UK) and Henry Rowland (in the US) in the 1880s. Huxley’s 1880 essay,
“Science and Culture,” argued for a new college curriculum, with science taught “as a coherent
institutionalized body of knowledge, uncompromised by a concern with utility.” (ibid., p. 550) Pure
science was unconcerned with practical applications, but applied science, Huxley argued, could not exist
without pure science. As Huxley famously wrote: “I often wish that this phrase, ‘applied science,’ had
never been invented. For it suggests that there is a sort of scientific knowledge of direct practical use,
which can be studied apart from another sort of scientific knowledge, which is of no practical utility, and
which is termed “pure science.” But there is no more complete fallacy than this. What people call
applied science is nothing but the application of pure science to particular classes of problems.” (Huxley
1880, as quoted in Kline 1995, p. 194) .
Here we have a clear articulation, indeed perhaps the invention, of the so-called linear model. Pure
science comes first, then the application of that knowledge is applied science, and it is that which
produces utility. There is no applied science without pure science prior. But, at the same time, one
cannot expect immediate utility from pure science. It is not pure science’s job (nor pure scientists’ job)
to produce things of utility. That comes later, through application, which is often done by someone else,
usually someone of lesser talent.
Basic science key to applied science
International Council for Science, a non-governmental organization with global a
membership of national scientific bodies and International Science Unions, 4
(J. A. De La, December 2004, “The Value of Basic Scientific Research,”
http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/value-scientific-research, accessed 7-92014, LK)
Knowledge is more than the information and data that might be provided via the internet; it is
fundamentally a matter of cognitive capability, skills, training and learning. The exploitation and
application of scientific information requires skilled scientists with a good understanding of the basic
theories and practice of science. Successful transfer of scientific knowledge requires well-trained
scientists at both ends of the exchange.
Excessive dependency on scientific progress in other countries is rarely likely to lead to the resolution of
local problems. Countries need to be able to generate their own scientific knowledge and adapt this to
their own local context and needs.
The practice of science is increasingly international and the research agenda is set by those who
participate. A country with no basic scientific research capacity effectively excludes itself from having
any real influence on the future directions of science.
As the move towards a global knowledge economy accelerates, the necessity of having a thriving
scientific community to generate new knowledge and to exploit it, both in the academic world and
industry, becomes irrefutable. Adequate public investment in basic science education and research is a
critical factor under-pinning socio-economic development. All countries need to develop longterm
sustainable strategies for investment in science. Support for basic science is not something that can be
postponed or diminished when times are hard in the misplaced hope that applied research alone will
provide a better return.
Integration of both basic and applied science is key to problem solving – a focus on
only applied science is bad
Pena, Chair of the International Council for Science, 4
(J. A. De La, December 2004, “The Value of Basic Scientific Research,”
http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/value-scientific-research, accessed 7-92014, LK)
Major innovation is rarely possible without prior generation of new knowledge founded on basic
research. Strong scientific disciplines and strong collaboration between them are necessary both for the
generation of new knowledge and its application. Retard basic research and inevitably innovation and
application will be stifled.
New scientific knowledge is essential not only for fostering innovation and promoting economic
development, but also for informing good policy development, and as a sound foundation for
education and training. Notwithstanding, it is sometimes argued at a national level that investment in
research should focus primarily, or even exclusively, on the use of existing information to develop
applied solutions. Superficially at least, such an approach appears to be facilitated by the emergence of
a global society, linked by internet and a continuous flow of information that anyone is able to access
and use.
Whilst an exclusive focus on application may have some merit in the short-term, there are several
reasons why neglecting basic research is seriously flawed in the longer-term:
Basic and applied science are a continuum. They are inter-dependent. The integration of basic and
applied research is crucial to problem-solving, innovation and product development.
Applied Bad
Applied science is bad – asymmetric focus on profit and unfounded assumptions
Pfaffman, Professor at Brown University and Committee Member of Science and
Public Policy 65
(Carl, June 1965,
http://books.google.com/books?id=q4wrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22Basic+research+and+
national+goals%22&source=bl&ots=VDP8907W8k&sig=DLPUL_EeLAIMAUxcTqd13hRI9CE&hl=en&sa=X&
ei=i_q9U63_K8PtoASS54GQDw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=twopage&q&f=false, “Basic Research and
National Goals,” accessed 7-8-14, LK)
The distinction between basic and applied research, difficult enough to make in the natural sciences, is
even harder to make in the behavioral sciences. Yet, for two reasons, the distinction is probably more
important in the latter disciplines.
First, there is the danger that purely applied social research to support some action program will be so
hedged in by popular prejudices and assumptions that it fails to get to the root of the problem and,
hence, becomes trivial. For instance, there is considerable research at present in underdeveloped
countries designed to get villagers to accept innovations in agricultural practices. A tacit assumption
behind much of this research is that the obstacle to acceptance of innovations is amply the wrong
attitude, and that the problem is to find the proper educational and propaganda techniques to alter the
traditional way of looking at agriculture. The question of whether the innovation is economically
profitable and socially rewarding to the villager in economic and social terms is assumed to be answered
affirmatively, but that is precisely the question that takes a great deal of systematic research to answer.
If the answer is affirmative, very little propaganda, if any, may be required to gain acceptance of the
innovation. To assume that the problem is solely a matter of the wrong attitude is an easy way out,
because then the knotty problems of the socioeconomic system, with its rewards and costs for die
villager, can be ignored.
Pure science is a prerequisite to applied sciences
Pfaffman, Professor at Brown University and Committee Member of Science and
Public Policy 65
(Carl, June 1965,
http://books.google.com/books?id=q4wrAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=%22Basic+research+and+
national+goals%22&source=bl&ots=VDP8907W8k&sig=DLPUL_EeLAIMAUxcTqd13hRI9CE&hl=en&sa=X&
ei=i_q9U63_K8PtoASS54GQDw&ved=0CEIQ6AEwBA#v=twopage&q&f=false, “Basic Research and
National Goals,” accessed 7-8-14, LK)
The second reason for distinguishing between basic and applied work is that the normal aversion to
basic research is greater in regard to the social sciences than it is in regard to natural science. One can
see the relevance of basic principles in physics and chemistry to achievements in making weapons,
television sets, and medicines; but one cannot see so clearly the relevance of special "abstractions" and
"jargon" concerning things we know about already, such as taxes, schools, race rdations, and the family.
The skepticism is increased by the fact that the layman has his own common-sense views about social
matters. He objects when these are placed in question by empirical evidence supporting contrary and
usually less sweeping generalizations. This is particularly true if the matter is one to which people attach
strong positive or negative values.
Okeanos Solves
Only NOAA possesses the technology for pure ocean exploration – water column
mapping, multi-beam sonar allow for the detection of previously unknown features
including gas hydrates
Lobecker et al, Physical Scientist with the NOAA, 12
[Elizabeth, 3-12, Oceanography VOL. 25 NO. 1, “Always Exploring,” 7-5-14, FCB]
An integral element of Okeanos Explorer’s “Always Exploring” model is the ship’s seafloor and water
column mapping capability. The principal mapping sensor, the EM 302 multibeam sonar, is staffed on all
transit cruises for 24-hour seabed and water column data collection and processing. As appropriate on a
cruise-by-cruise basis, the ship’s Kongsberg EK 60 fisheries sonar and Knudsen 3260 subbottom profiler
provide additional data sets. The low resolution of bathymetric data derived from satellite altimetry
allows recognition of very large features and the general character of the seafloor. At full ocean depths,
the ship’s multibeam bathymetric data are at least 40 times finer resolution than satellite data. This
capability allows imaging of previously unknown features and visualizing a truer picture of the seafloor
and water column. Since commissioning, the Okeanos Explorer team has collected more than 88,000
linear kilometers of bathymetry stretching from Indonesia’s Sulawesi Sea to the North Atlantic, mapped
a number of seamounts not found in existing bathymetry or charts, successfully tested its mapping
system to 7,954 m depth over the Mariana Trench, and demonstrated the multibeam sonar’s ability to
detect gaseous and physical features in wide areas of the water column. Notably, this ability resulted in
the discovery of 1,400 m high plumes, confirmed to be methane gas, off the coast of northern California.
Gas hydrate scientists at Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute conducted discovery follow-up
work in the summer of 2011, and the initial results analyzing the vent source geomorphology were
presented at the 2011 fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union (Gwiazda et al., 2011).
Ext - Science
Pure/Basic Science Key
There’s no inherent technological aspect to pure science - that criticism is one that is
applicable to applied sciences - the only end goal should be knowledge for
knowledge’s sake
Carrier, Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Münster, 2001
(Martin, “Knowledge and Control: On the Bearing of Epistemic Values in Applied Science
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/philosophie/personen/carrier/Knowledge%20and%20ControlPU.pdf,
accessed 7/3/14, LLM)
On the Relation between Knowledge and Power
Underlying these considerations is the notion that pure and applied science differ in nature.
Otherwise, the endeavor to clarify the relationship between the two would not make sense. In contrast
to this presupposition, it is argued in some quarters that science is intrinsically practical. The only
appropriate yardstick of scientific achievement is usefulness or public benefit. In this vein, Philip Kitcher
denounces the view that the chief aim of science is to seek the truth as the “myth of purity” and
advances the contrasting idea of a “well-ordered science” whose sole commitment is satisfaction of the
preferences of the citizens in a society (Kitcher 2001, 85-86, 117-118). “Well ordered science” is an ideal
Kitcher wants scientists to pursue, it is not intended as description of reality. Still, his approach squares
well with a widely shared feeling that practical use or technology is what science is essentially all about.
Given a commitment of this sort, no significant distinction between theory and practice or between
knowledge and power can be drawn.
It is true, indeed, that claims to the effect that the touchstone of epistemic significance is practical
success originate with the Scientific Revolution. However, it is also true that these commitments largely
remained mere declarations. Take Christoper Wren who was familiar with the newly discovered
Newtonian mechanics when he constructed St. Paul’s Cathedral. The Newtonian laws were deemed to
disclose the blueprint of the universe, but they were unsuitable for solving practically important
problems of mechanics. Wren had to resort to medieval craft rules instead.
Likewise, the steam engine was developed in an endless series of trial and error without assistance from
scientific theory (Hacking 1983, 162-163). Thermodynamics was only brought to bear on the machine
decades after its invention was completed (see sec. 8). This gap between science and technology is not
completely filled today. Theoretical work on cosmic inflation will hardly ever bear technological fruit.
Such work is exclusively curiosity-driven; pure knowledge gain is the focus. Conversely, screening
procedures in the development of medical drugs possess neither theoretical basis nor theoretical
import. In such procedures, cellular or physiological effects of substances are detected and identified by
using routine methods. They involve a more sophisticated form of trial and error.
I conclude that there have been and still are purely epistemic and purely practical research projects.
Neither is science inherently practical, nor is technology inherently scientific. This means that the
distinction between basic research and technology development needs to be upheld. And this, in turn,
suggests that the relationship between seeking the truth and developing some useful device merits a
more thorough consideration.
The connection between science and technology becomes manifest only in the 19th century. The now
familiar pattern that a technological innovation emerges from the application of scientific theory is an
achievement that succeeds the Scientific Revolution by roughly two centuries. The cascade model is
intended to capture this more recent relationship between scientific knowledge and practical use. The
idea is that technological progress grows out of scientific theorizing. Technology really is applied science.
This model can be taken to involve the twofold claim of substantive and causal dependence of
technology on science. That is, the operation of some technical device can be accounted for within a
relevant theory, and the device was developed by applying the theory. According to the cascade model,
the logical and the temporal relations run parallel: theoretical principles are formulated first, technical
devices are constructed afterward by spelling out consequences of these principles.
Pure science is necessarily objective – focus on repeatable controlled experiments and
value given objectively based on the quality of research
Shepard, 56
[Herbert A., Jan. 1956,Philosophy of Science, Vol. 23, No. 1 The University of Chicago Press, “Basic
Research and the Social System of Pure Science,” http://www.jstor.org/stable/184997, 7-5-14, FCB]
The core of the value system of pure science consists of two related beliefs: first, that new knowledge
should be evaluated according to its significance for existing theory, and second, that scientists should
be evaluated according to their contributions of new knowledge. Highest honors go to those whose
work involves radical reformulations or extensions of theory or conceptualization. Next come those who
do the pioneer experimental work required by a theoretical reformulation. Next come those who carry
out the work logically required to round out the conceptual structure. Next come those who carry out
redundant experimental work of a confirmatory nature, or concern themselves largely with relevant
data accumulation. Last are the doers of sloppy or dull work. This central evaluative system provides a
basis for the derivation of personal and social norms. Around it is organized a system of social control.
Metaphorically, to be a scientist is to be a worker engaged in the construction of a great cathedral of
knowledge, eternally incomplete, but slowly taking form over the centuries. In Conant's terms: "science
[is] a series of interconnected concepts and conceptual schemes arising from experiment and
observation and fruitful of further experiments and observations."6 It should be added that the "interconnected concepts and conceptual schemes" are shared by the scientific com- munity, and not the
private property of particular scientists. For the conduct of this task of building the cathedral of scientific
knowledge, standards of method and ethics are prescribed, criteria of beauty, workmanship, morality
and social worth are elaborated. The scientist learns to esteem himself for honesty, humility, objectivity,
self-discipline, curiosity, creativity, skepticism, rigor and industriousness. Living up to these virtues is not
entirely a matter of the scientist's conscience: external control is exercised through "the weight of
scientific opinion." The justice of the decisions of scientific opinion and hence the integrity of scientists
and the social system is guaranteed through a special procedure on whose validity as a test all scientists
are agreed-the repeatable controlled experiment.
Uniqueness - Pure Research Good
Status quo scientific focus is fundamentally flawed – applied science for monetary
gain has become the most popular trend, leaving basic research behind – pure
research without an end goal is key to innovation and serves as the underlying fabric
of scientific advancement
Oates, PhD in biology and biotechnology; currently deputy director of undergraduate
education at the National Science, 13
[Karen, 3-7-14, Huffington Post, “The Importance of Basic Research”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-kashmanian-oates-phd/science-role-models_b_2821942.html,
accessed 7-5-14, TYBG]
This is science's newest Golden Age. Young people today are inspired by generational heroes like Steve
Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg that were filled in the relative recent past by the likes of Michael Jordan and
Mick Jagger. The fact that today's students can dream of emulating role models who achieved their
status using their minds and curiosity is a good thing.
However, there is one significant drawback. The rock star status of today's scientific celebrities
encourages aspiring scientists to focus on the retail possibilities that can result in fast fame and wealth.
While understandable, this unwittingly neglects a crucial part of the scientific equation -- basic research.
For example, let's look at the way the music industry has changed over the last decade or so. Instead of
going to a record story, most people now get their music electronically via MP3 files through an online
store like iTunes, and download it to portable MP3 players like iPods. Each of these products -- MP3s,
iTunes and iPods -- was created to fill a specific commercial void. Scientists identified a need and
developed a product. That is applied research.
But these would not exist if not for the anonymous scientists at the Swiss laboratory CERN whose
research led to the development of the internet, or the no-name physicists in the 1920s whose abstract
discoveries in electronics and sub-particles paved the way for today's computers. These unheralded
breakthroughs are products of basic research.
Basic research is the foundation on which applied research is built, and feeds the pipeline for the
products and services we consume. But too few of today's and tomorrow's scientists are showing
interest in laboring unknown in the back labs of basic research. The money and the notoriety, it seems,
comes from advancements championed through applied research.
Compounding the problem are the funders. America's top companies used to provide significant dollars
to basic research, recognizing it is a perquisite for innovation that led to viable commercial products,
among them the transistor, nylon and Teflon. But basic research is expensive, time consuming and there
are no guarantees of a billion-dollar breakthrough. Without the robust support of private companies like
The Bell Labs and Dupont, the home grown pipeline begins to run dry. The financial pressure then falls
squarely on government funding and university research.
When public dollars are being used, there is frequent pressure to focus on applied research, rather than
appropriate revenues for experimentation with no known conclusion. Earlier this week, an advisory
panel recommended to federal agencies shutting down the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New
York, home of last remaining particle collider in the U.S, because of tight budgets. The collider smashes
gold ions and protons together, which enables scientists to study the formation of the universe.
Research like this is too important to be penny foolish.
On a recent trip to Israel, I met with the head of the Weizmann Institute of Science, the country's
leading research institution. Their students and fellows focus almost exclusively on basic research.
Weizmann is Israel's smallest university, yet it is one of the top five highest earning institutions in the
world because of its patents and their subsequent commercialization.
The United States, and its stable of excellent colleges and universities, needs to learn from the
Weizmann model. We know basic research is valuable. Weizmann shows us it can be profitable, too.
One of my role models is Mary-Claire King. A researcher who spent nearly 20 years studying breast
cancer, she faced a barrage of criticism for wasting time and money. Eventually she discovered the
breast cancer gene, which has helped tens of millions of people survive breast cancer. Her stubbornness
and perseverance in basic research saved lives and resulted in billions of dollars in direct and indirect
economic impact.
We need more scientists like Mary-Claire King. Yet it is doubtful many students who are planning on
careers in science have heard of her or are planning to emulate her. But she, and countless anonymous
basic researchers, unquestionably had as great an impact on their future careers as Jobs and Zuckerberg
and the other rock stars they one day hope to follow.
Curiosity-driven pure science is key to societal advancement, but support for pure
science is collapsing in the status quo
Padma, Doctorate degree in oceanography at The College of William and Mary and is
currently Director of Graduate Diversity Affairs at the University of Rhode Island;
recipient of the 2008 SCBWI Magazine Merit Award for Nonfiction, 12
[T.V., 7-11-12, SciDevNet, “Nobel laureate says curiosity-driven science must not be sidelined,”
http://scidevnet.wordpress.com/2012/07/12/nobel-laureate-says-curiosity-driven-science-must-not-besidelined/, accessed 7-4-14, TYBG]
For developing countries with limited funds for science, there is a perennial debate about whether to
support basic science research — which lacks easily discernible social benefits — or applied science.
They could pay heed to Jules A. Hoffmann, who won the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine.
Hoffmann began his science career driven by a curiosity to understand how the humble fruit fly avoided
contracting fungal infections — that is, pure basic science. This led to the discovery of a group of cells
that are key to ‘innate’ immune responses in humans, with implications for vaccines, infectious diseases
and allergies.
Hoffman’s career began with research into the fruit fly, which led to important discoveries relating to
human immune responses
“I would like to argue that our society should continue to support, to a significant extent, research which
is purely based on curiosity, even in the absence of perspectives of applications at the time when the
work is started,” Hoffmann told Euroscience Open Forum (ESOF) delegates at the opening ceremony on
Wednesday (11 July).
Hoffmann said that as he began his research career in the 1960s, he was fortunate to work during
“blissful times”.
“We were not asked to indicate which milestones we wanted to provide within which timeframe, what
applications we were hoping to generate, what networking we were planning to develop, which
industrial partners we had contacted,” he added.
“There was a great confidence in science, and a global belief that, whatever the field and the questions,
any new scientific knowledge would eventually have positive outcomes for society.”
Not so, anymore. As immense amounts of scientific knowledge have accumulated, science has become
so complex “that most of our fellow citizens feel overwhelmed or lost,” Hoffmann said.
He went on to observe that although science still enjoys a relatively positive image with the general
public, a significantly large and vocal group of citizens have developed a marked level of distrust towards
scientific research — particularly in Europe — in areas such as genetically modified crops, vaccinations,
stem cell research and electromagnetic waves.
Regaining the trust of these opponents will not be easy, Hoffman says. He sees a role for the media to
help garner public interest in science, while at same time not overselling research results, “which would
only feed the distrust.”
Basic research is a pre-requisite to the applied sciences and is a necessary component
of technological progress
Bush, Director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, 1945
[Vannevar, 7/45, NSF.Gov, “Science The Endless Frontier,”
https://www.nsf.gov/od/lpa/nsf50/vbush1945.htm, accessed 07-05-14, TYBG]
Basic research is performed without thought of practical ends. It results in general knowledge and an
understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides the means of answering a large
number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to any one
of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. The scientist doing basic
research may not be at all interested in the practical applications of his work, yet the further progress of
industrial development would eventually stagnate if basic scientific research were long neglected.
One of the peculiarities of basic science is the variety of paths which lead to productive advance. Many
of the most important discoveries have come as a result of experiments undertaken with very different
purposes in mind. Statistically it is certain that important and highly useful discoveries will result from
some fraction of the undertakings in basic science; but the results of any one particular investigation
cannot be predicted with accuracy.
Basic research leads to new knowledge. It provides scientific capital. It creates the fund from which the
practical applications of knowledge must be drawn. New products and new processes do not appear
full-grown. They are founded on new principles and new conceptions, which in turn are painstakingly
developed by research in the purest realms of science.
Today, it is truer than ever that basic research is the pacemaker of technological progress. In the
nineteenth century, Yankee mechanical ingenuity, building largely upon the basic discoveries of
European scientists, could greatly advance the technical arts. Now the situation is different.
A nation which depends upon others for its new basic scientific knowledge will be slow in its industrial
progress and weak in its competitive position in world trade, regardless of its mechanical skill.
Pure science has been marginalized by commercial interests of applied science - this
has affected what research is done for whom and why it’s done
Langley, PhD in Neurobiology, and Parkinson, bachelor’s degree in physics and
electronic engineering, and a doctorate in climate science, 9
(Chris and Stuart, October “Science and the corporate agenda SGR Promoting ethical science, design and
technology The detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology”
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/oct/scientists-for-global-responsibillty-report.pdf, accessed
7/3/14, LLM)
‘Pure’ science (there is not strictly speaking ‘pure’ technology or engineering) usually appears in the R&D
statistics of government (or other funders of research) as a category which reflects the open-ended
pursuit of knowledge. Pure research tends to be considered as part of curiosity-driven work which is
undertaken by scientists in both public and private laboratories – its aim being to provide an
‘understanding’ of a phenomenon. In contrast, ‘applied’ research aims at producing an intervention –
such as a drug or new material – to address problems or develop a new approach. ‘Pure’, ‘fundamental’
or ‘basic’ research is defined officially as: “….experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to
acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any
particular application or use in view” (OECD 2002).
Universities have been seen historically as institutions in which such predominantly ‘pure’ research was
undertaken to discover knowledge for a broadly defined ‘public good’. Such knowledge would be a
source of objective information for the public, and could inform policy-makers in areas such as public
health or environmental protection.
However these goals can be marginalised by the involvement of commercial interests wedded to shortterm economic return (Ravetz 1996; Washburn 2005). A series of profound changes in the UK have
altered how people perceive the role and activities of universities in society. These changes have
affected what research is undertaken; for whom and why; and the proportion of research that can be
described as ‘pure’. In this climate many, especially in government, have begun to regard ‘pure’ research
as a luxury.
‘Applied’ research is usually defined as research that has a clear set of narrowly-defined objectives,
which guide its programme of activities. There is generally little opportunity to seek data outside this
defined set of end-points. ‘Applied’ research frequently has economic gain and profit as its
predominant focus – but can also be related to a specific social or environmental goal such as curing a
disease, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or increasing crop yields. Superficially then one of the key
differences between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research is how the goals of the research are defined and who
is likely to benefit from the products of that research. The methods and scientific activities in ‘pure’ and
‘applied’ research are essentially the same. The research activity tabled below comprises both ‘applied’
and ‘basic’ SET activities undertaken by the main sectors in the UK.
Traditionally the Research Councils predominantly supported the more ‘pure’ form of research – much
of which had a broadly defined set of end-points. In addition the Research Councils were expected to
provide funding not coloured by the political perspectives of the government of the day – the Haldane
principle1. While in the early days of the Research Councils some of the funding they distributed was for
technological innovation and hence definable as ‘applied’, the proportion of their funding activities that
is directed at economically defined objectives has increased in the last 20 years (see Moriarty 2008).
SET has significant potential to provide tools that can be used, through technological development for
instance, to contribute to social justice or to help to address issues such as resource depletion, cleaner
energy, pollution and environmental degradation (Ravetz 1996). However, there is a large body of
research literature which shows that the ability of SET to fulfil that potential – its ultimate role in society
– depends upon the social structure and power relationships existing within that society. Profit-driven
activities and mechanisms such as intellectual property rights2, patents and funding can often act
against the public interest and bring benefit to a very few without increasing the public benefit.
SET has a number of mechanisms in place – with associated reliable methods and data – designed to
help reduce the influence of special interests with the potential to introduce bias, for example those of
the funder. Strict adherence to these mechanisms – which include peer review, free exchange of data
and transparency – has traditionally been a prerequisite for practising SET. However, such processes
must be observed by all involved in publishing and experimental protocols, for example, so as to permit
data to be assessed for its reliability.
Status quo science is based on applied scientific methods and technological interests
which have dominated and shaped the of knowledge production within current
academia
Carrier, Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Münster, 1
(Martin, “Knowledge and Control: On the Bearing of Epistemic Values in Applied Science
http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/philosophie/personen/carrier/Knowledge%20and%20ControlPU.pdf,
accessed 7/3/14, LLM)
The Primacy of Applied Science
Among the general public, the esteem for science does not primarily arise from the fact that science
endeavors to capture the structure of the universe or the principles that govern the tiniest parts of
matter. Rather, public esteem—and public funding—is for the greater part based on the assumption
that science has a positive impact on the economy and contributes to securing or creating jobs.
Consequently, applied science, not pure research, receives the lion’s share of attention and support. It
is not knowledge that is highly evaluated in the first place but control of natural phenomena. The
relationship between science and technology is widely represented by the so called cascade model. This
model conceives of technological progress as growing out of knowledge gained in basic research.
Technology arises from the application of the outcome of epistemically driven research to practical
problems. The applied scientist proceeds like an engineer. He employs the toolkit of established
principles and brings general theories to bear on technological challenges. The cascade model entails
that promoting epistemic science is the best way to stimulating technological advancement.
The preference granted to applied science increasingly directs university research at practical goals; not
infrequently, it is sponsored by industry. Public and private institutions increasingly pursue applied
projects; the scientific work done at a university institute and a company laboratory tend to become
indistinguishable. This convergence is emphasized by strong institutional links.
Universities found companies in order to market products based on their research. Companies buy
themselves into universities or conclude large-scale contracts concerning joint projects. The interest in
application shapes large areas of present-day science. This primacy of application puts science under
pressure to quickly supply solutions to practical problems. Science is the first institution called upon if
advice in practical matters is needed.
This applies across the board to economic challenges (such as measures apt to stimulate the economy),
environmental problems (such as global climate change or ozone layer depletion), or biological risks
(such as AIDS or BSE). The reputation of science depends on whether it reliably delivers on such issues.
The question naturally arises, then, whether this pressure toward quick, tangible and useful results is
likely to alter the shape of scientific research and to compromise the epistemic values that used to
characterize it.
There are reasons for concern. Given the intertwining of science and technology, it is plausible to
assume that the dominance of technological interests affects science as a whole. The high esteem for
marketable goods could shape pure research in that only certain problem areas are addressed and that
proposed solutions are judged exclusively by their technological suitability. That is, the dominant
technological interests might narrow the agenda of research and encourage sloppy quality judgments.
The question is what the search for control of natural phenomena does to science and whether it
interferes with the search for knowledge.
Pure Science K2 S&T
A surge in basic science funding is key to maintain science and technology leadership
Hummel, Ph. D in Political Research, 12
[Robert, 2012, Synesis: A Journal of Science, Technology, Ethics, and Policy 2012; 3(1):G14-39, “US
Science and Technology Leadership, and Technology Grand Challenges,”
http://www.synesisjournal.com/vol3_g/2012_Hummel_G14-39_abstract.html, 7-12-14, FCB]
In 1945, Vannevar Bush—then the President’s Director of Scientific Research and Development—
outlined a vision for US scientific research activities in the post-war period. In his report, entitled
“Science: The Endless Frontier” (1), Bush laid out the importance of basic research to the Nation’s
science research enterprise. Basic research—though “performed without thought of practical ends”—
was the “pacemaker of technological progress,” and “created the fund from which the practical
applications of knowledge must be drawn.” Bush further argued that the “simplest and most effective
way” that Government resources could be brought to the service of the nation’s industrial research
endeavors would be to “to support basic research and to develop scientific talent.” With this vision,
Bush’s “Endless Frontier” resulted in the establishment of the Office of Naval Research, the National
Science Foundation, and, later, the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency, and NASA—as well as a robust national program of basic research at universities,
research centers, laboratories, and institutes and a quadrupling of the number of research scientists
dedicated to fundamental science in just a few decades (95). Semiconductors, microelectronics, medical
diagnostic technologies CT and MRI, and key developments in computer science all emerged from basic
science developments in the post-war period. In short order, American science and engineering
advances became the envy of the world and gave rise to technical resources and capabilities that fueled
unparalleled economic success.
Other nations around the globe aspire to similar economic advances, and are investing heavily in science
and the application of science to new technologies and capabilities. China, for example, has launched an
effort to become an “innovative nation” by 2020 and a global scientific power by 2050 (96), and has
reserved 15% of its science and technology investment for the 973 program that funds basic research
(97).
Extending the American S&T-driven economic boom will require continued and enhanced American
leadership in basic and applied science. For American technological progress to remain at the forefront,
we will need to foster more effective and integrative relationships between the basic research
community and applied researchers, to decrease the time in which fundamental science discoveries are
translated into practical technologies. We need to re-infuse our research communities with the
characteristically American spirit of competitiveness to drive our success in a more competitive age.
American leadership in the 21st Century requires that American scientists strongly participate in basic
research, and stay current with a body of basic science in a globalized research environment. Leadership
also requires that we facilitate and expedite the creation of practical applications and knowledge from
the fund of basic science. Being first to codify and utilize basic science is more important than being
alone in possession of the fund.
Accordingly, we need to challenge (and incentivize) our basic science researchers to translate basic
science results to application developers with greater speed and intensity. We should increase the
availability of “incubators,” where scientists can interact with system developers, to expedite the use of
new technology and new concepts in designs and new products. Certain federally-funded research and
development centers are particularly effective at supporting research while finding applications and
transition potential.
Ultimately, Vannevar Bush’s thesis that there is a major government role in the support of basic
research remains valid. There is little viable substitute for engaging good people with good technical
oversight, which requires a strong and vibrant science and technology enterprise both within
government and outside, interoperating for the benefit of both finding solutions to existing problems,
and to explore knowledge for applications yet to be discovered.
S&T Good – Laundry List
S&T cooperation is key to sound policy-making, reliable international benchmarks,
good will, strong relations, democracy, civil society, innovation, and solutions to
disease and climate change
Miotke, subcommittee on research and science education, committee on science and
technology, 8
[Jeff, “International Science and Technology Cooperation,” Government Printing Office, 4/2/2008,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm, FCB]
Science and science-based approaches make tangible improvements in people's lives. Strategically
applied, S&T outreach serves as a powerful tool to reach important segments of civil society. Sound
science is a critical foundation for sound policy-making and ensures that the international community
develops reliable international benchmarks. Science is global in nature--international cooperation is
essential if we are to find solutions to global issues like climate change and combating emerging
infectious diseases. International scientific cooperation promotes good will, strengthens political
relationships, helps foster democracy and civil society, and advances the frontiers of knowledge for the
benefit of all.
S&T Good – Leadership
More S&T needed to maintain leadership –report shows US will be overcome by Asian
S&T
NSF, US government agency that supports research and education in science and
engineering, 12
[1/17/12, “New Report Outlines Trends in U.S. Global Competitiveness in Science and Technology,”
National Science Board, http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=122859&, FCB]
The United States remains the global leader in supporting science and technology (S&T) research and
development, but only by a slim margin that could soon be overtaken by rapidly increasing Asian
investments in knowledge-intensive economies. So suggest trends released in a new report by the
National Science Board (NSB), the policymaking body for the National Science Foundation (NSF), on the
overall status of the science, engineering and technology workforce, education efforts and economic
activity in the United States and abroad. "This information clearly shows we must re-examine long-held
assumptions about the global dominance of the American science and technology enterprise," said NSF
Director Subra Suresh of the findings in the Science and Engineering Indicators 2012 released today.
"And we must take seriously new strategies for education, workforce development and innovation in
order for the United States to retain its international leadership position," he said.
Oceans K2 Science Literacy
Ocean research and education is uniquely key to scientific literacy
Strang, Associate Director, Lawrence Hall of Science, University of California, Berkeley,
7
[Craig, Annette deCharon, Senior Marine Education Scientist, University of Maine School of Marine
Sciences, Sarah Schoedinger, Program Officer, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s Office
of Education, “CAN YOU BE SCIENCE LITERATE WITHOUT BEING OCEAN LITERATE?,” The Journal of
Marine Education, Vol. 23, No. 1, TYBG]
While marine educators have always known that many important science concepts can be taught
through ocean examples, and that the ocean provides an engaging context for teaching general science,
a more compelling credo now guides that work: “Teach for Ocean Literacy.” Many ocean sciences
concepts are more than engaging examples of general science; they have intrinsic, essential importance.
Therefore, one cannot be considered “science literate” without being “ocean literate.” Two of the
earliest and most influential documents in the science reform movement, Science for All Americans and
Benchmarks for Science Literacy [2,3], state "the science-literate person is familiar with the natural
world and recognizes both its diversity and unity." Research consistently affirms the ocean's vital role in
maintaining the unity of our world. Without its vast ocean, Earth could be inhospitably cold like Mars or
a stifling greenhouse like Venus. On the other hand, the interconnectedness of the ocean and the
atmosphere has had negative impacts. Ocean waters absorb airborne industrial chemicals which are
carried thousands of miles from their source to the Arctic region. These pollutants are found in the
bodies of top predators such as polar bears, which absorb the chemicals through their diet of fish and
seals. Whether we live on the coast or inland, eat seafood or not, humans are inextricably tied to the
ocean. Thus the scientifically literate citizens we grow in our schools must become familiar with ocean
issues that may or may not be happening "in their own backyards."
Ocean Exploration Good
Ocean exploration is beneficial in both contributing to the base of human knowledge
and preventing premature decisions
Pederson, 2k
[K., 2000, “Exploration of deep intraterrestrial microbial life: current perspectives,”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1574-6968.2000.tb09033.x/pdf, 7-7-14, FCB]
Exploration in whose interests?
The interests in investigations of intraterrestrial life are represented by a very diverse array of general
social, professional and industrial motives. Some of the current reasons for such investigations are listed
below.
1. Microbial activity in oil wells may have both negative (e.g. through corrosion and well souring) and
positive (e.g. through surfactant production) effects on oil extraction. The oil industry, therefore, shows
an interest in deep oil reservoir microbiology [14^16].
2. The contamination of groundwater from surface and underground disposal sites, accidental spills,
leakage and other human activities has triggered a widespread interest in the possibilities of restoring
contaminated underground sites with the help of autochthonous and/or allochthonous microorganisms
[17].
3. Disposal of radioactive wastes and heavy metals in deep geological formations requires in-depth
knowledge about the host rock environment, including possible e¡ects of microbes on future
repositories [18].
4. There are enormous reservoirs of energy in the methane gas hydrates that are found globally in subocean floor sediments, possibly twice the amount of energy contained in known oil and gas reservoirs
[19]. Most of this methane is believed to have been produced by methanogens living deep below the
deposits [20].
5. An increasing number of scientists argue for an underground origin of life, possibly in the vicinity of
hydrothermal systems [21]. If life did originate subterraneously, then it must have been present
underground for as long as there has been life on our planet. A diverse and extended underground life
on, or within, our planet suggests that life on other planets should be searched for underground rather
than on the surface.
6. Last but not least, the increasing knowledge about intraterrestrial life may signicantly expand our
knowledge of microbial diversity and, especially, of the metabolic capabilities of living organisms (see,
for example, [22]).
Public appreciation of ocean exploration is necessary both for the advancement of
scientific achievement as well as understanding why we discover
Deacon et al, historian specializing in oceanography and fellow @ School of Ocean and
Earth Southampton U, 1
[Margaret, Understanding the Oceans: A Century of Ocean Exploration, pg. 1, FCB]
This book seeks to assist that process, but also to take it somewhat further. To understand the oceans,
we need no only good science, but a good appreciation of science, and we can achieve a better
understanding of what current scientific knowledge can tell us about the sea if we also have some
information about how it was obtained. In this book recent oceanographic discoveries are presented
through accounts of how, as well as why, scientists study the sea, and some of the changes that are
taking place in the way they go about it. Two aspects of this process receive special attention. Many
chapters deal with how technological improvements during the last fifty years have transformed
possibilities in the principal fields of ocean research, leading to important advances in scientists'
understanding of what goes on in the sea. Other chapters highlight a different but equally important
requirement for scientific progress by showing how, over the last hundred years or so, infrastructures
have been developed that are capable of sustaining the degree of scientific activity necessary to observe
natural phenomena on an oceanic or even a global scale. Looking at the ways in which the organization
of scientific research, as well as research methods, have changed over the years helps us
Good Science O/W Bad
Science solves the problems it creates – more science key
Time Magazine 1971
(Time Magazine, cites Lawrence Lessing, formerly on the editorial board of fortune magazine and an
editor and contributor to Scientific American, March 8,
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,904799-1,00.html, JMB, accessed 6-23-11)
Spurred on by World War II, then the cold war, then Sputnik, U.S. science rose to an unprecedented
level of prestige in the 1960s. Yet even as it is gaining its greatest triumphs—the moon, the green
revolution, the ability to control and even change the processes of life—science and scientists have
come under increasing attack. Some more reasonable critics argue that the antiscience barrage
promises more good than harm for a field that has been enjoying too high a priority for too long. Science
Writer Lawrence Lessing, a member of FORTUNE'S board of editors, does not agree. In the magazine's
March issue, he argues that if the current "senseless war" on science and its kindred discipline,
technology, continues much longer, the U.S. will be a considerably worse place in which to live.
Seamless Web. Lessing acknowledges that the "apocalyptic mood has been stirred by some very
palpable social miscarriages of science and technology"—notably the Indochina war and the
environmental crisis. Still, he cannot accept "the proposition that America needs less growth, less
knowledge, less skill, less progress." Scientists and engineers, he says, "are increasingly cast as the
villains of this emotional drama. But it should be obvious that science by its nature and structure can
offer society only options." Lessing points out that the traditional role of scientists is advisory, and as
often as not their advice is ignored. "The height of the new folly," he says, "is the rising call upon
scientists and technicians to foresee all the consequences of their actions and to make a moral
commitment to suppress work on any discovery that might some day be dangerous, which is to
demand that they be not only scientists but certified clairvoyants and saints." There is also danger in the
notion that society can choose what it wants of science and destroy what it feels is valueless or
threatening. "Science is indivisible," Lessing states, "a seamless web of accumulated knowledge, and to
destroy a part would rip the whole fabric. Every discovery or invention of man has this dual aspect"—a
potential for both benefit and harm. He warns that it does no good to try to retreat to an earlier
century, and he quotes Konrad Lorenz, the famed naturalist and animal behaviorist, who has been
warning hostile student audiences that if they tear down knowledge to start afresh, they will backslide
200,000 years. "Watch out!" Lorenz cautions the students. "If you make a clean sweep of things, you
won't go back to the Stone Age, because you're already there, but to well before the Stone Age."
Nonetheless, inflation, recession and other assorted ills have meant that in the past four years total
federal expenditures on U.S. research and development in science and technology have declined in real
dollars by more than 20%. "If the decline continues," Lessing predicts, "it will have a delayed, disastrous
effect on the economy." Already, he reports, the U.S. lags be hind in a variety of fields. Japan and Europe
are far ahead in establishing fast, new train networks and Mexico City has completed a subway system
"that is both a great feat of engineering and a work of art." In high-energy physics, Italian scientists using
a colliding-beam electron accelerator have come upon "what may be a new phenomenon in the creation
of matter from energy, which seems to go beyond present physical theory." France, the Soviet Union
and Switzerland are all at work testing the discovery on similar accelerators, but the U.S. has only one
such machine, and it is not yet fully ready for operation. In plasma physics, after a significant 1968 Soviet
breakthrough in the containment of thermo nuclear power, U.S. scientists ran confirming experiments
that suggested that "this almost limitless, pollutionless source of energy may be nearer than was once
expected. But the U.S. effort is having funded at a level, cut back again this year, that could put off this
development as much as 25 to 50 years." In the life sciences, research funds are still lagging some 20%,
or at least $250 million per year, behind research capacity. More than Primitive. Implicit in Lessing's
analysis is the belief that man can use increasingly sophisticated science to solve his problems and, at
the same time, ensure that science does not turn on its master and destroy him. He suggests that
society has little choice other than to press on vigorously in scientific research; he rejects the notion
that the only options are to abandon science and become primitive, or continue it and be destroyed.
Lessing echoes the warning of Biochemist Philip Handler, president of the National Academy of Sciences:
"If we forswear more science and technology, there can be no cleaning up cities, no progress in mass
transportation, no salvage of our once beautiful landscape and no control of overpopulation. Those
who scoff at technological solutions to these problems have no alternative solutions.
Science and technology aren’t bad – people just use their products badly;
fundamentalism and prejudice fill in instead
Erickson, Science Graduation from the University of Minnesota, 1993
(George, Bachelor of Science and a Doctor of Dental Surgery degree from the U of Minnesota,
Humanism Today, vol. 8, p. 63-65, http://www.humanismtoday.org/vol8/erickson.pdf, JMB, accessed 625-11)
During the Friday evening of the seventh annual Humanist Weekend airing of modemist/postmodernist
viewpoints, science and technology were criticized directly by some and indirectly by others. While
science and technology are fair game, it is unfortunate that time was not available to rise in their
defense. Love Canal and nuclear weapons were given as examples, as they frequently are. What many
forget is that science is the search for knowledge, and technology is the sum of the ways that society
provides itself with the objects of civilization. To portray science or technology as villains ignores our
own role in determining how their fruits are used. To the contrary, science and technology have not
failed; they have been phenomenally successful. The fault lies not with scientists, who are not
insensitive to the fragrance and radiance of a rose, and to imply such is more than prejudicial. Again,
to the contrary, many of the persons of science whom I have known are deeply attuned to the
aesthetic nature of the world in general and of the subjects of their study in particular. To cast blame
on science or technology is to join ranks with the hard-core religionists, the fundamentalists in
particular, against whom science has fought a long and unrelenting battle, frequently at great cost. No,
science is not at fault, nor technology. The fault is ours. It belongs to those of us who treasure opinion
more than knowledge. It belongs to those who use technology to gamer profits regardless of the
human and environmental costs. It belongs to churches that preach love and tolerate greed, and to
the ignorant and indolent who read the sports and the funnies, but rely on astrology tables or the
church to show them the way. The famous physicist, Leo Szilard, fought against use of the atom bomb,
cabling and sending memoranda to President Roosevelt, urging an international demonstration so that
the Japanese could witness its power and surrender. But others, not scientists, determined that the
bomb would be used for effect-and not as a mere demonstration.
AT: Objectivity
Disavowing objective fact is meaningless self-gratification that ignores the real
problems of the world that we need science to solve
Sokal, Physics Professor and New York University, 1996
(Alan, Prof of Physics @ NYU, “A Physicist Experiments with cultural studies” Lingua Franca May/June JF)
The fundamental silliness of my article lies, however, not in its numerous solecisms but in the
dubiousness of its central thesis and of the "reasoning" adduced to support it. Basically, I claim that
quantum gravity--the still-speculative theory of space and time on scales of a millionth of a billionth of a
billionth of a billionth of a centimeter--has profound political implications (which, of course, are
"progressive"). In support of this improbable proposition, I proceed as follows: First, I quote some
controversial philosophical pronouncements of Heisenberg and Bohr, and assert (without argument)
that quantum physics is profoundly consonant with "postmodernist epistemology." Next, I assemble a
pastiche--Derrida and general relativity, Lacan and topology, Irigaray and quantum gravity--held
together by vague references to "nonlinearity," "flux," and "interconnectedness." Finally, I jump
(again without argument) to the assertion that "postmodern science" has abolished the concept of
objective reality. Nowhere in all of this is there anything resembling a logical sequence of thought;
one finds only citations of authority, plays on words, strained analogies, and bald assertions. In its
concluding passages, my article becomes especially egregious. Having abolished reality as a constraint
on science, I go on to suggest (once again without argument) that science, in order to be "liberatory,"
must be subordinated to political strategies. I finish the article by observing that "a liberatory science
cannot be complete without a profound revision of the canon of mathematics." We can see hints of an
"emancipatory mathematics," I suggest, "in the multidimensional and nonlinear logic of fuzzy systems
theory; but this approach is still heavily marked by its origins in the crisis of late-capitalist production
relations." I add that "catastrophe theory, with its dialectical emphasis on smoothness/discontinuity and
metamorphosis/unfolding, will indubitably play a major role in the future mathematics; but much
theoretical work remains to be done before this approach can become a concrete tool of progressive
political praxis." It's understandable that the editors of Social Text were unable to evaluate critically the
technical aspects of my article (which is exactly why they should have consulted a scientist). What's
more surprising is how readily they accepted my implication that the search for truth in science must
be subordinated to a political agenda, and how oblivious they were to the article's overall illogic. Why
did I do it? While my method was satirical, my motivation is utterly serious. What concerns me is the
proliferation, not just of nonsense and sloppy thinking per se, but of a particular kind of nonsense and
sloppy thinking: one that denies the existence of objective realities, or (when challenged) admits their
existence but downplays their practical relevance. At its best, a journal like Social Text raises important
issues that no scientist should ignore--questions, for example, about how corporate and government
funding influence scientific work. Unfortunately, epistemic relativism does little to further the discussion
of these matters. In short, my concern about the spread of subjectivist thinking is both intellectual and
political. Intellectually, the problem with such doctrines is that they are false (when not simply
meaningless). There is a real world; its properties are not merely social constructions; facts and
evidence do matter. What sane person would contend otherwise? And yet, much contemporary
academic theorizing consists precisely of attempts to blur these obvious truths. Social Text's
acceptance of my article exemplifies the intellectual arrogance of Theory--postmodernist literary
theory, that is--carried to its logical extreme. No wonder they didn't bother to consult a physicist. If all
is discourse and "text," then knowledge of the real world is superfluous; even physics becomes just
another branch of cultural studies. If, moreover, all is rhetoric and language games, then internal
logical consistency is superfluous too: a patina of theoretical sophistication serves equally well.
Incomprehensibility becomes a virtue; allusions, metaphors, and puns substitute for evidence and
logic. My own article is, if anything, an extremely modest example of this well-established genre.
Politically, I'm angered because most (though not all) of this silliness is emanating from the selfproclaimed Left. We're witnessing here a profound historical volte-face. For most of the past two
centuries, the Left has been identified with science and against obscurantism; we have believed that
rational thought and the fearless analysis of objective reality (both natural and social) are incisive tools
for combating the mystifications promoted by the powerful--not to mention being desirable human
ends in their own right. The recent turn of many "progressive" or "leftist" academic humanists and
social scientists toward one or another form of epistemic relativism betrays this worthy heritage and
undermines the already fragile prospects for progressive social critique. Theorizing about "the social
construction of reality" won't help us find an effective treatment for AIDS or devise strategies for
preventing global warming. Nor can we combat false ideas in history, sociology, economics, and
politics if we reject the notions of truth and falsity. The results of my little experiment demonstrate, at
the very least, that some fashionable sectors of the American academic Left have been getting
intellectually lazy. The editors of Social Text liked my article because they liked its conclusion: that "the
content and methodology of postmodern science provide powerful intellectual support for the
progressive political project." They apparently felt no need to analyze the quality of the evidence, the
cogency of the arguments, or even the relevance of the arguments to the purported conclusion. And
why should self-indulgent nonsense--whatever its professed political orientation--be lauded as the
height of scholarly achievement?
Science never claims perfect objectivity or universal truth
Willower, Professors at Pennsylvania State University, and Uline, Professor at Ohio
State University, 2001
(Donald, Penn State U, and Cynthia, Ohio State U, Journal of Education Administration Vol. 39.5 Pg. 457459 JF)
Related criticisms of science are that it seeks ultimate reality and final, universal truth and since
neither has been demonstrated, science is flawed. Such criticisms are misleading because they are so
blatantly incorrect. As an open, growing activity, one of the main characteristics and great strengths of
science is its self-corrective nature. In science, there are no final or universal truths, only theories that
can be assessed using a variety of logical and evidentiary criteria, and subject to modification or
replacement at any time. Similarly, the notion of an ultimate reality waiting to be uncovered and
revealed by science is long out-of-date, a vestige of nineteenth century scientism. Yet, both of these
charges are sometimes laid upon science by critics, with postmodernists/poststructuralists �Derrida,
1973, 1976) but one example. Little more need be said about final, universal truth, except to stress that
even the most established theoretical explanations are subject to self-rectifying inquiry which might
provide even better established ones. Ultimate reality is an awkward term that conjures up images of
scientists pulling away the curtain of ignorance to gaze upon the true world. The terms ultimate reality
and universal truth in a sense feed on each other because presumably to see the former is to know the
latter. The problem is that such a conception of scientific inquiry is a figment of the postmodern
imagination in search of a straw man. What actually happens is that a theory is created and tested
and if the evidence fails to reject the theory, it gains in credibility. Theories are genuine constructions,
but their assessment depends on judgments of adequacy using criteria developed in scientific
communities. Theories supported by logic and cumulative evidence over time achieve relatively high
levels of credibility, but words like ultimate reality and final truth are foreign to inquiry, found mainly
in the conceptions of science provided by the fantasies of its antagonists. When it comes to truth, we
prefer Dewey's �1938) concept of warranted assertibility. It holds that propositions are warranted by
logic, and by evidence gathered in the process of inquiry. This view is consistent with scientific practice
and is antithetical to universal or final truths. It sees science and knowledge as open, changing, and
growing, not as closed, static, and settled.
Science has objective truths – provable beyond reasonable doubt
Nagel, Professor at New York University, 1998
(Thomas, prof at NYU, The New Republic, Oct 12, pp. 32-38,
http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/nagel.html, JMB, 6-25-11)
As Sokal and Bricmont point out, the denial of objective truth on the ground that all systems of belief
are determined by social forces is self-refuting if we take it seriously, since it appeals to a sociological
or historical claim which would not establish the conclusion unless it were objectively correct.
Moreover, it promotes one discipline, such as sociology or history, over the others whose objectivity it
purports to debunk, such as physics and mathematics. Given that many propositions in the latter fields
are much better established than the theories of social determination by which their objectivity is
being challenged, this is like using a ouija board to decide whether your car needs new brake linings.
Relativism is kept alive by a simple fallacy, repeated again and again: the idea that if something is a
form of discourse, the only standard it can answer to is conformity to the practices of a linguistic
community, and that any evaluation of its content or its justification must somehow be reduced to
that. This is to ignore the differences between types of discourse, which can be understood only by
studying them from inside. There are certainly domains, such as etiquette or spelling, where what is
correct is completely determined by the practices of a particular community. Yet empirical knowledge,
including science, is not like this. Where agreement exists, it is produced by evidence and reasoning,
and not vice versa. The constantly evolving practices of those engaged in scientific research aim beyond
themselves at a correct account of the world, and are not logically guaranteed to achieve it. Their
recognition of their own fallibility shows that the resulting claims have objective content. Sokal and
Bricmont argue that the methods of reasoning in the natural sciences are essentially the same as those
used in ordinary inquiries like a criminal investigation. In that instance, we are presented with various
pieces of evidence, we use lots of assumptions about physical causation, spatial and temporal order,
basic human psychology, and the functioning of social institutions, and we try to see how well these fit
together with alternative hypotheses about who committed the murder. The data and the background
assumptions do not entail an answer, but they often make one answer more reasonable than others.
Indeed, they may establish it, as we say, "beyond a reasonable doubt." That is what scientists strive
for, and while reasonable indubitability is not the position of theories at the cutting edge of
knowledge, many scientific results achieve it with time through massive and repeated confirmation,
together with the disconfirmation of alternatives. Even when the principles of classical chemistry are
explained at a deeper level by quantum theory, they remain indispensably in place as part of our
understanding of the world.
AT: Bias
Even if scientists are biased, the community solves
Siegel, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy, University of Miami,
1985
(Harvey, Professor and Chair of the Department of Philosophy, University of Miami, Philosophy of
Science, Vol. 52, No. 4, p. 531, JSTOR)
I have been writing as if science's utilization of SM is perfect; as if every scientist always bases her claims
evidentially. This is, of course, not so. As scarcely needs mention, scientists are passionate, human
creatures, not automatons who routinely grind out results according to some formula for establishing
evidential support. But this fact is perfectly compatible with the view of SM offered here. For science
is a communal affair; individual passions and commitments are controlled by community assessment.
In cases of dispute, settlement comes on the heels of relevant new evidence- Sometimes such
evidence is not available—in which case disputes remain open. Sometimes evidence is at hand but not
taken as such; at other times it may denied or distorted. In these last cases SM is not fully in
command, and we might well say that those who fail to honor the commitment to evidence forfeit
their claim to the title "scientist.wl8 But these considerations do not harm the analysis. For an account
of SM should not pretend that the scientific community's reliance on SM is unwavering. It is enough to
note that the community strives, ideally, for such reliance.
*SM=Scientific Method
2AC Perms
Synthetic Analysis
The permutation solves – a synthetic analysis of science-based IR with ethical and
social processes is the starting point for effective ocean policy
Christie, School of Marine Affairs and Jackson School of International Studies,
University of Washington, 11
[Patrick, 4/6/11, University of Washington, “Creating space for interdisciplinary marine and coastal
research: five dilemmas and suggested resolutions,”
https://depts.washington.edu/smea/sites/default/files/u43/Christie%20Multi%20Disc%20Researc.2011.
Env%20Conserv.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, TYBG]
The predominant environmental policy process has assumed, implicitly or explicitly, that the key
knowledge gap to effective policy making is inadequate knowledge of ecological function (Christie et al.
2002; Ruckleshaus et al. 2009. With this construct, the priority has become developing adequate
understandings of biology, non-human population dynamics, ecological communities and ecosystem
function. Such information has been fed into the policy process, with the expectation that it will provide
the key to raising awareness of environmental problems and lead to policy solutions. This has been a
generally failed experiment in policy making, resulting in incomplete understandings of scale and
interrelationship, inadequate policies and frustrated scientists of various disciplines (including
ecologists). As an alternative, if environmental problems are construed as imbalances in coupled socialecological systems, then the role of IR necessarily expands within the policy-making process. A
comprehensive, effective and balanced policy process requires detailed empirical understandings of not
only ecological, biological and physical processes, but also humanistic, ethical and social processes,
derived from both basic and applied research.
A review of the predominant discourse surrounding ocean decline is a useful starting point. The decline
of ocean resources and ecosystems has received considerable attention within the marine scientific
community and popular media (Pauly et al. 1998; New York Times 2006; Worm et al. 2006, 2009;
Halpern et al. 2008; Rosenthal 2008). This rapid growth in coverage is likely due to a confluence of
conditions, including the worrisome degree of ecosystem decline in many locations and an increased
ability to create and analyse global data sets. Active organizations, such as The Communication
Partnership for Science and the Sea (COMPASS, URL http://www.compassonline.org) have created
influential links between scientists documenting ocean decline and mass media outlets. Until recently,
society did not know the extent, both geographic and ecological, of ocean condition decline. It is not an
understatement that entire ecosystems, such as coral reefs (Pandolfi et al. 2003), are threatened at
previously undocumented levels. There are virtually no pristine areas of the ocean today (Halpern et al.
2008). Such assessments are remarkably important, but incomplete, to inform effective policy
responses. The question remains, how best to use this information, and what additional IR and synthetic
analysis is necessary to shape societal policy and behavioural response? More importantly, what is likely
to succeed in reversing these trends? The second question requires a broad consideration of empirical
and ethical information, and is dependent on IR analysis across natural and social science disciplinary
lines. It also requires a reconsideration of the role of formal science in defining the discourse
surrounding policy formulation.
Science Reform
The perm solves best - the inadequacies and discrimination of status quo science are
because the GOALS and ETHICS of scientists are what’s bankrupt, not the epistemic
foundations of science - these can be reformed and corrected
Antony, Masters in Sociology and Philosophy from the University of Massachusetts
Amherst, 2013
(Louis, March 20th, “Epistemology or Politics? Louise Antony”, http://socialepistemology.com/2013/03/20/epistemology-or-politics-louise-antony/, accessed 7/5/14, LLM)
Naomi Scheman calls attention to a number of cases in which science, as it is currently institutionalized
in wealthy capitalist societies, neglects human needs or thwarts human values, specifically by neglecting
the perspectives of marginalized people, or by disparaging the knowledge they possess. I share
Scheman’s indignation about these cases, and about many other outrages perpetrated by the elite
classes of the industrialized, capitalist West against subordinated people within and outside the
societies they dominate. But I am not convinced by her analysis of the problem. Where Scheman sees a
cognitive problem, I see a political one.
Scheman believes that the injustices she describes are due, at least in large part, to an inadequate
conception of knowledge — one that prescribes and rationalizes epistemic norms that deny epistemic
authority to marginalized people (Scheman 2012, 472). She thus sees a role for epistemology to play in
redressing the injustices she describes. We need, she says, to develop a “sustainable” epistemology. We
must look for “a concept of knowledge, and a set of epistemic norms that ‘work’” (473). “Norms that
work” are norms that are, first of all “… appropriate given what we know about ourselves and the
world” (473) but also, more importantly, ones that afford “… sustainability, meaning norms that
underwrite practices of inquiry that make it more rather than less likely that others, especially those …
who are marginalized and subordinated … will be able to acquire knowledge in the future (original
emphasis, 473).
On Scheman’s account, then, the individuals who are harmed by contemporary forms of inquiry are
victims of what Miranda Fricker calls “epistemic injustice.” They have knowledge and methods of
knowing that would, if properly respected, increase and enrich our stores of knowledge.
It is certainly true that marginalized people are frequently made victims of epistemic injustice — this is,
indeed, part of what “marginalization” consists in. And it is also true that members of dominant groups
have much to learn from those whom they subordinate. But whereas Scheman’s analysis says that
members of the dominant class fail to learn because they harbor defective concepts of knowledge and
employ ineffective norms, I say that they fail to learn because they don’t care. In indicting the
epistemology of the dominant, Scheman seems to be saying that the methods of inquiry they adopt are
inadequate to their epistemic goals. I, on the other hand, insist that their methods of inquiry are all too
adequate, and that it is their epistemic goals that are wrong. The founding error is not cognitive; it is
moral, and the corrective lies not in philosophy, but in politics.
Consider the case of the “pharmaceutical scientists” Scheman asks us to “think about” (474). These are
scientists who “ … upon learning of a plant used for healing, snip off a piece of it, collect some basic
information about its uses from the people who live with it and take the specimen back to the
laboratory in order to “isolate the active ingredient” (474).
Scheman offers this as an example of the sort of epistemic practice that arises out of the “paradigm of
laboratory science” — a paradigm that — “carries with it an essentialized, idealized, and abstracted
object of knowledge …” (474). Perhaps Scheman is right about how these scientists think about their
projects. But what does imply about the adequacy of their methods? We’re presumably imagining
researchers who are looking for substances to commoditize. Is Scheman suggesting that they’d be more
successful in that endeavor if they were attentive to folk practices, or more holistic in their experimental
design? I see no reason to think that this is so. If the profitability of the pharmaceutical industry is any
indication, the “paradigm of laboratory science” is working just fine, thank you very much.
Epistemic injustice certainly can be epistemically costly for its perpetrators. If the corporate treasurehunters ransacking the rain forest are indifferent to the folkways of the people they encounter along the
way, it’s possible that they miss, thereby, opportunities to learn things that would increase the
profitability of their expeditions. But even if this is so, the epistemic loss they suffer is surely not the
problem. The problem is not that profit-driven researchers neglect the epistemic practices of the people
they plan to exploit; it’s that they neglect their interests. Were the researchers to adopt a less
epistemically arrogant attitude without altering their objectives, they would simply become more
effective exploiters.
The same point can be made about one of the real-world cases discussed by Scheman: the conflict
between the University of Minnesota and the Anishinaabeg people. [1] The Anishinaabeg have objected
to research conducted at the University on manoomin, the grain commonly known as “wild rice.”
University scientists have developed hybrid strains of the grain that are easy to cultivate in artificial
paddies. The resulting increase in production of “wild rice” has caused a drop in demand for genuine
manoomin, and an economic loss for the Anishinaabeg. Also, the planting of the modified strains in
Minnesota threatens the genetic integrity, and continued survival of the native strains, which play a
central role in Anishinaabeg culture.
Scheman says that the university’s stance toward the Anishinaabeg is “problematic both ethically and
epistemically” (484). The ethical problems are manifest: university researchers have appropriated and
facilitated the commoditization of a substance belonging to another people, with disregard for both the
cultural practices of and the economic consequences for those people. But what are the epistemic
problems here? Scheman (following Jill Doerfler), points to the discourse of agricultural research, and
the university’s claims to be engaged in the “improvement” of the native grain. The notion of
“improvement,” Doerfler says, is highly relative. From the perspective of “non-indigenous farmers,” it
might mean the development of a strain that permits intensive monocropping in a commercially
hospitable environment. But:
For Anishinaabe, the value of manoomin is in its biodiversity; this diversity has allowed the Anishinaabe
to be able to depend on it regardless of disease and weather, because even if one variety is attacked by
disease or does not respond favourably to the environmental conditions the other varieties will survive
… (Scheman quoting Doerfler, 484).
I heartily agree that the notion of “improvement” is interest-relative. Indeed, I insist on it; the
observation supports my point. The conflict between the University of Minnesota and the Anishinaabeg
is a conflict of interests. The Anishinaabeg have both cultural and economic interests at stake in the
preservation of the native strains; the University of Minnesota researchers have a stake in producing
strains that are commercially viable, a stake they probably inherit from the agencies and firms that
sponsor their research. But there’s nothing in this story to suggest that there’s anything defective about
the epistemic practice of the scientists at the University of Minnesota. Presumably they have been
successful in finding out what they wanted to find out. Had they not been, the Anishinaabeg would not
have needed to complain.
Perhaps what Scheman is thinking is that the conception of knowledge inherent in the “paradigm of
laboratory science” is one that encourages the idea that “improvement” can be understood apart from
particular interests, perhaps by promoting a picture of the researcher as a featureless individual, devoid
of both perspective and agenda. Someone in the grip of this picture might attempt to deflect interestbased criticism of a research program by appealing to the imperatives of “pure science” or by citing a
researcher’s right, on intellectual grounds, to pursue any research he or she found interesting. But
Scheman does not make this charge explicitly, and neither does Doerfler, as far as we know from
Scheman’s citations. Of course, if university officials had offered such a defense, it would have been
patently disingenuous. But even if such a defense had been offered sincerely, it would only have shown
what someone thought was going on in the research plant, not what was actually happening. [2] And it’s
the actual practices that must be implicated if Scheman is to show that the problem in this case is
epistemic.
Ethics
Pure research is intrinsically tied to ethics and cultural values – the aff is the first step
towards ethical clarity
Calvert, Professor of Science and Technology Policy Studies, SPRU, University of Sussex
and Martin, Associate Director Professor of Science Policies at Texas State University ,
1
[Jane, Ben, 9/2001, SPRU, “Changing Conception of Basic Research,” http://www.oecd.org/science/scitech/2674369.pdf, accessed 7-4-14, TYBG]
The importance of the value of this ideal of basic research is shown by the association of basic research
with other culturally valued concepts. Basic science was explicitly tied to ethical values by two
physicists; one argued that the methods of science themselves engender scrupulous honesty and
integrity, claiming that doing science makes one become a better person. Status also often came up in
discussions about the relation between basic and applied research. A US biologist noted that:
The elitism of basic science still hangs around. There's still a lot of people, mainly older people, who still
look on industrial collaborations as being slightly tainted and dirty, and it's 'prostitution' to do applied
research.
A UK physicist supported this point, saying that some of the research council committees "still think it's
undignified to do anything which is useful". The status of basic research is clearly important and has an
impact on the ability of scientists to obtain funding. These associations of basic research with ethics
and status demonstrate that there are deep cultural values embedded in the notion of basic research.
These historically important values should be acknowledged, especially if we are considering altering
long-standing terminology. When describing their research as 'basic research*, scientists are implicitly
drawing on these attributes associated with the concept.
Strong Objectivity
Striving for a sense of strong objectivity instead of a utopian ideal of pure objectivity is
good in and of itself – it allows for the inclusions of marginalized people and can
reverse institution-controlled science into an epistemologically sound advocacy
Harding, philosopher of feminist and postcolonial theory, epistemology, research
methodology, and philosophy of science at the University of Delaware, 92
(Sandra, After the Neutrality Ideal: Science, Politics, and "Strong Objectivity",
http://lifesandlanguages.wikispaces.com/file/view/Harding+-+Strong+Objectivity.pdf, accessed 7/5/14,
LLM)
THERE ARE TWO kinds of politics with which the new social studies of science have been concerned. One
is the older notion of politics as the overt actions and policies intended to advance the interests and
agendas of "special interest groups." This kind of politics "intrudes" into "pure science" through
consciously chosen and often clearly articulated actions and programs that shape what science gets
done, how the results of research are interpreted, and, therefore, scientific and popular images of
nature and social relations. This kind of politics is conceptualized as acting on the sciences from outside,
as "politicizing" science. This is the kind of relationship between politics and science against which the
idea of objectivity as neutrality works best.'
However, in a sometimes supportive and at other times antagonistic relation to it is a different politics
of science. Here power is exercised less visibly, less consciously, and not on but through the dominant
institutional structures, priorities, practices, and languages of the sciences.^ Paradoxically, this kind of
politics functions through the "depoliticization" of science through the creation of authoritarian science.
As historian Robert Proctor points out:
It is certainly true that, in one important sense, the Nazis sought to politicize the sciences ... . Yet in an
important sense the Nazis might indeed be said to have "depoliticized" science (and many other areas of
culture). The Nazis depoliticized science by destroying the possibility of political debate and controversy.
Authoritarian science based on the "Fuhrer principle" replaced what had been, in the Weimar period, a
vigorous spirit of politicized debate in and around the sciences. The Nazis "depoliticized" problems of
vital human interest by reducing these to scientific or medical problems, conceived in the narrow,
reductionist sense of these terms. The Nazis depoliticized questions of crime, poverty, and sexual or
political deviance by casting them in surgical or otherwise medical (and seemingly apolitical) terms ... .
Politics pursued in the name of science or health provided a powerful weapon in the Nazi ideological
arsenal.
The institutionalized, normalized politics of male supremacy, class exploitation, racism, and imperialism,
while only occasionally initiated through the kind of violent politics practiced by the Nazis, similarly
"depoliticize" Western scientific institutions and practices, thereby shaping our images of the natural
and social worlds and legitimating past and future exploitative public policies. In contrast to "intrusive
politics," this kind of institutional politics does not force itself into a preexisting "pure" social order and
its sciences; it already structures both. In this second case, the neutrality ideal provides no resistance to
the production of systematically distorted results of research. Even worse, it defends and legitimates the
institutions and practices through which the distortions and their exploitative consequences are
generated. It certifies as value-neutral, normal, natural, and therefore not political at all the existing
scientific policies and practices through which powerful groups can gain the information and
explanations that they need to advance their priorities. It functions more through what its normalizing
procedures and concepts implicitly prioritize than through explicit directives. This kind of politics
requires no "informed consent" by those who exercise it, but only that scientists be "company men,"
supporting and following the prevailing rules of scientific institutions and their intellectual traditions.
This normalizing politics defines the objections of its victims and any criticisms of its institutions,
practices, or conceptual world as agitation by special interests that threatens to damage the neutrality
of science. Thus, when sciences are already in the service of the mighty, scientific neutrality ensures that
"might makes right."
This essay pursues a project begun in other places: to strengthen the notion of objectivity for the natural
and social sciences after the demise of the ideal of neutrality."* I turn first to the problem of thinking
past the epistemological relativism that critics of the neutrality ideal either embrace or commit. Instead,
we can begin to discern the possibility of and requirements for a "strong objectivity" by more careful
analysis of what is wrong with the neutrality idea. Standpoint epistemologies provide resources for
fulfilling these requirements. Finally, I suggest that the usefulness of the notion of truth, like that of
epistemological relativism, should be historically relativized; the unnecessary trouble both make in the
postneutrality debates originates in their intimate links to the rejected neutrality ideal.
The ideal of objectivity as neutrality is widely regarded to have failed not only in history and the social
sciences, but also in philosophy and related fields such as jurisprudence.^ The notion contains a number
of elements. In the following passage, Peter Novick describes how it appears in the thinking of
historians; but with appropriate adjustments this passage expresses objectivist assumptions more
generally:
The assumptions on which [the ideal of objectivity] rests include a commitment to the reality of the
past, and to truth as correspondence to that reality; a sharp separation between knower and known,
between fact and value, and, above all, between history and fiction. Historical facts are seen as prior to
and independent of interpretation: the value of an interpretation is judged by how well it accounts for
the facts; if contradicted by the facts, it must be abandoned. Truth is one, not perspectival. Whatever
patterns exist in history are "found," not "made."
The objective historian's role is that of a neutral, or disinterested judge; it must never degenerate into
that of advocate or, even worse, propagandist. The historian's conclusions are expected to display the
standard judicial qualities of balance and evenhandedness. As with the judiciary, these qualities are
guarded by the insulation of the historical profession from social pressure or political influence, and by
the individual historian avoiding partisanship or bias—not having any investment in arriving at one
conclusion rather than another.^
What is left of the objectivity ideal when neutrality is abandoned? Fairness, honesty, and an important
kind of "detachment," to start. Thomas Haskell, for example, points out that it is absurd to assume—as
Novick does—that in giving up the goal of neutrality one must give up the ideal of objectivity:
The very possibility of historical scholarship as an enterprise distinct from propaganda requires of its
practitioners that vital minimum of ascetic self-discipline that enables a person to do such things as
abandon wishful thinking, assimilate bad news, discard pleasing interpretations that cannot pass
elementary tests of evidence and logic, and, most important of all, suspend or bracket one's own
perceptions long enough to enter sympathetically into the alien and possibly repugnant perspectives of
rival thinkers. All of these mental acts—especially coming to grips with a rival's perspective—require
detachment, an undeniably ascetic capacity to achieve some distance from one's own spontaneous
perceptions and convictions, to imagine how the world appears in another's eyes, to experimentally
adopt perspectives that do not come naturally—in the last analysis, to develop, as Thomas Nagel would
say, a view of the world in which one's own self stands not at the center, but appears merely as one
object among many.'
Notice that the detachment called for here is not impersonality. The observer is not to act as if s/he
were not a social person, or to separate even more from those s/he studies (when it is people or
institutions that are the object of study), but, instead, critically to distance from the assumptions that
shape his or her own "spontaneous perceptions and convictions." Haskell is concerned here with
something different from the distorting effects of the intrusion of politics into neutral science. Instead, it
is the distorting "politics of the obvious" to which he is drawing attention. Sometimes this can be a
matter of idiosyncratic individual assumptions; but these are relatively easily identified by peers who
check research designs, sources, and observations. More problematic are the spontaneous perceptions
and convictions that are shared by a scientific community and, usually, by the dominant groups in the
social order of which the scientists are members by birth and/or achievement. It is refiexivity that is the
issue here: self-criticism in the sense of criticism of the widely shared values and interests that
constitute one's own institutionally shaped research assumptions.
Haskell's kind of retrieval of the concept of objectivity from its "operationalization" as maximizing
neutrality is extremely valuable. However, to become more than a mere moral and intellectual
gesture—to become a competent program that can guide research practices—we need some
procedures or strategies to pursue that could systematically lead away from wishful thinking, refusing to
come to terms with bad news, refusing "to enter sympathetically into the alien and possibly repugnant
perspectives of rival thinkers," etc. Otherwise, it is perfectly clear that only the already marginal groups
will be regarded as engaging in these bad habits by those with the most authoritative voices in the social
order and our research disciplines. The latter, with no conscious bad intent, will arrive at such judgments
by simply following the normalizing procedures of institutions and conceptual schemes legitimated
already as value-neutral. Without strategies to maximize this kind of objectivity, these moral
exhortations remain only idle gestures.
These "minorities" have additional cause for alarm at the retreat to gestures. In some of the most
influential criticisms of objectivism and its assumptions, the effects on historical, sociological, or
scientific belief of such macro social structures as the racial order, the class system, imperialism, and the
gender order are completely and sometimes even intentionally ignored.^ In others, the contributions of
research and scholarship that begins from the lives of people of color and feminists are devalued and
even attacked.^ Yet the articulation of the perspective from the lives of just such marginalized peoples
as racial minorities in the first world, third-world people, women, and the poor has provided some of
the most powerful challenges to the adequacy of objectivism. The gestures of mainstream writers to the
value of good intentions coupled with their persistent failures to manage to "be fair" to the most "alien
and possibly repugnant" competing claims cannot give much hope to those who have persistently lost
the most from the conceptual practices of power. Embracing or committing epistemological relativism
has the effect of defending the dominant views against their most telling critics. Does relativism itself
need to be relativized?
Informed Debates
The permutation is best – informed policy debates must take questions of race, class,
geopolitics, and identity into account
Bolster, Chair of Humanities at the University of New Hampshire, associate professor
of history, 6
(W. Jeffrey, “Opportunities in Marine Environmental History,” Environmental History 11
http://fishhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BolsterEH2006.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
This essay makes a case for the support and development of marine environmental history. We need to
better understand many things: how different groups of people made themselves in the context of
marine environments, how race, class, fashion, and geo-politics influenced the exploitation and
conservation of marine resources, how individual and community identities (and economies) changed as
a function of the availability of marine resources, how technological innovation frequently masked
declining catches, how fishermen’s knowledge of localized depletions accumulated in the past, how
public policy debates revealed historically specific values associated with the ocean, how collaboration
between (and then antagonism among) fishermen and scientists affected marine environments, how
faith in the certainty of marine science waxed and waned, how different cultures perceived the ocean at
specific times, and—when possible— how past marine environments looked in terms of abundance and
distribution of important species.18
These are the constituent parts that get to a deeper historical question: the nature of the greatest sea
change in human history. Only good marine environmental history can get to the heart of the ecological
and cultural transformations that have cast the twenty-first-century ocean as vulnerable rather than
eternal. Despite obstacles and problems, preliminary work in this field makes it look immediately
relevant, professionally challenging, and intellectually rewarding.
Balanced Debates Key
Ocean policy must be dictated by a balanced debate between science-based value
judgments and competing advocacies
Campbell et. Al., Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, 9
[Lisa M., Noella J. Gray, Elliott L. Hazen, Janna M. Shackeroff, “Beyond Baselines: Rethinking Priorities for
Ocean Conservation,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, TYBG]
Third, if our critique of SBS is correct (or even partially so), then the goal of pursuing recovery of natural
baselines is questionable both in the normative and practical sense, ecologically and otherwise. We do
not oppose the identification of recovery goals, but such goals are neither self-evident nor “natural.”
Rather, decisions about the appropriate baseline to target and mechanisms for pursuing it will involve
value judgments. Following Lélé and Norgaard (1996) in their critique of sustainability, we suggest that
values need to be explicitly acknowledged when setting priorities for ocean conservation. The values SBS
writers espouse regarding pristine ecosystems are one set of values that may inform priority setting, but
not the only ones. Other stakeholders will promote other values, and these need to be recognized.
There is a practical need for such recognition; an argument that rests on the notion that oceans are
unpeopled and that characterizes fishers and other resource users as unnatural intrusions will do little
to engage these stakeholders. But calls for recognition of competing values are also philosophical and
reflect debates about the interactions of science, values, and advocacy that are taking place both in
general (e.g., in conservation biology, see Lackey 2007) and in fisheries management specifically (e.g.,
Jentoft 2006), a point we return to in the conclusion.
Humans Good
The permutation solves - their totalizing critique of human interaction with nature
objectifies the environment and ignores complexities of social and environmental
systems – a balance is key
Campbell et. Al., Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, 9
[Lisa M., Noella J. Gray, Elliott L. Hazen, Janna M. Shackeroff, “Beyond Baselines: Rethinking Priorities for
Ocean Conservation,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, TYBG]
There are several consequences arising from the separation of humans from marine nature. First,
because humans are “naturally” outside of marine nature, when they do enter ecological equations,
they are a problem, serving as top-down (e.g., through fishing) or bottom-up (e.g., through direct and
indirect pollution) forcers, or as habitat modifiers (e.g., via trawling and dredging effects). More
specifically in SBS, fisheries are the problem, reflecting both the etymology of SBS (Pauly is a fisheries
ecologist) and that most long-term data available come from fisheries. Although we do not question
what is now global concern with declining fish stocks, we do suggest that the emphasis in SBS on human
drivers of change overlooks the role of non-anthropogenic variability in marine ecosystems as described
above, and (more importantly) reinforces a static vision of nature in equilibrium prior to human
exploitation, a nature to which things are done. This belies the complexity of both ecosystems and social
systems, and the links between them. Objectifying humans as exploiters of and separate from nature
also narrows the scope of research to one aspect of human–environmental relations, suggesting that
regardless of human agency, all humans behave in the same way. This overlooks the ways in which
individuals, groups, or institutions, not only degrade, but also conserve and restore oceans.
Fem – Dialectical Objectivity
The permutation solves best - dialectical objectivity can bridge the gap between
environmental ethics and feminist epiestemolgies
James, PhD in Philosophy from the University of California, San Deigo, 2K
(Christine, “Objective Knowledge In Science: Dialectical Objectivity and the History of Sonar
Technology”, http://teach.valdosta.edu/chjames/dissword.pdf, accessed 7/4/14, LLM)
When I began this dissertation, I hoped to develop a notion of objectivity that would provide promising
solutions to a variety of issues in the Philosophy of Science. This is why it opened with a quote from
Haraway and Hardingís call for a successor science project. This call pinpoints the kind of conflict I had
hoped to ease, the kind of wound in the Philosophy of Science literature that I hoped to heal. Members
of the feminist and mainstream branches of Philosophy of Science and Science Studies seem to regard
each other with great distrust, yet they seem concerned with many of the same questions: How can we
adequately account for the social influences on science, for both their positive and negative
implications? How can we acknowledge those social influences without lapsing into relativism? How can
science be subject to social influence and still produce standards, still produce success? I believe that a
dialectical sense of objectivity can answer those questions. Similarly, questions about objects
themselves have been asked by philosophers for centuries: does the object itself produce knowledge,
sense data, qualities? Does the way in which an object is represented or presented to the knower
influence, or even predetermine, what can be known about that object? I believe that a dialectical sense
of objectivity can produce a richer account of the objects role in the creation of knowledge, the account
that has been needed for a better understanding of science.
One implication of dialectical objectivity, and the answers it can provide, is the possibility of making
peace between feminist and mainstream philosophers of science. The interweaving of Kitcherís
philosophy of science with the work of Harding and Longino showed that dialectical objectivity is the
common ground that can motivate a new understanding of science that transcends previous
disagreements and misinterpretations. However, dialectical objectivity is valuable also for other areas in
philosophy.
One such area is environmental ethics. Many environmental ethicists are deeply concerned with the
distinction between an environmental ethics of care and one based on intrinsic value. Dialectical
experience may provide a ground for ethical arguments that can move beyond that distinction. In point
of fact, environmental ethicists such as Jim Cheney have already begun work in similar directions. In his
1999 article “Environmental Ethics as Environmental Etiquette: Toward an Ethics Based Epistemology”
co-written with Anthony Weston, it is argued that a robust environmental ethic emerges not from
disengaged epistemological contemplation, but from a deep revisioning of what it is to interact with the
world: Our task is not to “observe” at all-- that again is a legacy of the vision of ethics as belief centered-but rather to “participate” (Cheney 1999, 128). This notion of participation is rooted in a dialectical
process. A new appreciation of the dialectical nature of that process has a happy result: if we develop a
robust sense of participation or interaction, as giving both a new ethics as well as new knowledge of the
world and of the self, then we can envision new kinds of arguments for ethical obligations. One such
argument could establish ethical responsibility towards those with whom we interact because when we
interact they contribute to our mutual constitution and our reciprocal definitions. We can make the case
that we have a moral obligation to those who help us define ourselves. These kinds of arguments would
also have a positive effect on the relationship of epistemology and ethics: in a concrete way we can
show how new knowledge can lead to, and provide a foundation for, better ethics.
2AC Turns
Disease
Basic science key to solve disease
Privitera, Research Associate Professor; University of Cincinnati, 9
(Mary B., “Interconnections of basic science research and product development in medical device
design”,
http://static.squarespace.com/static/51ed9ee5e4b072e1e9acd667/t/51fabdb2e4b07e1682eb809d/137
5387058278/basic_science_design.pdf, accessed 7/9/14, LLM)
According to the AMA, basic science research is the investigation of a subject to increase knowledge and
understanding about it. The information gathered from basic science research is essential for
“translating” or applying new discoveries to patient care (2).
Basic science research has the objective as the advancement of knowledge wherein its beauty is in the
quest for understanding of the world as we know it. As conducted, e.g. develop a hypothesis, design an
experimental protocol to test the hypothesis, conduct an experiment or survey, and use an appropriate
statistical analysis of the data. The process explores the breaking apart of elements in experimentation
within a particular environment. That said, often it is in the unexpected results during experimentation
that leads to a practical application of the knowledge gained.
Traditionally, basic science research is considered as an activity that preceded applied research or
translational research, which in turn preceded development into practical applications and most often
completed in an academic setting. The reality for medical device design is that the basic fundamental
scientific principles applied to a product design to treat a particular disease are constantly being verified
and tested through both direct application in patient care and full clinical trials. In essence the science
behind the device is under constant review and exploration. These reviews are conducted not only
within institutions but also in the industrial entities that have vested interest.
Basic science key to working with clinical research to solve disease
Sampath, Professor in the Division of Neonatology Pediatrics, and Children’s Research
Institute, Medical College of Wisconsin, and Ramchandran, Department of Obstetrics
and Gynecology, Developmental Vascular Biology Program, Neonatology Pediatrics
and Children’s Research Institute at the Medical College of Wisconsin, 14
(Venkatesh and Ramani, May 22nd, “Translational Research – It Takes Two to
Tango!”, Volume 1, Issue 1, http://medcraveonline.com/MOJCSR/MOJCSR-01-00003.pdf, accessed
7/9/14, LLM)
Introduction From a basic scientist perspective, translational research is defined as the ability to use
knowledge of basic mechanisms responsible for fundamental cellular processes to understand the
causative mechanisms underlying human disease. From the perspective of a clinical scientist,
translational research implies use of data from human studies and clinical trials to enhance our
understanding of human disease and improve health outcomes. A broader definition of translational
research would encompass use of all data (clinical or basic research) to understand human disease and
improve health outcomes. In this era of the global information explosion, the obstacle in translating
research is not primarily in the availability of or the accessibility to information, but rather in the
application of information to solve real world problems. Basic scientists have been educated and trained
to be minimalist by nature to design simple experiments with hypotheses grounded on solid preliminary
data. However, this approach is counterintuitive to the majority of disease processes, which by nature
are multi-faceted, and evolve over time. On the other hand, clinical scientists understand complexity but
feel challenged in understanding the molecular mechanisms that drive disease pathogenesis; a key to
identifying the molecular targets and mechanisms for pharmacological intervention. An amalgamation
of both these approaches is needed for science to be translated successfully.
On face value, the basic scientist attempts to deconstruct the disease process by simplifying the tangles
and approaches it in a stepwise fashion. The clinical scientist on the other hand approaches the problem
with investigating trends, correlations and statistical analysis of significance. There lies the basic
difference in approaches, which eventually leads to the two worlds that look at the same problem in
isolation. Grant writing and funding pressures for basic scientists, and extensive clinical responsibilities
with increasing pressures to generate revenue pushes the two worlds further apart into their respective
comfort zones. One might then ask why is translational research important? Interestingly, the same
pressures that keep the basic scientists and clinical scientists apart are now ironically working actively to
make them work together. For the basic scientists, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the main
funding agency has increasingly focused its efforts on the “health,” portion of its acronym. Scientists are
no different than other professionals – where the money goes so goes the research priority of basic
scientists. The same “health,” push from NIH has concomitantly fueled clinicians who have been
frustrated with minimal options in the clinic for their patients to get into research. Institutions and
administrations have increasingly seized upon this opportunity and pressure has increased at all levels
for both basic scientists and clinicians to perform “translational research.” Unfortunately, this economic
push has not coincided with an important factor that is necessary to achieve success in this arena, which
is the availability of a workforce that is ready to take on this challenge. Although MD/PhD dual degree
clinical scientists are ideally poised to take advantage of this critical push, the numbers of such
investigators are not at a critical mass to take full advantage of the opportunities in medicine.
Importantly, the range of their professional options is broad, and only 39% devote more than 75% effort
to research [1]. Therefore, we are left with the breed of PhD’s and MD’s who, understanding the
limitations of their own science, become cheerfully “uncomfortable” to get the job done. Unless we find
a way to work together, and understand each other’s language and code, the road ahead is likely to be
challenging. Elias Zerhouni, MD (former Director of NIH) [2] summarized this elegantly- “At no other
time has the need for a robust, bidirectional information flow between basic and translational (clinical)
scientists been so necessary”.
Basic research key to successful applied disease prevention and curing techniques
OSC, Educational Firm Licensed Under Rice University, 14
(OpenStax College, February 20th, “The Process of Science”,
http://cnx.org/content/m45421/latest/content_info#cnx_cite_header, accessed 7/9/14, LLM)
Basic science or “pure” science seeks to expand knowledge regardless of the short-term application of
that knowledge. It is not focused on developing a product or a service of immediate public or
commercial value. The immediate goal of basic science is knowledge for knowledge’s sake, though this
does not mean that in the end it may not result in an application.
In contrast, applied science or “technology,” aims to use science to solve real-world problems, making it
possible, for example, to improve a crop yield, find a cure for a particular disease, or save animals
threatened by a natural disaster. In applied science, the problem is usually defined for the researcher.
Some individuals may perceive applied science as “useful” and basic science as “useless.” A question
these people might pose to a scientist advocating knowledge acquisition would be, “What for?” A
careful look at the history of science, however, reveals that basic knowledge has resulted in many
remarkable applications of great value. Many scientists think that a basic understanding of science is
necessary before an application is developed; therefore, applied science relies on the results generated
through basic science. Other scientists think that it is time to move on from basic science and instead to
find solutions to actual problems. Both approaches are valid. It is true that there are problems that
demand immediate attention; however, few solutions would be found without the help of the
knowledge generated through basic science.
One example of how basic and applied science can work together to solve practical problems occurred
after the discovery of DNA structure led to an understanding of the molecular mechanisms governing
DNA replication. Strands of DNA, unique in every human, are found in our cells, where they provide the
instructions necessary for life. During DNA replication, new copies of DNA are made, shortly before a cell
divides to form new cells. Understanding the mechanisms of DNA replication enabled scientists to
develop laboratory techniques that are now used to identify genetic diseases, pinpoint individuals who
were at a crime scene, and determine paternity. Without basic science, it is unlikely that applied
science would exist.
Another example of the link between basic and applied research is the Human Genome Project, a study
in which each human chromosome was analyzed and mapped to determine the precise sequence of
DNA subunits and the exact location of each gene. (The gene is the basic unit of heredity; an individual’s
complete collection of genes is his or her genome.) Other organisms have also been studied as part of
this project to gain a better understanding of human chromosomes. The Human Genome Project (Figure
6) relied on basic research carried out with non-human organisms and, later, with the human genome.
An important end goal eventually became using the data for applied research seeking cures for
genetically related diseases.
Economy
Basic science is key to sustainable economic growth
Usher, Science Development.Net Reporter, 13
(O., July 31st, “Basic science linked to faster economic growth”, http://www.scidev.net/global/rd/news/basic-science-linked-to-faster-economic-growth.html, cites to the cited study: Jaffe K, Caicedo
M, Manzanares M, Gil M, Rios A, et al. (2013) Productivity in Physical and Chemical Science Predicts the
Future Economic Growth of Developing Countries Better than Other Popular Indices, June 12th, 2013,
accessed 7/9/14, LLM)
Middle-income countries that focus on basic sciences, such as physics and chemistry, grow their
economies faster than nations that invest in applied sciences, such as medicine or psychology, according
to a paper by Venezuelan researchers.
They say that "investing in basic scientific research seem[s] to be the best way a middle-income country
can foment fast economic growth", although they found no direct cause and effect between basic
science and economic development.
Instead, they believe that investment in basic sciences — as indicated by the proportion of published
articles in these fields — reveals a rational, decision-making atmosphere within a country and among its
leaders, as well as promoting economic growth. Klaus Jaffe, lead author of the paper and coordinator of
the Centre for Strategic Studies of Simón Bolívar University in Venezuela, tells SciDev.Net that the
correlation between scientific productivity and economic growth "has always been suspected, but there
has been very little evidence that supports this idea.
"We had been observing that poor or middle-income countries were growing at a different pace than
the developed ones and we wanted to know why."
The study, published in PLOS One last month (12 June), set out to investigate if some areas of science
promote development more than others, and if applied sciences are better at advancing economic
development than basic sciences. The researchers examined the correlation between World Bank data
on the growth of GDP (gross domestic product) per capita and the proportion of scientific publications in
different scientific fields .
They found scientific productivity in basic science, including physics, chemistry and material sciences,
correlated strongly with countries' economic growth over the following five years. And preferential
investment in technology, without investment in basic sciences, achieved little economic development,
the say. "Thus, technology without science is unlikely to be sustainable."
They also discovered that scientific productivity was a much better predictor of economic wealth and
the Human Development Index — a composite of life expectancy, education and income indices used to
rank countries' development — than other commonly used indices, such as indices of competitiveness
or globalisation. "The results of our paper demonstrate that the most important thing [for sustainable
development] is to invest in basic sciences. Those who try to skip this step fail," says Jaffe.
Education
Basic science is the only reliable way to improve education
Kaysen, MIT Political Economy Professor, JFK advisor, 65
[Carl, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, pg. 147 – 167, FCB]
Second, there is the intimate relation between the conduct of research and the provision of higher
education in science and technology. Trained scientists, engineers, and doctors are needed in increasing
numbers to operate the apparatus of society in defense, industry, and health, as well as to continue the
stream of improvements in that apparatus that we have experienced in the past and expect in the
future. The training of these specialists is increasingly carried on in close connection with the conduct of
both basic and applied research. There is wide agreement among both the consumers and producers of
specialized scientific and technical training that an intimate relationship between research and teaching
in these areas is necessary, and that the best centers for training are those that provide this connection.
This is a requirement for the support of research that would exist even in the absence of a useful
application of the knowledge that the research produced (2).
Democracy
Basic research is essential to science education and functioning democratic societies
Verhoogen, Berkley Geology Professor, 65
[John, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S.
House of Representatives, pg. 147 – 167, FCB]
THIS CARD HAS BEEN MODIFIYED TO REMOVE GENDERD LANGUAGE, Letters in parentheses have been
added
Even in our pragmatic culture, usefulness is not the sole criterion of merit. Basic research has a much
broader justification in that the quest for knowledge is one of(the Hu)man's most characteristic and vital
urges; the desire to know is perhaps what most sharply separates him(us) from beast. Most of human
history can be read as an incessant query, the search for answers to unceasing questions: What is the
stuff of the universe, and why; what is life, and how did it start? It is properly (hu)mankind's heritage
that knowledge is an essential aspiration—to give insight into the circumstances of our existence, and to
give us freedom from fear of natural forces.
To put it simply: Human beings want bread, and they want freedom, and some of them want to know.
At this point it is not inappropriate to consider the close relationship of science to a free society. Is it
accidental that the 18th century produced at the same time the first great burst of basic science and the
first great step toward free democratic societies? Is it mere coincidence that the American Constitution
and the French Declaration of Human Rights arc contemporaneous with the great mathematicians,
physicists, chemists, geologists, on whose work all of our modern science still rests? Many have
considered the relationship between a free society and the scientific spirit to be fundamental. A
democratic society, it is said, is one that is uniquely favorable to the scientific spirit; conversely, a society
is more likely to prosper and remain free if it fosters in all its citizens the spirit of free inquiry, the desire
to know, the search for new and better ideas, and the curiosity that are basic ingredients of science.
Even though science has occasionally been misused, and scientists have supported undemocratic
philosophies, it remains true that allowing the scientific mind free play is a means of strengthening the
individual freedom of mind without which a democracy may find it hard to survive.
It should be pointed out, in fairness to other aspects of culture, that science is not unique in promoting
democratic welfare: Philosophy and the arts are just as indispensable as science. The study of history is
surely a better guide to political wisdom than is quantum mechanics. It has been said again and again
that science cannot flourish when divorced from the humanities, and to that view we subscribe. Support
of science must entail support of the liberal arts. A full discussion of this matter should properly find its
place in a report on governmental support of education, which is not the subject of this paper; let it
suffice at the moment to remind the reader that good science requires good education, in the broadest
acceptation of that term.
Environment (General)
Lack of public scientific literacy dooms projects to cause environmental destruction only new methods of analysis can solve
Baptista et al, Ph. D in Civil Engineering from MIT and director of NSF Sci & Tech
center, 8
[Antonio, 2008, “Scientific exploration in the era of ocean observatories,”
http://vgc.poly.edu/~juliana/pub/cmop-cise2008.pdf, 7-6-14, FCB]
Society’s critical and urgent need to better understand the world’s oceans is amply documented and has
led to a unique convergence of operational and scientific interests in the US, organized around the
concept of ocean observatories: cyber--facilitated integrations of observations, simulations, and
stakeholders. In particular, programs are emerging aimed at creating an operational Integrated Ocean
Observing System (IOOS)1 to address broad society needs and an open, ocean--observing research
infrastructure (the Ocean Observatories Initiative [OOI]).2
Perhaps no part of the ocean is in more need of observatories than coastal margins, which are among
the most densely populated and developed regions in the world. Coastal margins sustain highly
productive ecosystems and resources, are sensitive to many scales of variability, and play an important
role in global elemental cycles. But natural events and human activities place stresses on these margins,
rendering the development of sustainable resources and ecosystems challenging and contentious, with
policy decisions often based on insufficient scientific understanding of the causes and consequences of
natural and anthropogenic impacts.
Effective scientific exploration thus requires the ability to generate a wide variety of analyses for a broad
audience in an ad hoc manner. In this article, we introduce an observatory in evolution, offer a futuristic
vision of observatory--enabled scientific exploration, and discuss how provenance is essential to make
this vision a reality.
Focus on pure research produces new methodologies to solve ecological crises
Box and Barker, chairs of the influential Urban Forum of the UK-Man and the
Biosphere Committee, 14
(John and George, An Agenda for Urban Biodiversity - Green Grids, Design Codes and Fiscal Incentives,”
www.researchgate.net%2Fpublication%2F259763013_An_agenda_for_urban_biodiversity__green_grids
_design_codes_and_fiscal_incentives&ei=9BfAU6mdDsvpoASn74LoDg&usg=AFQjCNFordGDmnc3RceI0Y
sKF39LEa0VdQ&sig2=ND97xFrBhiEqstvZyMjr5Q,
Accessed 7-10-2014, LK)
It is reasonable for businesses, Local Government and Government-funded agencies to pay for research
and review which helps tackle particular practical issues, but pure research is needed as well. Without
the development of understanding which this will bring, we may be – and probably often are –
addressing the wrong issues in programmes of applied research. To focus solely on problem-solving,
risks continually narrowing the field of view. Pure research broadens the perspective and sheds fresh
light. Universities and research institutes should reassess the balance of their programmes of research
into ecology - and related disciplines including ecosystem functioning, sociology and psychology - to give
more weight to pure research which will bring benefits to all in the longer term.
In the face of serious environmental challenges accurate scientific knowledge is
lacking – that creates a disconnect between the public and scientific reality
Deacon et al, historian specializing in oceanography and fellow @ School of Ocean and
Earth Southampton U, 01
[Margaret, Understanding the Oceans: A Century of Ocean Exploration, pg. 1, FCB]
This is a time of well-founded concern about the ocean, and how well we understand its processes.
Specific, problems such as the depletion of fisheries, the effects of marine pollution and the impact of
mineral extraction, as well as broader questions such as the role of the ocean in controlling the Earth's
climate, not only pose challenges to scientific understanding but also represent factors that could
influence both the lives and livelihoods of many, and potentially alter the earth as we know it. In
appreciating what is involved in such issues, let alone what might be done to avoid unwelcome
consequences, accurate scientific knowledge of the sea is imperative. This is the province of
Oreanographers, but it is not only scientists who are concerned about these matters and a wider
knowledge of what they are doing should form part of the public debate.
This is not as straightforward as it might seem. For one thing, late twentieth-century oceanography is a
dynamic and therefore rapidly changing discipline. Developments during recent decades have
transformed our scientific knowledge of the sea, with the result that present-day understanding of the
ocean differs significantly from what was possible even fifty, let alone a hundred years ago. This is in
many respects due to advances in technology, which have made possible new mode* of exploring an
environment notoriously hard to study. At the same time, wider concerns about the ocean, and growing
awareness of its significance in the Earth's past, present and future, and in die origin and maintenance
of life, have helped to create a more general interest in such work, beyond the immediate scientific
community actively engaged in research. Too often, this wider audience lacks works able to bridge the
gap between fragmented and specialized scientific literature and the needs of a broader readership, a
function that textbooks only partially fulfil. Older general sources (such as Herring and Clarke 1971)
continue to be valuable, but the subject has altered considerably since those days. Some books
outstandingly help to change the outlook of a generation. Rachel Carson's The sea around us, first
published in 1950, was such a one; perhaps Sylvia Earie's Sea Change (1995) may be another. There is,
however, a continuing need for works, such as Summerhayes and Thorpe (1996), which are neither
popular accounts on the one hand, nor written exclusively for those working in the same field on the
other, and which try to present authoritative accounts of scientific understanding of the ocean at the
close of the twentieth century to a wider audience, whether scientists or non- scientists.
Heg
Basic research underpins all aspects of American leadership
Coletta, PhD in Political Science at Duke University, 9
(Damon, Masters in Public Policy @ Harvard, Assoc Prof of Geopolitics & National Security Policy @ US
Air Force Academy, September 2009,
http://www.usafa.edu/df/inss/Research%20Papers/2009/09%20Coletta%20Science%20and%20Influenc
eINSS(FINAL).pdf, accessed 7/9/14, LLM)
The social science literature recognizes that the best practical solution is somewhere in between, and
anticipating Zakaria, that the dilemma is less acute if the professionals develop Adam Smith‘s moral
sentiments, that is, if the expert advisers see themselves as officers with a stake in the larger system.
The more seriously professionals take this moral code to serve the principal and not game the system by
exploiting asymmetric knowledge for their individual benefit, the more autonomy they can be granted,
and the more the republic can gain from expertise in military affairs, intelligence analysis, or economic
strategy. Particularly after the U.S. government‘s dramatic expansion of patronage for science through
the Office of Naval Research in 1946, science is home to one of those professions vital for maintaining
national power and position in the international system. Furthermore, a familiar principal-agent
dilemma confounds democratic attempts to strike the balance between technocratic virtuosity and
public accountability.86 At present, the difficulties mission-oriented bureaucracies like ONR have in
detecting and nurturing Nobel quality work in the basic sciences suggest that democratic constraints are
set too tight. To regain the reputation abroad for outstanding American Science, government sponsors
will have to grant scientists more autonomy at home, especially in the field of basic research. Program
directors and scientist beneficiaries at university will garner more freedom from politicians and
policymakers if they can embrace a professional ethos both patriotic and moral. If these professionals
internalize social benefits to science, to mankind, and to America‘s international influence from fulfilling
the public trust, American democracy can scale back its regulations. It can also subdue 33 debilitating
demands for timely material results without fretting over the loyalty of experts serving on the remote
frontiers of science. Congress should set aside a percentage of executive agency budgets, not just for
Science & Technology or Research & Development as broad categories, but for basic research, what
Defense calls 6.1 in particular. Politicians understandably worry that with fewer strings attached to this
money, science experts will unavoidably have greater temptation to defraud the public or substitute
their preferences for those of political masters in the mission agencies. Nevertheless, more progress
reports, more assessment rubrics, and tighter integration with technology demands increase
accountability only at the cost of enervating the national effort to expand the frontiers of knowledge.
Zakaria had it correct: in the long run no system, certainly no democracy, can retain the lead
internationally in scientific, economic, or political development if its professionals will not hew to duty,
especially when no one is looking.
Basic research is key to US leadership, current spending priority’s ensure collapse
MIT Technology Review, 5
[Massachusetts Institute of Technology Technology Review, 3-1-05, “Follow the Money,”
http://www.technologyreview.com/featuredstory/403763/follow-the-money/, FCB]
For many in the technology community, the threat of crisis became much more vivid in early December
when President Bush signed off on the fiscal year 2005 U.S. federal budget. While this year’s budget
increases spending for research and development by 4.8 percent to $132.2 billion, most of that increase
– 80 percent – goes to defense R&D, and most of that to new weapons development, according to the
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In fact, defense-related R&D reached a
record high $75 billion this year. One winner was the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which gets
a 19.9 percent increase in its R&D budget, to $1.2 billion. The big loser is the National Science
Foundation (NSF), which had its R&D budget cut by .3 percent, to $4.1 billion; it was the first cut in NSF’s
budget since 1996. Meanwhile, R&D funding for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) increased by just
1.8 percent to $27.5 billion; it was NIH’s smallest percentage increase in years, and well below the rate
of inflation.
“Defense and homeland security are very important. I can’t criticize funding increases per se in those
areas,” says Shirley Ann Jackson, president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York and the 2004
AAAS president. “But the bigger issue is sustaining focus and support for funding of basic research across
broad fronts. We have to have a robust base of basic research. We’re talking about potentially eroding
that base.” Jackson adds, “Other places will innovate. The question is, are we going to be a leader? If we
don’t pay attention to the warning signs, 15, 20 years from now, we could find ourselves in a relatively
disadvantageous position in terms of global leadership.”
Experts also worry that the federal R&D budget has become too skewed toward relatively mature
technologies. “A lot of the federal funding has gotten a little more conservative and risk averse. The
government needs to put a bigger percentage in radical innovation and more-exploratory research –
technology that’s going to be transformational,” says Deborah Wince-Smith, president of the Council on
Competitiveness, a group of industry, university, and labor leaders based in Washington, DC. Amar Bose,
professor emeritus at MIT and founder of the Bose audio company in Framingham, MA, puts it more
bluntly: “Research funding is going downhill, and I don’t see it turning around. We’re going to have
trouble.”
Budget talks in the US are only focus on applied science, basic or pure science is key to
international leadership
Coletta, PhD in Political Science at Duke University, 9
(Damon, Masters in Public Policy @ Harvard, Assoc Prof of Geopolitics & National Security Policy @ US
Air Force Academy, September 2009,
http://www.usafa.edu/df/inss/Research%20Papers/2009/09%20Coletta%20Science%20and%20Influenc
eINSS(FINAL).pdf, accessed 7/9/14, LLM)
Based on how U.S. constitutional democracy is structured, we should observe a recurring tension
between society‘s desire to benefit from professional expertise and its demand for accountability. In the
U.S. case, scientific advice and scientific research sponsored by the state have been articulated across
mission-oriented agencies serving an urgent governmental function—defense, commerce, health,
agriculture. With few exceptions, even the National Science Foundation is not entirely immune, research
sponsors and laboratories within the U.S. Government feel enormous pressure. Operational branches of
the Executive agencies, massive in terms of budget and personnel compared to R&D, as well as
Congressional representatives on key authorizing committees, push U.S. Science to be technologically
relevant. In the language of the Defense Department‘s framework, there is a steep downhill slope
running from 6.1 (basic research) to 6.2 (applied research). We have seen evidence of the tendency to
slip away from pure science sponsorship in the budget hearings of Congressional committees on Science
and Technology and Armed Services, as well as the evolution of the nation‘s first post-World War II
science agency—the Office of Naval Research—away from basic research. The question remains
whether democratic pressure to harvest superior technology, to the point of neglecting what one chair
of the Projection Forces Subcommittee, House Armed Services called the seed corn of innovation, levies
costs on U.S. foreign policy serious enough to hamper the superpower‘s bid for sustainable hegemony.
In this regard, Brazil provides an interesting case study. While no single country can constitute a
representative sample that would reveal an average score for how well the United States leverages
scientific leadership to sustain international hegemony, successes and challenges of the Brazil case tell
about the likelihood that the United States can optimize its resources and maintain its leadership role in
other regions of the world.56
Laundry List
Pure science is a moral and esthetic necessity which determines social health
Kaysen, MIT Political Economy Professor, JFK advisor, 65
[Carl, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, pg. 147 – 167, FCB]
The argument so far has been couched entirely in instrumental terms. The value of basic research has
been assessed in terms of other goods, for which it is a necessary input: military strength, health,
economic growth. This is a narrow view: scientific research can be viewed as itself a desired end-product
in at least two different ways. First, it may be a significant separate component of national power in our
nationalistic, competitive, less-than-orderly world of many nations. Second, it is an esthetically and
morally desirable form of human activity, and the increase in this activity is itself a proper measure of
social and national health. I myself—as might be expected of an academic— share the second view. I am
skeptical of the first, since I believe that the politically significant element of prestige which rests on
excellence in science is related to the military and economic significance imputed to scientific
leadership. Nonetheless, I think it is unnecessary to debate the merits of either of these views, since the
investment or instrumental aspects of basic research are in my judgment of sufficient importance to
provide a basis for policy judgment independently.
None of the arguments above that justify Federal support for basic scientific research provide in
themselves a measure of what level of expenditure is necessary or desirable. Indeed the nature of the
arguments themselves is such as to make it impossible for any precise payoff calculation to be made. In
sum, they say expenditure on basic science b investment in a special kind of social overhead—
knowledge and understanding—that contributes directly and indirectly to a wide variety of vital social
purposes. It b in the very nature of an over- head that a nice calculation of the "right" amount to expend
on it b difficult While we could conceive a level of research activity so small that education and applied
research began visibly to suffer, and equally, we can conceive a flow of funds so generous that they
would obviously be wastcfully employed, the limits between the two are very wide.
Pure science pays dividends, adds to the stock of knowledge and must be federally
funded
Kaysen, MIT Political Economy Professor, JFK advisor, 65
[Carl, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, pg. 147 – 167, FCB]
The fundamental justification for expending large sums from the Federal budget to support basic
research is that these expenditures are capital investments in the stock of knowledge which pay off in
increased outputs of goods and services that our society strongly desires. However, the nature of the
payoff is such that we can appropriately view these investments as social capital, to be provided in
substantial part through the Government budget, rather than private capital to be provided through the
mechanism of the market and business institutions. Broadly, the payoff of basic research in the
aggregate to the whole of society is clear, as we shall argue in some detail below. However, the fruits of
any particular piece of research are so uncertain in their character, magnitude, and timing as to make
reliance on the market mechanism to provide an adequate flow inappropriate. The market mechanism
operates on the principle that he who pays the costs gets the benefits, and vice versa, and relies on an
anticipation of benefits that is certain enough to justify the outlays required to realize them. The
benefits of the kind of knowledge that basic research seeks are usually difficult or impossible to keep for
a particular firm or individual.
Indeed, the knowledge is often useful as it can be added to the general stock of scientific knowledge
that is held in common by the community of those technically proficient in the relevant discipline. Thus
a business firm which paid for a particular piece of basic research work could not, in general, prevent its
result from being used by others. Further, the uncertainty as to just what would result, and when, and
as to whether the useful purpose to which it could be applied would in fact be one that was relevant to
the activities of the firm, would in general make expenditure in support of this work an unattractive
investment. Finally, several of the kinds of payoffs from basic research relate to outputs that are already
the product of Government activity, rather than of business operating through the market mechanism.
We can distinguish at least four different kinds of benefits to the community that flow from basic
research.
Pure science is independently key to heg, medicine and quality of life
Kaysen, MIT Political Economy Professor, JFK advisor, 65
[Carl, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, pg. 147 – 167, FCB]
We can distinguish at least four different kinds of benefits to the community that flow from basic
research.
First, it is a major input to the advance of applied science and technology, from which there flows
continuing growth in our military capability, our health, and our productive capacity. This point is
obvious and needs little elaboration. But it is worth reminding ourselves that the relation between input
and output is an elastic one. The relationship of the whole revolution in military technology, which
began in World War II and is still continuing, to advances in basic science of the preceding generation
has been discussed at length and frequently. In medicine, we can mention the practical therapeutic
fruits of research on vitamins and hormones carried on by physicians, biochemists and physiologists. In
industry, we can compare the history of transistors, on the one hand, with that of neon and fluorescent
lighting on the other. In the first case, the passage from basic research to wide industrial application was
unusually rapid; in the second, more than 50 years passed between the first systematic scientific
examination of the phenomena of electric discharge tubes and fluorescence, and their practical
applications in lighting. An even longer gap, and a much less predictable set of applications, is
exemplified by the period that lay between Cayley's development of matrix algebra, and its use in such
diverse fields as aerodynamics and the analysis of communication networks.
The only barrier to solving global problems is an insufficient amount of pure research,
the aff more permanently solves all of your impacts
Kaysen, MIT Political Economy Professor, JFK advisor, 65
[Carl, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and
Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, pg. 147 – 167, FCB]
Third, experience shows that an applied research and development effort, undertaken with the purpose
of solving specific practical problems, benefits from a close relation with basic research. This is true both
in general and in the individual research laboratory. The whole body of scientists and engineers in
applied research establishments— whether in defense or industry or medicine, private business or
government—do their job of problem-solving more effectively when they are in contact with scientists
undertaking basic research in areas that under- lie their particular problems. Many industrial
laboratories have found this to be true by experience, and either incorporate basic research groups or
try to achieve the same effect by visiting and consulting arrangements with university scientists. In
overall terms, there appear to be no exceptions to the proposition that nations with strong capabilities
in applied science and technology have strong capability in basic research ; though the association does
not necessarily hold in the reverse direction.
Finally, the corps of scientists working on basic research represent an important reserve of capability in
applied research and development that can be drawn upon when national needs dictate. Our
experience in World War II showed the tremendous reliance placed on so-called scientists in military
research and development This was true not only in nuclear weapons, but also in radar, sonar, proximity
fuses, and other critical fields of military research. The talent of the superior scientist lies to a large
extent in his/her ability to make conceptual inventions and in nuclear weapons, but also in radar, sonar,
proximity fuses, and other functioning devices. These are precisely the talents required to make large
forward strides in technology in a short time. Indeed, but for the stimulus to American science created
directly and indirectly by the inflow of refugees from Europe in the 1930's, it would not have been
possible for us to do all that we did do during the war. If we allowed basic research to sink to the level
represented by what might be paid for by business and educational institutions out of their own funds,
we would be deprived of much of this reserve. In the future, we could envision circumstances in which
we might wish to draw on this reserve capability for other purposes than military needs; indeed, in the
space field, and to some extent in connection with problems of civilian technology and assistance to
developing countries, we can see some examples of this kind already.
Warming
Science is good because it is self-correcting – without it we won’t and can’t act on
global warming
Johnson, Graduate of UW-Madison in Computer Science, writes about urban planning,
energy policy, science and entrepreneurship, 6
(Tad, November 14, 2006, “Science,” http://www.tadfad.com/2006/11/14/science/, accessed 7-12-14,
LK)
Science is one of the few places one can find Truth. It is not based on conjecture, opinion, hearsay,
myth, or faith. Science is not politics. Science is not journalism. Science is certainly not religion. Science
is built exclusively on truths that combine to make Truth. One of the most important facets of science
is the (aptly named) scientific method. The scientific method requires measurable, repeatable,
documented observations that together prove or disprove a hypothesis. By following the scientific
method, scientists can remove the human element from the end result. Any properly trained and
equipped scientist could repeat an experiment to confirm some assertion. Before any scientific study is
published, it must endure the scrutiny of peer review to ensure its merit. I cannot stress this last point
enough. Unlike politics, religion, journalism, etc., this ensures that the end result of the scientific
method is entirely separated from the scientist. There is no room for spin, interpretation, bias, or
opinion. This is why I capitalize Truth. Science is the closest thing to Truth that we will ever know. A
common counter-argument to the merits of science is that scientific Truth changes. That is, what was
once considered Truth is now rejected as a flawed theory. To the contrary, the ability for science to
correct prior errors makes it all the more powerful. The continuous search for Truth is what makes
science so important. Now the hook: the Bush administration has been very hostile towards science.
They have cut funding at the EPA and NASA (among others) to the point where important studies cannot
be done. They have stifled reports and attempted to discredit important findings by countering with
opposing “studies”. Case in point: global warming. There are over one thousand peer reviewed studies
in print that conclude that humans are drastically altering the composition of the earths atmosphere
and, therefore, climate. There are zero peer reviewed studies that conclude otherwise. Yet by finding
a handful of scientists to go on national television and refute this conclusion, the Bush administration
has convinced the American public that the issue is still up for debate. You might notice an important
distinction: there may be plenty of scientists that think global warming is a myth. You will find exactly
zero peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude the same. Unfortunately, most people are not
familiar enough with science to understand this fundamental difference.
2AC AT: DAs
AT: China DA
Science isn’t zero sum – US-China scientific cooperation is mutually beneficial
Chu, Seceretary for the DoE, 11
(Steven, January, “U.S.-China Clean Energy Cooperation”, http://www.us-chinacerc.org/pdfs/US_China_Clean_Energy_Progress_Report.pdf, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
Science is not a zero-sum game. In my experience as a scientist, collaborations with other research
groups greatly accelerated our progress. Similarly, cooperation between the United States and China can
greatly accelerate progress on clean energy technologies, benefiting both countries. As the world’s
largest producers and consumers of energy, the United States and China share many common
challenges and common interests. Our clean energy partnership with China can help boost America’s
exports, creating jobs here at home, and ensure that our country remains at the forefront of technology
innovation. At the U.S. Department of Energy, we are committed to working with Chinese partners to
promote a sustainable energy future. Working together, we can accomplish more than acting alone.
The United States and the People’s Republic of China have worked together on science and technology
for more than 30 years. Under the Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement of 1979, signed soon
after normalization of diplomatic relations, our two countries have cooperated in a diverse range of
fields, including basic research in physics and chemistry, earth and atmospheric sciences, a variety of
energy-related areas, environmental management, agriculture, fisheries, civil industrial technology,
geology, health, and natural disaster planning. More recently, in the face of emerging global challenges
such as energy security and climate change, the United States and China entered into a new phase of
mutually beneficial cooperation. In June 2008, the U.S.-China Ten Year Framework for Cooperation on
Energy and the Environment was created and today it includes action plans for cooperation on energy
efficiency, electricity, transportation, air, water, wetlands, nature reserves and protected areas. In
November 2009, President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao announced seven new U.S.- China
clean energy initiatives during their Beijing summit. In doing so, the leaders of the world’s two largest
energy producers and consumers affirmed the importance of the transition to a clean and low-carbon
economy—and the vast opportunities for citizens of both countries in that transition.
Science isn’t zero sum
Plumer, Political Analyst for the Washington Post, 13
(Brad, October 17th, “Why China isn’t likely to overtake the U.S. in science anytime soon”,
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/17/despite-congress-best-efforts-the-us-isnt-about-to-lose-its-top-spot-in-science/, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
But is China really about to pass the United States in science? Probably not. At least, probably not within
the next decade.
Gwynn Guilford has a great report in Quartz today noting that the Chinese don't seem to be getting
nearly as much value as one might think from all that R&D spending. Among other things, she points to a
new policy brief (pdf) from Guy de Jonquières of the European Centre for International Political
Economy that makes a few key points:
— China isn't getting as much value for its R&D. In 2012, China spent $300 billion on R&D, more than
Japan and Germany combined and second only to the United States. But that's not as impressive as it
sounds.
"R&D spending is, at best, no more than a crude measure of input: it says nothing about output," notes
de Jonquières "A 2008 study by Duke University found that engineering degrees in the U.S. were
generally of a higher standard than those in China. ... Indeed, calculations by Ernst & Young, the
accountancy firm, find that China has not been moving closer to the 'technology frontier' — defined as
the performance level achieved by the world's most advanced and efficient economies — but slipping
steadily further away from it."
— Too many of China's patents are low-quality. Although China now puts out roughly as many patents
as the United States does, that's also a misleading indicator. U.S. patents tend to be much higher quality
on the whole.
"In 2011, fewer than a third of applications to China's patent office were classified as 'innovation'
patents, and these accounted for only one tenth of all patents granted between 1985 and 2010,"
Jonquières writes. "The remainder were lower-quality design and utility-model patents that need to
meet far less demanding standards — so much so that some Chinese experts have said that they risk
bringing the whole patent system into disrepute."
— Churning out journals doesn't always lead to better research. China churns out more scientific papers
than anyone but the United States — and has its sights set on the top spot. But here again, the quality is
uneven.
"The ultimate say in content falls not to peer scientists but to the Communist Party secretary of the
Chinese institution sponsoring the journal," reports Guilford. "Intense competition to achieve quick
results and thereby improve personal promotion prospects has led to widespread academic plagiarism."
While China is putting out nearly as many journal articles as the United States, the latter's still get cited
far, far more often, the UK Royal Society found.
----That said, none of the above is great news — not even for the United States. Scientific research isn't
typically a zero-sum game. New discoveries can have positive spillover benefits for the entire world. If
Chinese scientists advance our understanding of how to fight cancer, that's good for everyone. If China's
inventions are mostly low-quality, that's a loss.
AT: Politics DA
Reed and Carcieri will push the aff
Chicoine, Political Analyst for the Off New Digest, 7
(C. A., January 26th, “RHODE ISLAND’S QUONSET POINT/DAVISVILLE FACILITY BEING EVALUATED AS
HOMEPORT FOR FIRST OCEAN EXPLORATION SHIP”, http://newenglandpride.blogspot.com/, accessed
7/13/14, LLM)
Jan. 19, 2007 — NOAA is evaluating Quonset Point/Davisville, R.I., as the future homeport of the
Okeanos Explorer—the nation’s first federal ship dedicated solely to ocean exploration—as part of an
environmental assessment to be completed this spring.
“Okeanos Explorer will break the mold for the way the nation conducts at-sea research in the future. We
have better maps of Mars and the far side of the moon than of the deep and remote regions of Earth,”
said retired Navy Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., Ph.D., undersecretary of commerce for
oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator. “Senator Reed and Governor Carcieri have been
outspoken champions of the oceans. Their support combined with the wealth of academic and
oceanographic institutions in New England would lead to many exciting collaborations in ocean
exploration.
”The Okeanos Explorer is a former Navy surveillance ship (USS Capable) that was transferred to NOAA in
2004 with the bipartisan support of Congress. The full conversion is expected to be complete in the
spring of 2008. The ship will conduct research and discovery expeditions in support of the NOAA Office
of Ocean Exploration. Using sophisticated ocean mapping, deepwater remote-operated vehicles, and
real-time data transmission, the ship will unlock clues to the world’s oceans—of which 95 percent
remains unexplored.
Quonset Point/Davisville is in close proximity to many labs and universities associated with the ship’s
ocean exploration mission. The site was identified as best able to facilitate and enhance critical ocean
research partnerships and to spur technological innovation in ocean research. Homeporting Okeanos
Explorer at Quonset Point/Davisville also would support NOAA’s efforts to increase regional
collaboration, leverage existing resources of NOAA and its partners, and generate an observational
capacity greater than the sum of its parts.
Quonset Point/Davisville also is in close proximity to a new telecommunications center to be
constructed on the University of Rhode Island’s Narragansett campus. Called the Inner Space Center, it
will be the ocean equivalent to NASA’s space command center in Houston, Texas. The Inner Space
Center would be able to link to Okeanos Explorer via a high bandwidth satellite system and make it
possible for scientists and educators to participate in ocean exploration cruises real-time without ever
stepping foot on the ship.
“I am pleased NOAA has identified Quonset Point/Davisville as an ideal place to homeport Okeanos
Explorer. This is an exciting announcement for Rhode Island and the field of ocean exploration,” said
Senator Jack Reed. “Rhode Islanders value the ocean. It shapes our culture, economy and the health of
our planet. URI and other local institutions are at the forefront of studying and exploring our oceans.
Their unique academic and communications resources will significantly enhance the value of Okeanos.”
"I'm very pleased that NOAA has agreed to seriously consider basing the Okeanos Explorer in the Ocean
State," Rhode Island Governor Donald L. Carcieri said. "I have long argued that Rhode Island can and
should be one of America's leading centers of oceanic research. To further that goal, I worked with
Senator Reed and Admiral Lautenbacher to bring the Okeanos Explorer to Rhode Island. Doing so will
enable our state to build on the research capacity we've already developed at URI, while also exploiting
the potential of Quonset Point/Davisville as a launching point for exploring the ocean's untapped and
largely unknown resources. I especially want to thank NOAA and Admiral Lautenbacher for recognizing
Rhode Island's potential."
“It would be very fitting for the Ocean State to serve as the homeport for the first NOAA ship focused
exclusively on ocean exploration,” said Rear Admiral Samuel P. De Bow Jr., director of the NOAA
Commissioned Officer Corps and the NOAA Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, which manages
the NOAA fleet.
A team of oceanographers from across the country are already helping to plan the ship’s first voyage of
exploration that will be launched from Hawaii in 2008 to explore the Pacific Ocean, the world’s largest
and least explored ocean.
As part of the NOAA fleet, Okeanos Explorer will be operated, managed and maintained by the NOAA
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations. Its crew will consist of technical specialists, wage mariners,
scientists, and commissioned officers of the NOAA Corps—the nation’s seventh uniformed service. The
Corps is composed of scientists and engineers who provide NOAA with an important blend of
operational, management and technical skills that support the agency’s environmental programs at sea,
in the air and ashore. A NOAA Corps officer will command Okeanos Explorer.
NOAA, an agency of the U.S. Commerce Department, is celebrating 200 years of science and service to
the nation. From the establishment of the Survey of the Coast in 1807 by Thomas Jefferson to the
formation of the Weather Bureau and the Bureau of Commercial Fisheries in the 1870s, much of
America's scientific heritage is rooted in NOAA. NOAA is dedicated to enhancing economic security and
national safety through the prediction and research of weather and climate-related events and
information service delivery for transportation, and by providing environmental stewardship of the
nation's coastal and marine resources. Through the emerging Global Earth Observation System of
Systems (GEOSS), NOAA is working with its federal partners, more than 60 countries and the European
Commission to develop a global monitoring network that is as integrated as the planet it observes,
predicts and protects.
It’s bipartisan or it’s small enough it would get tacked on with a laundry list bill like
CJS
Reed, Rhode Island Senator for the US Congress, 13
(Jackson, June 18th, “Reed Helps Advance Plan to Boost Job Creation, Public Safety, & Scientific Research
Senate Appropriations Committee approves FY 2014 CJS Bill with bipartisan support”,
http://www.reed.senate.gov/news/releases/reed-helps-advance-plan-to-boost-job-creation-publicsafety-and-scientific-research, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
“The bipartisan CJS bill is a smart investment in keeping our communities safe, boosting innovation, and
growing economic opportunities. I am pleased we were able to get strong bipartisan support in
committee and I hope the full Senate will work together to pass this bill and strengthen our economy,”
said Reed. Highlights of the bill that Senator Reed supported include: JOBS, RESEARCH, & INNOVATION
$7.4 billion for the National Science Foundation (NSF), an increase of $186 million over fiscal year 2013.
The increase will provide 510 more competitive grants in fiscal year 2014. This includes $163.5 million
for the Experimental Program to Stimulate Research (EPSCoR). The report also directs NSF to fund the
Academic Fleet, which includes URI Graduate School of Oceanography’s research vessel Endeavor, at no
less than the 2012 level $948 million for the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), $141
million above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level. This funding enables a set of initiatives that will catalyze
innovations, develop measurements, and provide technical resources to promote the global
competitiveness of U.S. manufacturers and aspiring start-ups. This includes $153 million for the Hollings
Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), as well as funding for Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Consortia (AMTech), which will help manufacturers accelerate development and adoption of cutting
edge manufacturing technologies for making new, globally competitive products. $18 billion for the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and their research partners at universities to
continue science, aeronautics, technology, and human space flight breakthroughs. This includes $18
million in funding for the NASA EPSCoR program and $40 million of NASA space grants. $276 million for
the Economic Development Assistance (EDA), $56 million above fiscal year 2013. The bill includes $100
million for public works projects, $25 million for the Regional Innovation Program to help more than 250
communities plan regional strategies for long-term growth, leverage billions in private investment, and
generate thousands of jobs. Since 2009, EDA has invested in approximately $34 million in funding
project in Rhode Island, including more than $3 million this year to repair the pier at the Port of Galilee.
The measure also includes $15.8 million to in Trade Adjustment Assistance for Firms programs, which
helps U.S. companies that are affected by overseas competition. $500 million for the International Trade
Administration (ITA), $27 million more than the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, to help U.S. farmers,
manufacturers, and service providers sell their products overseas. The bill also supports the Interagency
Trade Enforcement Center to aggressively tackle unfair trade practices hurting American businesses.
PUBLIC SAFETY $8.4 billion for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), $368 million above the fiscal
year 2013 enacted level. This increase in funding will allow the FBI to conduct 1,500 more terrorism,
cyber intrusion, and violent crime investigations. This includes a $100 million increase in funds for the
FBI to double capacity of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) to ensure the
FBI has the capacity to manage existing requirements to perform necessary background checks on
prospective firearms purchasers. $2.4 billion for the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), $68 million
above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, to target and dismantle criminal narcotics activities and
regulate and combat prescription drug abuse. $1.23 billion for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms,
and Explosives (ATF), $100 million above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, to reduce violent crime and
enforce federal firearms and explosives laws. $2.8 billion for the U.S. Marshals Service, $63 million
above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, to apprehend dangerous fugitives, protect the Federal courts
and the judiciary, and transport prisoners for court proceedings. $2 billion for the U.S. Attorneys, $79
million above the fiscal year 2013 enacted level, to prosecute cases in international and domestic
terrorism, mortgage fraud and financial crime, human trafficking, child exploitation, firearms and violent
crime, gangs and organized crime, and complex fraud committed in health care, identity theft, public
corruption, and drug enforcement. $417 million for Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) programs to
help prevent domestic violence and hold offenders accountable. $394 million for COPS grants and $385
million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants to help local law enforcement put more cops on the beat and
ensure police officers have the resources they need to protect our communities. $279 million for
juvenile justice and mentoring grants. $129 million for research and evaluation initiatives on the best
prevention and intervention strategies, including $35 million to Delinquency Prevention Grants, of which
$5 million goes to Gang and Youth Violence Education and Prevention. $50 million for states to improve
the quality of criminal and mental health records so interstate background checks are more effective.
$150 million through the COPS Office to allow communities to hire school safety personnel, conduct
school safety assessments, and fill gaps in school safety plans. $15 million to help train local police how
to respond to active shooter situations. $2 million to encourage developments in innovative gun safety
technology. WEATHER & OCEANS: $5.6 billion for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
$150 million for fisheries disaster funding could provide millions of dollars to support Rhode Island's
groundfishing fleet. $29.1 million for Ocean Exploration, including the Okeanos Explorer home-ported at
Quonset Point and the Ocean Exploration office at URI.
It’s bipartisan- new reforms prove and have shielded it from controversy
Jones, Government Relations Division at the American Institute of Physics, 14
(Richard M., 4/4/14, “House Passes Bipartisan Bill to Reorganize NOAA’s Weather Resources”
http://aip.org/fyi/2014/house-passes-bipartisan-bill-reorganize-noaa%E2%80%99s-weather-resources,
accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
On Tuesday the House of Representatives passed the Weather Forecasting Improvement Act. Approved
by voice vote, this bipartisan bill aligns the R&D activities of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration’s Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) with the National Weather Service.
“Saving lives and protecting property should be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s
top priority. This bill codifies that priority,” said Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-OK) as he explained the
objectives of this legislation to his House colleagues. Bridenstine introduced this bill, H.R. 2413, in June
2013. The month before Moore, Oklahoma was hit by a massive tornado that killed 24 people and
injured 377. Joining Bridenstine in cosponsoring this bill and reflecting its bipartisan nature were twenty
other representatives, including the chairman and ranking minority member of the House Science,
Space, and Technology Committee.
The Science Committee voted to send this legislation to the full House after a quick markup session in
early December. Then, as was true during Tuesday’s floor action, the bipartisan nature of the bill was
emphasized. The bill has now been sent to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and
Transportation. Selections from the House floor debate, in the order of presentation, follow:
House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (T-TX):
“Severe weather routinely affects large portions of the United States. This past year has been no
different. The United States needs a world-class weather prediction system that helps protect American
lives and property.
“Our leadership has slipped in severe weather forecasting. European weather models routinely predict
America’s weather better than we can. We need to make up for lost ground. H.R. 2413 improves
weather observation systems and advances computing and next generation modeling capabilities. The
enhanced prediction of major storms is of great importance to protecting the public from injury and loss
of property. and advances computing and next generation modeling capabilities. The enhanced
prediction of major storms is of great importance to protecting the public from injury and loss of
property.”
Rep. Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR):
“Members on both sides of the aisle can be assured that this bill represents a truly bipartisan effort and
is built on extensive discussions with and advice from the weather community.”
“We drew on expert advice from the weather enterprise and from extensive reports from the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Public Administration. Experts told us that, to
improve weather forecasting, the research at the Office of Oceans and Atmospheric Research, or OAR,
and the forecasting at the National Weather Service had to be better coordinated. This legislation
contains important provisions to improve that coordination. This bill encourages NOAA to integrate
research and operations in a way that models the successful innovation structure used by the
Department of Defense.
“The bill we are considering today also creates numerous opportunities for the broader weather
community to provide input to NOAA, and their insights as well. At every opportunity, we charge the
agency to consult with the American weather industry and researchers as they develop research plans
and undertake new initiatives. We also press NOAA to get serious about exploring private sector
solutions to their data needs.
“The bill makes clear that we expect the historical support for extramural research to continue. The
engine of weather forecasting innovation has not always been found within NOAA, but is often found in
the external research community and labs that work with NOAA. That collaboration must continue and
will continue under this legislation.
“I can assure Members on both sides of the aisle that weather research is strengthened in this bill but
not at the expense of other important work at NOAA. During the committee process, we heard from
witness after witness who stressed that weather forecasting involves many different scientific
disciplines. This integrated multidisciplinary approach reflects an understanding that we cannot choose
to strengthen one area of research at OAR without endangering the progress in the other areas because
they are all interconnected. Physical and chemical laws do not respect OAR’s budgetary boundaries of
climate, weather, and oceans, and this bill only addresses organizational issues in weather at NOAA.”
Rep. Bridenstine:
“Mr. Speaker, on May 20 of last year, a massive tornado struck Moore, Oklahoma, with very little
warning. The Moore tornado killed 24 Oklahomans, injured 377, and resulted in an estimated $2 billion
worth of damage. A warning was issued only 15 minutes before the tornado touched down, just 15
minutes. In fact, 15 minutes is the standard in America. Mr. Speaker, America can do better than 15
minutes.
“Mr. Speaker, this bill is about priorities. When America is over $17 trillion in debt, the answer is not
more spending, but to prioritize necessary spending toward its best uses. Saving lives and protecting
property should be the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s top priority. This bill codifies
that priority. H.R. 2413 directs NOAA to prioritize weather-related activities and rebalances NOAA’s
funding priorities to bring weather-related activities to a higher amount. The bill completes this
reprioritization in a fiscally responsible manner. H.R. 2413 does not increase NOAA’s overall
authorization. I would like to repeat that. H.R. 2413 does not increase NOAA’s overall authorization. It
doesn’t spend one more dime.
“Mr. Speaker, this bill helps get weather research projects out of the lab and into the field, thereby
speeding up the development and fielding of lifesaving weather forecasting technology. By requiring
coordination and prioritization across the range of NOAA agencies, H.R. 2413 will help get weather
prediction and forecasting technologies off the drawing board and into the field. This bill authorizes
dedicated tornado and hurricane warning programs to coordinate research and development activities.
It directs the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research to prioritize its research and development.
And it codifies technology transfer between OAR - the researchers – and the National Weather Service the operators - a vital link that ensures next-generation weather technologies are implemented.
“Mr. Speaker, perhaps most importantly, H.R. 2413 enhances NOAA’s collaboration with the private
sector and with universities. Oklahoma is on the cutting edge of weather research, prediction, and
forecasting with absolutely world-class institutions such as the National Weather Center and the
National Severe Storms Laboratory at the University of Oklahoma.”
“Mr. Speaker, the imbalance of NOAA’s resources is leaving America further behind our international
competitors. The Science Committee received compelling testimony showing that the European Union
has better capabilities in some areas of numerical weather prediction, forecasting, and risk
communication, and other countries, such as Britain and Japan, are closing in fast. Misallocating
resources can have terrible consequences, as my constituents and the people of Oklahoma understand
all too well every tornado season. The Weather Forecasting Improvement Act is a first step toward
rebalancing NOAA’s priorities, moving new technologies from the lab bench to the field, and leveraging
formidable capabilities developed in the private sector and at universities.”
Ocean research has popular support
NAS 3 (National Academy of Sciences, http://explore.noaa.gov/sites/OER/Documents/nationalresearch-council-voyage.pdf, accessed 7-5-14, LK
There has been continued support for and success from oceanographic research in the United States,
and a large-scale international exploration program could rapidly accelerate our acquisition of
knowledge of the world's oceans. The current ocean-research-funding framework does not favor such
exploratory proposals. Additional funding for exploration without a new framework for management
and investment is unlikely to result in establishment of a successful exploration program. A new
program, however, could provide the resources and establish the selection processes needed to develop
ocean exploration theme areas and pursue new research in biodiversity, processes, and resources within
the world's oceans. The current effort of the Office of Ocean Exploration at NOAA should not be
expected to fill this role. After weighing the issues involved in oversight and funding, perhaps the most
appropriate placement for an ocean exploration program is under the auspices of the interagency NOPP,
provided that the problems with routing funds to NOPP-sponsored projects is solved. This solution has
the best chance of leading to major involvement by NOAA, NSF, and other appropriate organizations
such as the Office of Naval Research. The committee is not prepared to support an ocean exploration
program within NOAA unless major shortcomings of NOAA as a lead agency can be effectively and
demonstrably overcome. A majority of the committee members felt that the structural problems
limiting the effectiveness of NOAA's current ocean exploration program are insurmountable. A minority
of the committee members felt that the problems could be corrected. If there is no change to the status
quo for NOPP or NOAA, the committee recommends that NSF be encouraged to take on an ocean
exploration program. Although a program within NSF would face the same difficulties of the existing
NOAA program in attracting other federal (and nonfederal) partners, NSF has proven successful at
managing international research programs as well as a highly-regarded ocean exploration program that
remained true to its founding vision.
AT: Info Sharing DA
Information Sharing by the US key to credible international scientific cooperationcreates necessary goodwill to build mutual trust
USGPO, Governmental Printing Office Transcript on the hearing before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 2008
(April 2nd, “INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COOPERATION”,
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm, accessed
7/13/14, LLM)
The exchange of scientific information and the cooperation in international scientific research activities
were identified by the first NSF Director, Alan Waterman, as two of the major responsibilities that
Congress had given the agency. NSF embraced those responsibilities in its first cycle of grants,
supporting international travel and the dissemination of scientific information originating overseas. NSF
recognized that a two-way flow of information and individuals between nations resulted in both better
science and improved international goodwill.
In 1955, NSF took a comprehensive look at the role of the Federal Government in international science,
and warned that it was important that ``activities of the U.S. Government in the area of science not be
tagged internationally as another weapon in our cold war arsenal.'' NSF concluded that international
scientific collaboration, based on considerations of scientific merit and the selflessness of the United
States, could help ease international tensions, improve the image of the United States abroad, and help
raise the standard of living among less-developed nations.
NSF has long embraced multilateral projects as an essential aspect of its portfolio, beginning with the
International Geophysical Year of 1957, and continuing with such activities as the International
Biological and Tropical Oceans-Global Atmosphere programs, and, more recently, the International
Continental Drilling Program, Gemini Observatory, Rice Genome Sequencing Project, and International
Polar Year. The agency has also fostered bilateral partnerships in all parts of the world. These
overarching partnerships, most of which involve extensive interagency collaboration on the U.S. side,
have generated thousands of cooperative research projects on multiple scales.
As you know, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) guides and oversees the
administration's international science and technology strategies and portfolio. Through OSTP, the
National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) has a pivotal role in setting priorities for and
coordinating interagency collaborations, including those that are international in nature. International
cooperation is integrated throughout the four committees of the NSTC, and NSF participates in this work
on many levels. I currently co-chair the Committee on Science and serve as the NSF representative on
the Committee on Homeland and National Security. NSF Deputy Director Kathie Olsen serves as the NSF
representative on the Committee on Environment & Natural Resources and Committee on Technology.
NSF is involved in most of NSTC's subcommittees and working groups, and leads many. For example, Dr.
Jim Collins, the Assistant Director of the Directorate of Biological Sciences, chairs the Biotechnology
Subcommittee, and Dr. Jeannette Wing, the Assistant Director for Computer and Information Sciences
and Engineering, co-chairs the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development.
Information sharing through science solves nuclear proliferation
Lowenthal, director of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of
the National Academy of Sciences, 2011
(Micah D., “Science Diplomacy for Nuclear Security”,
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
Ironically, part of the impetus for the Black Sea Experiment was a response to bad sci- ence. Professor
Sagdeev explained that a Soviet institute had claimed that neutrons emitted by nuclear weapons
containing plutonium would create argon-42 in the air around them and that detectors one hundred
kilometers away could detect the radioactive argon carried by the wind. Although this claim is
demonstrably false (the neutron flux is too small, the argon concentration is too small, and air transport
over even a relatively small distance would dilute the argon to levels indistinguishable from
background), the idea had captured the imagination of some people in leadership positions. The Black
Sea Experiment put to test several detectors—germanium, sodium iodide, helium-3—positioned in
different locations relative to the nuclear weapon. Some were handheld and operated on the ship, some
were in a helicopter, some were on a nearby boat, and some were on the dock farther away. Only the
nearest detectors (on the ship and in the helicopter) detected the weapon and acquired sufficient data
to verify the number of weapons on the ship.
As a one-time experiment with limited measurements and no opportunity to evaluate the sensitivity of
the results or to follow up with additional experiments, the Black Sea Experiment is not a model for
scientific research. However, as a model of science diplomacy, it was a success. Dr. Avrorin described the
Soviet scientists' concerns that gamma-detector measurements could reveal information about the
design of the nuclear explosive. The chief designer of Soviet nuclear weapons personally oversaw the
experiment and confirmed that the detectors could verify the presence of the weapon but could not
show technical details or the configuration of the nuclear explosive. As noted, this is important because
it opened the way to transparent dismantlement of nuclear weapons, demonstrating verification by
nonintrusive technology.
Information sharing now is critical to Science diplomacy solves a laundry list of nuclear
impacts
Lowenthal, director of the Committee on International Security and Arms Control of
the National Academy of Sciences, 2011
(Micah D., “Science Diplomacy for Nuclear Security”,
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/SR_288.pdf, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
Some important lessons were learned from the practice of science diplomacy in difficult times between
the United States and the Soviet Union/Russia over the past twenty-five years. Although the issues faced
today are more complex, these lessons are still pertinent The Cold War may be over, but the variety of
threats has grown. Science diplomacy is needed now more than ever to address terrorism, the
proliferation of nuclear and other potentially dangerous technologies, regional rivalries and conflicts,
and a set of other critical matters. Some of these topics are quite sensitive and officials and scientists
today may wonder how the topics can be discussed in bilateral or multilateral settings, but they have to
remem- ber what has already been accomplished. Because of nuclear weapons' terrible destructive
power, nations consider information about them and their potential use to be highly sen- sitive. But it is
precisely this terrible destructive power that makes discussion including sharing of information and
analyses—and that makes science diplomacy—so important. Indeed, this destructive power is what
motivated those practitioners quoted in this report to succeed. This inspires practitioners of science
diplomacy to continue to work together on the critical issues for nuclear security today and to find ways
to reduce the threats that the world faces. AU parties owe that to future generations. Science diplomacy
played such a key role in helping to bridge important gaps to bring an end to the Cold War; it is time to
call upon this powerful tool to address the new and vexing security challenges the world faces in the
twenty-first century.
2AC AT: CPs
AT: China CP – Japan DA
Chinese exploration is perceived as competition with Japan – tanks solvency
CCTV News, Chinese news source, 13
[8/3/13, CCTV, “China opposes Japanese suggestions on ocean gas exploration,”
http://english.cntv.cn/program/china24/20130803/101942.shtml, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party on Thursday asked the Japanese government to counter China’s gas
exploration in the East China Sea. China has responded by saying it will not accept Japan’s unreasonable
request. China has also lodged solemn representations to the United States after the US Senate passed a
resolution expressing concern over Chinese actions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.
Recent frictions between China and its neighbors in east and south-east Asia mostly originate from
maritime disputes.
Of these countries, Japan has been the most active when it comes to voicing its opposition to China.
On Thursday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his country would adopt a firm stance on the
issue of China’s oil and gas exploration in the East China Sea. This was after his Liberal Democratic Party
submitted to the Japanese government some tough new proposals on the matter.
The LDP recommended that the Japanese Government ask the Chinese side to remove construction
materials for the new facility China is building in the area.
Tokyo had lodged a protest with Beijing early in July over the building of new oil and gas development
facilities at the Chunxiao gas field in the vicinity of the "medium line" between the two countries.
The protest was rejected by China, as it has never accepted the medium line unilaterally claimed by
Japan.
The LDP said in its proposals that China and Japan should start talks immediately to discuss how to
develop fields not covered by a 2008 bilateral agreement。
In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that since Japan caused the
current difficult situation in bilateral relations, it was incumbent upon it to correct its mistakes and make
substantial efforts to get rid of the obstacles in the way of the development of bilateral relationship.
It’s the perception that triggers escalation – Japan won’t give concessions to China
Harner, writer for Forbes, 13
[Stephen, 7/8/13, Forbes, “China's East China Sea Gas Exploration Latest Flare-Up In Japan-China
Senkaku/Diaoyu Island Dispute,” http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2013/07/08/chinas-eastchina-sea-gas-exploration-latest-flare-up-in-japan-china-senkakudiaoyu-island-dispute/, accessed
7/13/14, TYBG]
The serious and increasingly dangerous rupture with China gained a new dimension–and regained the
headlines–on July 5 when Abe, appearing on a Fuji Television program, expressed “deep regret” that
China was moving undersea gas field exploration equipment into an area of the East China Sea “in
violation of a bilateral agreement.” “I must ask China to honor our agreement,” said Abe.
Abe’s criticism produced a brief flutter of comment in the Japanese media, but was quickly passed over.
In Beijing, however, there was a multi-day thunderstorm.
In this instance, as in so many others affecting Japan’s foreign relations–including with the U.S.–we are
again witnessing from Abe a maladroitness bordering on incompetence. What is going on here?
The specific issue is Chinese exploration in a section of the East China Sea close to but not over a
notional mid-point line (illustrated in the graphic above) that can be drawn longitudinally (roughly north
to south) through a large area of ocean and seabed that both China and Japan claim as falling within
their respective 200 mile “exclusive economic zones” (EEZ). After Abe’s statement, Chinese official
media published maps and diagrams documenting that activity was taking place on the Chinese side of
the “mid-point line,” and that China was perfectly within its rights.
A July 4 Nihon Keizai Shimbun article reported that on June 27 the second raking official in Japan’s
foreign ministry delivered a formal diplomatic protest of China’s action to the Chinese ambassador to
Japan. On July 3, Japan’s cabinet secretary, Suga Yoshihide, stressed to the press that “we will not
recognize any unilateral development activities in sea areas where the two countries have overlapping
claims.”
Anyone with a knowledge of Chinese negotiating style could have guessed what was coming next.
In response to Suga, on the same day, July 3, China’s deputy foreign ministry spokesman, Ms. Hua
Chunying, announced to the press that “we are are conducting exploration activities in sea area under
our own administration.” Further, she continued, China has never agreed to and does not recognize any
so-called “mid-point line” (my italics). Therefore, “China rejects Japan’s protest.”
Ms. Hua was stating facts in denying that China had ever formally accepted the concept of a “mid-point
line.” Formal acceptance would mean recognizing Japan’s EEZ claims. This will never happen, just as
China will never formally recognize or accept Japan’s claims to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
Hence Abe was telling a highly provocative untruth when he mentioned an “agreement” with China over
exploration in the East China Sea.
But of course there is something more. In June 2008, Japanese and Chinese government negotiators
reach tentative agreement that a Chinese gas field development project in the East China Sea called
“Shirakaba” by Japan and “Chunxiao” by China should proceed based on Chinese law, but with capital
provided by Japanese corporations. Agreement in principle was also reached to establish a joint
development zone in a northern area that extended across the notional “mid-point line.” In these
discussions both sides set aside the issue of their respective “exclusive economic zones.”
As it happened, the above tentative agreements were scheduled to be formalized in signed agreements
in September 2010. However, when Japan-China political relations soured over the collision of a
Chinese fishing vessel with a Japanese Coast Guard vessel, China asked for an indefinite postponement
of the joint exploration agreement signing. Since then, and particularly as the Senkaku/Diaoyu island
dispute has escalated, China has reverted to strict interpretation of and insistence on its EEZ rights.
It is classic Chinese negotiating style to escalate rhetoric (sometimes combined with histrionic gestures)
and to elaborately link otherwise seemingly unrelated issues, to bring maximum pressure on the
counterparty to make concessions. Subtlety is practiced only in obfuscating sources, not in the message
or desired effect. A vivid example of the style was an article penned by “scholars” in the People’s Daily a
few weeks ago that called into question Japan’s sovereign claim over Okinawa.
What is going on in the East China Sea is really about the Senkaku/Diaoyu island dispute and China’s
determination not to de-escalate pressure for concessions from the Abe government. Abe is also under
pressure from the Obama administration to show initiative in trying to resolve the issue, so that the U.S.
can continue improving relations with China.
That causes miscalc, military escalation and US-draw-in – tensions distort decisionmaking
Smith, Senior Fellow for Japan Studies, 13
[Sheila A., April, Council on Foreign Relations, “A Sino-Japanese Clash in the East China Sea,”
http://www.cfr.org/japan/sino-japanese-clash-east-china-sea/p30504, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
Sino-Japanese tensions in the East China Sea have been building steadily since 2010, when a Chinese
fishing trawler rammed two Japan Coast Guard (JCG) vessels in waters near the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands
and Japan detained the captain. Although the crisis was eventually defused, the territorial dispute came
to a head again in September 2012, when Japanese prime minister Yoshihiko Noda announced his
government's decision to purchase three of the five islands. The islands were privately owned, but a
new wave of activism, including Chinese attempts to land on the islands and a public campaign by the
Tokyo governor to purchase them himself, prompted Noda to attempt to neutralize nationalist
pressures. The decision triggered widespread anti-Japanese demonstrations in China, resulting in
extensive damage to Japanese companies operating there. Eventually China dampened the popular
response, but it has since repeatedly stated its intent to assert its own administrative control over the
disputed islands. China's Marine Surveillance agency intensified its patrols of the waters in and around
the islands, and China's Bureau of Fisheries patrols followed suit. The JCG in turn increased its patrols
and put them on 24/7 alert.
The danger of escalation to armed conflict increased when the two militaries became directly involved.
On December 13, 2012, a small Chinese reconnaissance aircraft entered undetected into Japanese
airspace above the islands. The JCG alerted Japan's Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF), which scrambled
fighter jets based in Naha, Okinawa; however, they were too late to intercept. In January, China sent its
reconnaissance aircraft back toward the islands accompanied by fighter jets, but stopped short of
entering Japan's airspace, and no direct aerial confrontation occurred. Japan's Maritime Self-Defense
Force (MSDF) reported that a Chinese frigate locked its firing radar on the Japanese destroyer Yudachi
on January 30, 2013. Chinese authorities instigated an investigation into the incident in response to
Japan's protest, leading to speculation that Beijing was unaware of the ship captain's actions. Although
China's Ministry of Defense later denied that the incident took place, it did acknowledge the danger
such an act posed.
Given current circumstances in the East China Sea, three contingencies are conceivable: first, an
accidental or unintended incident in and around the disputed islands could trigger a military escalation
of the crisis; second, either country could make a serious political miscalculation in an effort to
demonstrate sovereign control; and third, either country could attempt to forcibly control the islands.
Accidental/Unintended Military Incident
Although recent incidents have sensitized China and Japan to the risk of accidental and unintended
military interactions, the danger will persist while emotions run high and their forces operate in close
proximity. In stressful and ambiguous times, when decision-making is compressed by the speed of
modern weapons systems, the risk of human error is higher. The 2001 collision between a U.S.
reconnaissance aircraft and a Chinese fighter jet near Hainan Island is a case in point, as was the
intrusion of a Chinese Han submarine in Japanese territorial waters in 2004. So-called rules of
engagement (ROEs), intended to guide and control the behavior of local actors, are typically general in
scope and leave room for personal interpretation that may lead to actions that escalate a crisis
situation. Compounding the risk of unintended escalation between Chinese and Japanese air and naval
units is the unpredictable involvement of third parties such as fishermen or civilian activists who may
attempt to land on the islands. Their actions could precipitate an armed response by either side.
Political Miscalculation in an Effort to Demonstrate Sovereign Control
Political miscalculation of either country's intent or resolve, as well as miscalculation of the U.S. position,
could lead to armed conflict. First, Japan and China are already finding it difficult to read each other's
actions. Past Japanese government leasing of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands effectively kept nationalist
activists—Japanese as well as Chinese and Taiwanese—at bay. In mid-2012, however, rising nationalist
sentiments during leadership transitions inflamed the dispute. This stimulated heated debate in Tokyo
over how to consolidate Japanese sovereignty and was a factor in the December 2012 election of
conservative prime minister Shinzo Abe, who advocated inhabiting the islands. This escalation in
asserting sovereignty claims through the use of patrols, populating the islands, and perhaps even
military defense of the territory could lead to heightened tensions between the two countries and whip
up nationalist sentiments, potentially limiting the capacity of leaders to peacefully manage the dispute.
Second, China could miscalculate U.S. interests and intentions. Since last year, U.S. policymakers have
sought to lessen tensions but have also taken steps to clarify the U.S. role in deterring any coercive
action by China. U.S. and Japanese forces have conducted regular exercises to strengthen defense of
Japan's southwestern islands and maritime surveillance capabilities. Both former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton and former secretary of defense Leon Panetta clearly stated that the United States will
defend Japan against any aggression, and on November 29, 2012, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution
accompanying the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act to demonstrate congressional support for
the Obama administration's commitment to Japan's defense. As tensions escalated late last year,
Washington increased its deployments in and around Japan. Early this year, as military interactions
raised the potential for conflict, Clinton restated the U.S. position that it would not accept any unilateral
attempt to wrest control of the islands. Still, Beijing could miscalculate Washington's commitment to
defend Japan and/or seek to test that commitment. Finally, U.S. assurances could lead Tokyo to
overestimate Washington's response and to act in a manner that would increase the chance for
confrontation. To date, however, Tokyo has tended to err on the side of caution in planning and
exercises with U.S. forces, and it is unlikely Japan would act without evidence of U.S. assistance.
Deliberate Action to Forcibly Establish Control Over Islands
Although this seems highly unlikely today, either party could take military action to assert sovereignty
over the disputed islands. Rising domestic pressures or an unexpected opportunity for a fait accompli
could lead to a decision by either government to establish military control over the territory.
AT: China CP – NB Link
China relies on the NSF for ocean funding – still links to the net benefit
Kashyap, Senior Editor at the International Business Times, 14
[Arjun, 1-27-14, “China-Led International Ocean Exploration Mission To Look For Oil In South China Sea,
Including In Disputed Regions”, http://www.ibtimes.com/china-led-international-ocean-explorationmission-look-oil-south-china-sea-including-disputed, 7-13-14, FCB]
In a first-of-its-kind exercise for the world’s second-largest economy, an international scientific
expedition to look for oil in the South China Sea will set sail from Hong Kong on Tuesday, according to
the South China Morning Post.
The trip is part of the latest edition of the decade-long International Ocean Discovery Program that
will run from 2013 to 2023. The IODP was launched by the U.S. in the 1960s, and its latest effort will
include 31 scientists from 10 countries drilling at three different sites for two months.
"Oil and gas fields lie close to the coast, but the key is to open the treasure box buried beneath the
basin," Wang Pinxian, a marine geologist and member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told the Post
Monday.
The IODP invited proposals from 26 member nations and, while a proposal to drill in the controversial
South China Sea -- first proposed by China in 2008 -- was not the most popular one, it was reportedly
mainly chosen because the Chinese government agreed to pick up 70 percent, or $6 million, of the
mission’s tab. The NSF, which used to contribute 70 per cent of the Joides Resolution's expenses, cut its
annual ocean drilling budget to $50 million last year, David Divins, director of the IODP’s ocean drilling
program.
The expedition will sail aboard the American scientific drill ship, Joides Resolution, operated by the
National Science Foundation, or NSF, the Post reported, adding that the voyage will take the team to
waters claimed variously by China, the Philippines and Vietnam.
So far, the ship has received permission from the Philippines and Beijing but is waiting for a response
from the Vietnamese government to drill at a site in the southwest part of the South China Sea, the
Post reported, citing Divins, adding that the expedition may have to opt for an alternative site.
Tensions stemming from China's energy interests are a constant undercurrent to the region's
geopolitics. For instance, in May 2012, China began drilling to new depths in the South China Sea, 200
miles southeast of Hong Kong, with the launch of its first deep-water oil drilling rig, triggering tensions
between Manila and Beijing. In December 2012, China had asked Vietnam to stop exploring for oil in
disputed areas of the South China Sea and demanded that the latter not harass Chinese fishing boats.
However, findings of the IODP expedition, which includes 13 scientists from mainland China, nine from
the U.S. and one from Taiwan, will reportedly be shared around the world, including with countries that
are not part of the program.
AT: China CP - Perm
The permutation solves – US-China scientific cooperation is mutually beneficial
Chu, Seceretary for the DoE, 11
(Steven, January, “U.S.-China Clean Energy Cooperation”, http://www.us-chinacerc.org/pdfs/US_China_Clean_Energy_Progress_Report.pdf, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
Science is not a zero-sum game. In my experience as a scientist, collaborations with other research
groups greatly accelerated our progress. Similarly, cooperation between the United States and China can
greatly accelerate progress on clean energy technologies, benefiting both countries. As the world’s
largest producers and consumers of energy, the United States and China share many common
challenges and common interests. Our clean energy partnership with China can help boost America’s
exports, creating jobs here at home, and ensure that our country remains at the forefront of technology
innovation. At the U.S. Department of Energy, we are committed to working with Chinese partners to
promote a sustainable energy future. Working together, we can accomplish more than acting alone.
The United States and the People’s Republic of China have worked together on science and technology
for more than 30 years. Under the Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement of 1979, signed soon
after normalization of diplomatic relations, our two countries have cooperated in a diverse range of
fields, including basic research in physics and chemistry, earth and atmospheric sciences, a variety of
energy-related areas, environmental management, agriculture, fisheries, civil industrial technology,
geology, health, and natural disaster planning. More recently, in the face of emerging global challenges
such as energy security and climate change, the United States and China entered into a new phase of
mutually beneficial cooperation. In June 2008, the U.S.-China Ten Year Framework for Cooperation on
Energy and the Environment was created and today it includes action plans for cooperation on energy
efficiency, electricity, transportation, air, water, wetlands, nature reserves and protected areas. In
November 2009, President Barack Obama and President Hu Jintao announced seven new U.S.- China
clean energy initiatives during their Beijing summit. In doing so, the leaders of the world’s two largest
energy producers and consumers affirmed the importance of the transition to a clean and low-carbon
economy—and the vast opportunities for citizens of both countries in that transition.
AT: Japan CP – China DA
Japanese exploration is perceived as competition with China – tanks solvency
CCTV News, Chinese news source, 13
[8/3/13, CCTV, “China opposes Japanese suggestions on ocean gas exploration,”
http://english.cntv.cn/program/china24/20130803/101942.shtml, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
Japan’s Liberal Democratic Party on Thursday asked the Japanese government to counter China’s gas
exploration in the East China Sea. China has responded by saying it will not accept Japan’s unreasonable
request. China has also lodged solemn representations to the United States after the US Senate passed a
resolution expressing concern over Chinese actions in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.
Recent frictions between China and its neighbors in east and south-east Asia mostly originate from
maritime disputes.
Of these countries, Japan has been the most active when it comes to voicing its opposition to China.
On Thursday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe said his country would adopt a firm stance on the
issue of China’s oil and gas exploration in the East China Sea. This was after his Liberal Democratic Party
submitted to the Japanese government some tough new proposals on the matter.
The LDP recommended that the Japanese Government ask the Chinese side to remove construction
materials for the new facility China is building in the area.
Tokyo had lodged a protest with Beijing early in July over the building of new oil and gas development
facilities at the Chunxiao gas field in the vicinity of the "medium line" between the two countries.
The protest was rejected by China, as it has never accepted the medium line unilaterally claimed by
Japan.
The LDP said in its proposals that China and Japan should start talks immediately to discuss how to
develop fields not covered by a 2008 bilateral agreement。
In response, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said that since Japan caused the
current difficult situation in bilateral relations, it was incumbent upon it to correct its mistakes and make
substantial efforts to get rid of the obstacles in the way of the development of bilateral relationship.
It’s the perception that triggers escalation – China won’t give concessions to Japan
Harner, writer for Forbes, 13
[Stephen, 7/8/13, Forbes, “China's East China Sea Gas Exploration Latest Flare-Up In Japan-China
Senkaku/Diaoyu Island Dispute,” http://www.forbes.com/sites/stephenharner/2013/07/08/chinas-eastchina-sea-gas-exploration-latest-flare-up-in-japan-china-senkakudiaoyu-island-dispute/, accessed
7/13/14, TYBG]
The serious and increasingly dangerous rupture with China gained a new dimension–and regained the
headlines–on July 5 when Abe, appearing on a Fuji Television program, expressed “deep regret” that
China was moving undersea gas field exploration equipment into an area of the East China Sea “in
violation of a bilateral agreement.” “I must ask China to honor our agreement,” said Abe.
Abe’s criticism produced a brief flutter of comment in the Japanese media, but was quickly passed over.
In Beijing, however, there was a multi-day thunderstorm.
In this instance, as in so many others affecting Japan’s foreign relations–including with the U.S.–we are
again witnessing from Abe a maladroitness bordering on incompetence. What is going on here?
The specific issue is Chinese exploration in a section of the East China Sea close to but not over a
notional mid-point line (illustrated in the graphic above) that can be drawn longitudinally (roughly north
to south) through a large area of ocean and seabed that both China and Japan claim as falling within
their respective 200 mile “exclusive economic zones” (EEZ). After Abe’s statement, Chinese official
media published maps and diagrams documenting that activity was taking place on the Chinese side of
the “mid-point line,” and that China was perfectly within its rights.
A July 4 Nihon Keizai Shimbun article reported that on June 27 the second raking official in Japan’s
foreign ministry delivered a formal diplomatic protest of China’s action to the Chinese ambassador to
Japan. On July 3, Japan’s cabinet secretary, Suga Yoshihide, stressed to the press that “we will not
recognize any unilateral development activities in sea areas where the two countries have overlapping
claims.”
Anyone with a knowledge of Chinese negotiating style could have guessed what was coming next.
In response to Suga, on the same day, July 3, China’s deputy foreign ministry spokesman, Ms. Hua
Chunying, announced to the press that “we are are conducting exploration activities in sea area under
our own administration.” Further, she continued, China has never agreed to and does not recognize any
so-called “mid-point line” (my italics). Therefore, “China rejects Japan’s protest.”
Ms. Hua was stating facts in denying that China had ever formally accepted the concept of a “mid-point
line.” Formal acceptance would mean recognizing Japan’s EEZ claims. This will never happen, just as
China will never formally recognize or accept Japan’s claims to the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands.
Hence Abe was telling a highly provocative untruth when he mentioned an “agreement” with China over
exploration in the East China Sea.
But of course there is something more. In June 2008, Japanese and Chinese government negotiators
reach tentative agreement that a Chinese gas field development project in the East China Sea called
“Shirakaba” by Japan and “Chunxiao” by China should proceed based on Chinese law, but with capital
provided by Japanese corporations. Agreement in principle was also reached to establish a joint
development zone in a northern area that extended across the notional “mid-point line.” In these
discussions both sides set aside the issue of their respective “exclusive economic zones.”
As it happened, the above tentative agreements were scheduled to be formalized in signed agreements
in September 2010. However, when Japan-China political relations soured over the collision of a
Chinese fishing vessel with a Japanese Coast Guard vessel, China asked for an indefinite postponement
of the joint exploration agreement signing. Since then, and particularly as the Senkaku/Diaoyu island
dispute has escalated, China has reverted to strict interpretation of and insistence on its EEZ rights.
It is classic Chinese negotiating style to escalate rhetoric (sometimes combined with histrionic gestures)
and to elaborately link otherwise seemingly unrelated issues, to bring maximum pressure on the
counterparty to make concessions. Subtlety is practiced only in obfuscating sources, not in the message
or desired effect. A vivid example of the style was an article penned by “scholars” in the People’s Daily a
few weeks ago that called into question Japan’s sovereign claim over Okinawa.
What is going on in the East China Sea is really about the Senkaku/Diaoyu island dispute and China’s
determination not to de-escalate pressure for concessions from the Abe government. Abe is also under
pressure from the Obama administration to show initiative in trying to resolve the issue, so that the U.S.
can continue improving relations with China.
That causes miscalc, military escalation and US-draw-in – tensions distort decisionmaking
Smith, Senior Fellow for Japan Studies, 13
[Sheila A., April, Council on Foreign Relations, “A Sino-Japanese Clash in the East China Sea,”
http://www.cfr.org/japan/sino-japanese-clash-east-china-sea/p30504, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
Sino-Japanese tensions in the East China Sea have been building steadily since 2010, when a Chinese
fishing trawler rammed two Japan Coast Guard (JCG) vessels in waters near the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands
and Japan detained the captain. Although the crisis was eventually defused, the territorial dispute came
to a head again in September 2012, when Japanese prime minister Yoshihiko Noda announced his
government's decision to purchase three of the five islands. The islands were privately owned, but a
new wave of activism, including Chinese attempts to land on the islands and a public campaign by the
Tokyo governor to purchase them himself, prompted Noda to attempt to neutralize nationalist
pressures. The decision triggered widespread anti-Japanese demonstrations in China, resulting in
extensive damage to Japanese companies operating there. Eventually China dampened the popular
response, but it has since repeatedly stated its intent to assert its own administrative control over the
disputed islands. China's Marine Surveillance agency intensified its patrols of the waters in and around
the islands, and China's Bureau of Fisheries patrols followed suit. The JCG in turn increased its patrols
and put them on 24/7 alert.
The danger of escalation to armed conflict increased when the two militaries became directly involved.
On December 13, 2012, a small Chinese reconnaissance aircraft entered undetected into Japanese
airspace above the islands. The JCG alerted Japan's Air Self-Defense Force (ASDF), which scrambled
fighter jets based in Naha, Okinawa; however, they were too late to intercept. In January, China sent its
reconnaissance aircraft back toward the islands accompanied by fighter jets, but stopped short of
entering Japan's airspace, and no direct aerial confrontation occurred. Japan's Maritime Self-Defense
Force (MSDF) reported that a Chinese frigate locked its firing radar on the Japanese destroyer Yudachi
on January 30, 2013. Chinese authorities instigated an investigation into the incident in response to
Japan's protest, leading to speculation that Beijing was unaware of the ship captain's actions. Although
China's Ministry of Defense later denied that the incident took place, it did acknowledge the danger
such an act posed.
Given current circumstances in the East China Sea, three contingencies are conceivable: first, an
accidental or unintended incident in and around the disputed islands could trigger a military escalation
of the crisis; second, either country could make a serious political miscalculation in an effort to
demonstrate sovereign control; and third, either country could attempt to forcibly control the islands.
Accidental/Unintended Military Incident
Although recent incidents have sensitized China and Japan to the risk of accidental and unintended
military interactions, the danger will persist while emotions run high and their forces operate in close
proximity. In stressful and ambiguous times, when decision-making is compressed by the speed of
modern weapons systems, the risk of human error is higher. The 2001 collision between a U.S.
reconnaissance aircraft and a Chinese fighter jet near Hainan Island is a case in point, as was the
intrusion of a Chinese Han submarine in Japanese territorial waters in 2004. So-called rules of
engagement (ROEs), intended to guide and control the behavior of local actors, are typically general in
scope and leave room for personal interpretation that may lead to actions that escalate a crisis
situation. Compounding the risk of unintended escalation between Chinese and Japanese air and naval
units is the unpredictable involvement of third parties such as fishermen or civilian activists who may
attempt to land on the islands. Their actions could precipitate an armed response by either side.
Political Miscalculation in an Effort to Demonstrate Sovereign Control
Political miscalculation of either country's intent or resolve, as well as miscalculation of the U.S. position,
could lead to armed conflict. First, Japan and China are already finding it difficult to read each other's
actions. Past Japanese government leasing of the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands effectively kept nationalist
activists—Japanese as well as Chinese and Taiwanese—at bay. In mid-2012, however, rising nationalist
sentiments during leadership transitions inflamed the dispute. This stimulated heated debate in Tokyo
over how to consolidate Japanese sovereignty and was a factor in the December 2012 election of
conservative prime minister Shinzo Abe, who advocated inhabiting the islands. This escalation in
asserting sovereignty claims through the use of patrols, populating the islands, and perhaps even
military defense of the territory could lead to heightened tensions between the two countries and whip
up nationalist sentiments, potentially limiting the capacity of leaders to peacefully manage the dispute.
Second, China could miscalculate U.S. interests and intentions. Since last year, U.S. policymakers have
sought to lessen tensions but have also taken steps to clarify the U.S. role in deterring any coercive
action by China. U.S. and Japanese forces have conducted regular exercises to strengthen defense of
Japan's southwestern islands and maritime surveillance capabilities. Both former secretary of state
Hillary Clinton and former secretary of defense Leon Panetta clearly stated that the United States will
defend Japan against any aggression, and on November 29, 2012, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution
accompanying the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act to demonstrate congressional support for
the Obama administration's commitment to Japan's defense. As tensions escalated late last year,
Washington increased its deployments in and around Japan. Early this year, as military interactions
raised the potential for conflict, Clinton restated the U.S. position that it would not accept any unilateral
attempt to wrest control of the islands. Still, Beijing could miscalculate Washington's commitment to
defend Japan and/or seek to test that commitment. Finally, U.S. assurances could lead Tokyo to
overestimate Washington's response and to act in a manner that would increase the chance for
confrontation. To date, however, Tokyo has tended to err on the side of caution in planning and
exercises with U.S. forces, and it is unlikely Japan would act without evidence of U.S. assistance.
Deliberate Action to Forcibly Establish Control Over Islands
Although this seems highly unlikely today, either party could take military action to assert sovereignty
over the disputed islands. Rising domestic pressures or an unexpected opportunity for a fait accompli
could lead to a decision by either government to establish military control over the territory.
AT: Japan CP – Perm
The permutation solves – US-Japan cooperation is key to effective ocean research and
data-sharing
OPRF, Ocean Policy Research Foundation, 9
[4/17/9, OPRF, “United States-Japan Seapower Alliance for Stability and Prosperity on the Oceans,”
http://www.sof.or.jp/en/report/pdf/200906_seapower.pdf, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
To provide against shortages of resources, energy, and food supplies likely to occur on a global scale, the
major seafaring nations of the United States and Japan should play leading roles in the development of
living and non-living resources in the seabed and continental shelves, as well as in the development of
ocean energy resources and seawater potential. Both countries can and should help battle the global
economic crisis by demonstrating their commitment to a “Blue New Deal” policy based on these
precepts and by promoting development of the oceans on the condition of sound environmental
stewardship in the maritime domain as well as increasing job creation.
The United States and Japan need to cooperate with each other where possible in the development of
technologies and funding for the exploration and exploitation of seabed resources and marine energy
development in order to bring these industries into active production.
Research on the oceans, the accumulation of data, its use and sharing, and human resource exchanges
are important for the effective promotion and development of technology. To facilitate this, the
establishment of a joint data center and R&D center for research and development of marine resources,
as well as joint construction and use of a marine scientific survey ship and platform for exploration and
exploitation, are desirable. Furthermore, opportunities for the exchange and publicizing of technologies
between the two countries should be created in maritime industries, which support such research and
development.
The perm solves – US-Japan scientific cooperation is effective and solves
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 14
[4/23/14, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, “Extention of the Agreement between Japan and the US
on Cooperation in Research and Development in Science and Technology,”
http://www.mofa.go.jp/press/release/press22e_000015.html, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
On April 23, in Tokyo, “Protocol extending the Agreement between the Government of Japan and the
Government of the United States of America on Cooperation in Research and Development in Science
and Technology” was signed between Mr. Fumio Kishida, Minister for Foreign Affairs, on the Japanese
side and Her Excellency Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to
Japan, on the U.S. side.
Since this Agreement was concluded on June 20, 1988 and successively extended, the cooperation in
science and technology between both sides has been progressing smoothly. The effective period of this
Agreement, which was extended in 2004 and expires this July 19, is to be extended for ten years from
this July 20 by the signing of the Protocol.
At the signing ceremony, Minister Kishida stated that cooperation between Japan and the U.S., both of
which being leading countries in the field of science and technology, has a significant value because it
had contributed to strengthen the Japan-U.S. Alliance and further development of society, economy,
and humankind in the whole world. Ambassador Kennedy stated that the both countries’ world class
cooperation in the field of science and technology has the broadest scope on complicated issues, and
many innovated technologies today which used to be mere sketches in labs 25 years ago when the U.S.
and Japan first signed the Agreement have been developed in various fields ranging from deep ocean to
space. Through these statements, they both expressed their hope for further development of science
and technology cooperation between Japan and the U.S. in the future.
2AC AT: Ks
2AC – FW – Science Good
Science is beneficial for everyone, and student participation is key to personal skills
and real world applications - it allows us to keep existential powers in check and puts
individual agency as a priority - engaging these questions is important for everyday life
Colarusso, High school physics teacher and public defender in Massachusetts, 8
(David, “The Birthright of Science”, http://www.davidcolarusso.com/educator/, accessed 7/12/14, LLM)
When I took a Fulbright teacher exchange to Edinburgh, Scotland, I left behind an astronomy course I
had created. At the request of my replacement, I wrote an open letter to the class answering the
question "Why Astronomy?" It was intended as an introduction to the course. In reality, however, it was
my answer to the general question, "why should everyone study science?" The highlights, however,
come down to this: (1) it can save the world; (2) it keeps us honest; and (3) it is among the most human
of activities--it is our birthright.
The letter started by recounting a conversation I had in college while manning an open house at the
observatory. A visitor expressed her belief that investments in astronomy amounted to a waste.
"Wouldn't we be better off taking care of problems here on earth before worrying about all this space
stuff?" It was a fair question considering the expense of modern astronomy, and it is a question often
asked of pure research in general. We no longer use the sun to tell time. The stars no longer signal the
harvest, nor do we use them to navigate... I was tempted to talk about "spin-offs," perhaps mentioning
the role of artificial satellites in everything from GPS to TV. However, a poster of the planets caught my
eye, and there we sat between Venus and Mars--two cautionary tales that may yet save humanity.
I explained how studying the atmosphere of Mars helped alert us to the danger of nuclear winter. Since
the inception of nuclear weapons, a protracted nuclear war had always threatened immense horrors,
but before the discovery of nuclear winter, it wasn't clear that it could mean the end of the world. This
realization helped drive much of the work done towards arms control in the latter half of the twentieth
century. Likewise, the Venuasian atmosphere helped underline the danger of global climate change,
offering an example of a runaway greenhouse effect. In this way, astronomy and pure research helped
alert us to two of humanity's most pressing threats. It is not yet clear if these warnings will be enough
to save humanity, but at least, we now know of the dangers that come with certain choices. In short,
science can save the world.
This is a fine argument for why someone should study science, but it falls short of why everyone
should. For that we have to dig deeper, and for my students in a public high school, it had to do with
their preparation for entering the electorate. Shortly after 9/11, I noted anthrax improperly cited as a
virus in two national news outlets. In the same reports the use of antibiotics was mentioned as a
treatment, which is odd considering antibiotics don't kill viruses. When a panicked public is actually
threatened by a viral pathogen, who wants to bet they demand antibiotics? It happens all the time with
the flu--a viral infection. Yet patients still demand antibiotics. Such improper use can spur the
development of drug resistant bacteria, a big problem for modern medicine. However, doctors have
been known to prescribe unnecessary antibiotics. What if their patients went to someone else?
Maybe this doesn't seem like a big deal, but at the time of my letter, the US was funding the
development of a missile defense "shield" for shooting down ballistic missiles from rogue states, despite
the fact that the technology had never been proven and the obvious loophole that bombs don't have to
be delivered via missile. Is this a question of antibiotics working on viruses, of politicians worried their
constituents might vote for someone else? How can we tell? Who am I to say that they can't shoot down
those missiles? It doesn't seem too hard. Heck we can land a man on the moon...
We live in a world deeply dependent on science and technology. As members of a deliberative
democracy, we have a duty to help answer the questions that such a world presents. Science is not so
much a collection of knowledge as a method for gaining it. The study of any science teaches you how to
think. It hones your mental tool kit, strengthening a set of skills necessary not only for the continuance
of the republic but for the betterment of your self-interest. It's good to put things to the test, and the
same skills you use to question nature can be put to use buying a used car or picking a president.
Admittedly, the misuse of science and technology are responsible for many of the problems of the
modern world, but it is because of this that science is needed to help address them, and historically it
has been the scientists themselves who have alerted us to the potential problems. The methods of
science work to keep us honest. They're not perfect, but then again, we're only human.
So maybe you're willing to accept that on some practical level everyone should care about science. Sure,
it's saved the world several times over, its methods can help us make decisions, and its tools can be
used to hold those in power accountable, but it seems like going to the dentist or the gym--something
that's "good for you" but not your first choice for fun. Some people even look upon science as
dehumanizing. It places limits on what is and isn't possible; it reminds us that we can't always trust
ourselves and that all the wishing in the world doesn't make something so.
This may seem at first an odd tangent, but consider for a moment what it is to be human. We could
muse over this for ages, but I'm brought back to the work of Douglas Hofstadter, who sees the existence
of self-reference and model making as key. The great discovery of astronomy is that the heavens and
earth are made out of the same stuff. The only difference between a pile of simple elements and a
person is the pattern. So how do we explain what makes us alive, what makes us human? One extreme
suggests that we cannot, that life is the realm of the divine and that we are ensouled with something we
can never hope to understand, something different in kind from normal matter. The other extreme
posits that we are nothing more than the collective interactions of innumerable atoms. Both fall short of
experience, either ignoring the input of experimental evidence or the verisimilitude of the human
condition. Hofstadter's concern is consciousness, and his answer is deceptively simple and a tad
reminiscent of Descartes. To over simplify, a conscious entity is one who models the world in which it
lives and who finds it necessary in constructing these models to postulate the existence of self. If you're
really interested, you should check out his Pulitzer winning work Godel, Escher, Bach. However, what's
important for us is that such a definition puts model making at the center of consciousness, and it is
consciousness which separates us for other collections of atoms.
What is science if not the explicit construction, evaluation, and application of descriptive and predictive
models of our world? The undertaking of science is inescapably human. Along with the production of
emotive models of the world (art), science is humanity made tangible. Scientific thinking may save the
world, it may make modern technology and societies possible, it may provide an essential component
for democratic governance, but more than anything, it is your birthright.
2AC – AT: Cap
The aff resolves the underlying root causes of capitalism – endorsing a shift away from
profit-driven applied science towards pure research is key
Langley, PhD in Neurobiology, and Parkinson, bachelor’s degree in physics and
electronic engineering, and a doctorate in climate science, 9
(Chris and Stuart, October “Science and the corporate agenda SGR Promoting ethical science, design and
technology The detrimental effects of commercial influence on science and technology”
http://www.statewatch.org/news/2009/oct/scientists-for-global-responsibillty-report.pdf, accessed
7/3/14, LLM)
‘Pure’ science (there is not strictly speaking ‘pure’ technology or engineering) usually appears in the R&D
statistics of government (or other funders of research) as a category which reflects the open-ended
pursuit of knowledge. Pure research tends to be considered as part of curiosity-driven work which is
undertaken by scientists in both public and private laboratories – its aim being to provide an
‘understanding’ of a phenomenon. In contrast, ‘applied’ research aims at producing an intervention –
such as a drug or new material – to address problems or develop a new approach. ‘Pure’, ‘fundamental’
or ‘basic’ research is defined officially as: “….experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to
acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundation of phenomena and observable facts, without any
particular application or use in view” (OECD 2002).
Universities have been seen historically as institutions in which such predominantly ‘pure’ research was
undertaken to discover knowledge for a broadly defined ‘public good’. Such knowledge would be a
source of objective information for the public, and could inform policy-makers in areas such as public
health or environmental protection.
However these goals can be marginalised by the involvement of commercial interests wedded to shortterm economic return (Ravetz 1996; Washburn 2005). A series of profound changes in the UK have
altered how people perceive the role and activities of universities in society. These changes have
affected what research is undertaken; for whom and why; and the proportion of research that can be
described as ‘pure’. In this climate many, especially in government, have begun to regard ‘pure’ research
as a luxury.
‘Applied’ research is usually defined as research that has a clear set of narrowly-defined objectives,
which guide its programme of activities. There is generally little opportunity to seek data outside this
defined set of end-points. ‘Applied’ research frequently has economic gain and profit as its
predominant focus – but can also be related to a specific social or environmental goal such as curing a
disease, reducing greenhouse gas emissions or increasing crop yields. Superficially then one of the key
differences between ‘pure’ and ‘applied’ research is how the goals of the research are defined and who
is likely to benefit from the products of that research. The methods and scientific activities in ‘pure’ and
‘applied’ research are essentially the same. The research activity tabled below comprises both ‘applied’
and ‘basic’ SET activities undertaken by the main sectors in the UK.
Traditionally the Research Councils predominantly supported the more ‘pure’ form of research – much
of which had a broadly defined set of end-points. In addition the Research Councils were expected to
provide funding not coloured by the political perspectives of the government of the day – the Haldane
principle1. While in the early days of the Research Councils some of the funding they distributed was for
technological innovation and hence definable as ‘applied’, the proportion of their funding activities that
is directed at economically defined objectives has increased in the last 20 years (see Moriarty 2008).
SET has significant potential to provide tools that can be used, through technological development for
instance, to contribute to social justice or to help to address issues such as resource depletion, cleaner
energy, pollution and environmental degradation (Ravetz 1996). However, there is a large body of
research literature which shows that the ability of SET to fulfil that potential – its ultimate role in society
– depends upon the social structure and power relationships existing within that society. Profit-driven
activities and mechanisms such as intellectual property rights2, patents and funding can often act
against the public interest and bring benefit to a very few without increasing the public benefit.
SET has a number of mechanisms in place – with associated reliable methods and data – designed to
help reduce the influence of special interests with the potential to introduce bias, for example those of
the funder. Strict adherence to these mechanisms – which include peer review, free exchange of data
and transparency – has traditionally been a prerequisite for practising SET. However, such processes
must be observed by all involved in publishing and experimental protocols, for example, so as to permit
data to be assessed for its reliability.
Pure science comes first, especially in the context of profit-driven research
Oates, PhD in biology and biotechnology; currently deputy director of undergraduate
education at the National Science, 13
[Karen, 3-7-14, Huffington Post, “The Importance of Basic Research”,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/karen-kashmanian-oates-phd/science-role-models_b_2821942.html,
accessed 7-5-14, TYBG]
This is science's newest Golden Age. Young people today are inspired by generational heroes like Steve
Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg that were filled in the relative recent past by the likes of Michael Jordan and
Mick Jagger. The fact that today's students can dream of emulating role models who achieved their
status using their minds and curiosity is a good thing.
However, there is one significant drawback. The rock star status of today's scientific celebrities
encourages aspiring scientists to focus on the retail possibilities that can result in fast fame and wealth.
While understandable, this unwittingly neglects a crucial part of the scientific equation -- basic research.
For example, let's look at the way the music industry has changed over the last decade or so. Instead of
going to a record story, most people now get their music electronically via MP3 files through an online
store like iTunes, and download it to portable MP3 players like iPods. Each of these products -- MP3s,
iTunes and iPods -- was created to fill a specific commercial void. Scientists identified a need and
developed a product. That is applied research.
But these would not exist if not for the anonymous scientists at the Swiss laboratory CERN whose
research led to the development of the internet, or the no-name physicists in the 1920s whose abstract
discoveries in electronics and sub-particles paved the way for today's computers. These unheralded
breakthroughs are products of basic research.
Basic research is the foundation on which applied research is built, and feeds the pipeline for the
products and services we consume. But too few of today's and tomorrow's scientists are showing
interest in laboring unknown in the back labs of basic research. The money and the notoriety, it seems,
comes from advancements championed through applied research.
Compounding the problem are the funders. America's top companies used to provide significant dollars
to basic research, recognizing it is a perquisite for innovation that led to viable commercial products,
among them the transistor, nylon and Teflon. But basic research is expensive, time consuming and there
are no guarantees of a billion-dollar breakthrough. Without the robust support of private companies like
The Bell Labs and Dupont, the home grown pipeline begins to run dry. The financial pressure then falls
squarely on government funding and university research.
When public dollars are being used, there is frequent pressure to focus on applied research, rather than
appropriate revenues for experimentation with no known conclusion. Earlier this week, an advisory
panel recommended to federal agencies shutting down the Brookhaven National Laboratory in New
York, home of last remaining particle collider in the U.S, because of tight budgets. The collider smashes
gold ions and protons together, which enables scientists to study the formation of the universe.
Research like this is too important to be penny foolish.
On a recent trip to Israel, I met with the head of the Weizmann Institute of Science, the country's
leading research institution. Their students and fellows focus almost exclusively on basic research.
Weizmann is Israel's smallest university, yet it is one of the top five highest earning institutions in the
world because of its patents and their subsequent commercialization.
The United States, and its stable of excellent colleges and universities, needs to learn from the
Weizmann model. We know basic research is valuable. Weizmann shows us it can be profitable, too.
One of my role models is Mary-Claire King. A researcher who spent nearly 20 years studying breast
cancer, she faced a barrage of criticism for wasting time and money. Eventually she discovered the
breast cancer gene, which has helped tens of millions of people survive breast cancer. Her stubbornness
and perseverance in basic research saved lives and resulted in billions of dollars in direct and indirect
economic impact.
We need more scientists like Mary-Claire King. Yet it is doubtful many students who are planning on
careers in science have heard of her or are planning to emulate her. But she, and countless anonymous
basic researchers, unquestionably had as great an impact on their future careers as Jobs and Zuckerberg
and the other rock stars they one day hope to follow.
No link - pure science endorses a separation of knowledge and capital – only applied
science operates within the sphere of capitalism
Lucier, Department of History, Brown University, 12
[Paul, September, 2012, “The Origins of Pure and Applied Science in Gilded Age America,” Isis, Vol. 103,
No. 3, pg. 527-536, TYBG]
"Pure science" and "applied science" were both products of Gilded Age America and thus they were
often conjoined—"pure" and "applied." But they were also distinct concepts whose respective
proponents held very different visions for the future. An appeal to "pure science" bespoke a pessimism
about the corrupting influence of money and materialism. Rowland and his ilk feared for American
science, and his "Plea" was a passionate proposal for reform. To create a science of physics—or, more
generally, to create any science—Americans had first to fund and equip "first class" universities, with
well-paid and light-teaching-load professorships for the very best researchers. Such scientists would be
judged (and, ideally, admired) for the quality of their research as much as for the content of their
character. The public would benefit by the advancement of knowledge and, in time, by the "applications
of science." Nonetheless, "pure science" envisioned an opposition of interests, a moral economy in
which knowledge and com-merce should not mix. "Applied science" bespoke an optimism about the
ability of individuals to manage money and its allure. Bell and his cohort believed that research could be
genuine and useful; patents were emblems of good science and material goods. A combination of
interests was possible and even encouraged. This kind of moral economy was also evident in
government agencies, where "applied science" meant a selflessness or duty to others, before a singular
and selfish pursuit of one's own interests. "Pure" and "applied" thus represented an essential tension in
the relations between the search for knowledge and the pursuit of profit in a capitalist society.
Applied science is heavily dominated by capitalism in academia – the aff endorses
pure science as an alternative
Mazzolini, Assistant Professor, Department of English at Virginia Tech, 3
[Elizabeth, “REVIEW OF ACADEMIC CAPITALISM: POLITICS, POLICIES AND THE ENTREPRENEURIAL
UNIVERSITY,” Workplace, No. 10, pg. 196-198, TYBG]
2. Academic capitalism is as sweeping as the globalization to which it has been a compulsory response.
The term describes the phenomenon of universities' and faculty's increasing attention to market
potential as research impetus. According to Slaughter and Leslie, globalization has efficiently linked
prestige to research funding to marketability. Slaughter and Leslie point out that federal research and
development policies have, especially since World War II, emphasized the technological as being key for
global competitiveness, so that academic capitalism is most visible in applied science and technology
departments. There is a trickle-down effect for the humanities, in an increasing reliance on
communication training, valuable in corporate settings. In other words, the humanities are useful only
insofar as they support the most marketable research coming out of the university.
3. Academic Capitalism's geographic scope, encompassing four English-speaking countries (the United
States, the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia), supports its global-scale argument, and moreover
reinforces arguments about governmental policies from a non-Americo-centric point of view. This
combined with its broad temporal scope makes the book's argument about globalization dauntingly
convincing. Oddly, much of the support for its case comes in the extremely local form of faculty
interviews at Australian universities. Using these individual perceptions as evidence perhaps costs
Slaughter and Leslie something in terms of prescriptive foothold, and relegates them to a rage-orresignation logic that belies what they gain in documenting a policy trend.
4. The history of the present that Slaughter and Leslie illustrate in Academic Capitalism is a compelling
picture of a less-than-ideal form for higher education. Without detracting from the force of that
illustration, Slaughter and Leslie rely heavily on the idealistic model of research assumed by their study
before it even began. If the global economy brought a flood of new and more intense kinds of
investments in competition between nations, Slaughter and Leslie's antediluvian university was one
characterized by scholars whose work was animated by pure love for knowledge, unfettered by the
cynicizing bonds of market application. On this view, the university was a bastion of pure inquiry,
independent and protected from the nasty outside world where people do things in order to make
money. Certainly, the book seems to assume, there would be no such self-interest in an academy if left
to its own devices, supported by the plenitude of unconditional public support, without the dynamic
introduced by the encroaching global economy and its governmental responses. In order to compete in
the global marketplace, Academic Capitalism points out that governments must ensure that their
countries develop applicable and marketable goods. Universities have become the less expensive
surrogates of corporate R & D departments for those goods.
FW Cards
Ocean Exploration Good
The scientific epistemology of ocean exploration is essential to proper social
understandings of ocean phenomena. The sea is not a metaphor.
Steinberg, Professor of Geography at Florida State, 13
(Philip E. Steinberg is Professor of Geography at Florida State University and Marie Cure International
Incoming Fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London, “Of other seas: metaphors and materialities in
maritime regions”, Atlantic Studies, 2013, Vol. 10, No. 2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14788810.2013.785192)
The sea is not a metaphor. So asserts Hester Blum in the first sentence of her agenda-setting article, ‘‘The Prospect of Oceanic
Studies.’’1 Blum goes on to identify a fundamental flaw in the bulk of ocean-themed literature, maritime history,
analytical work on cultural attitudes toward the ocean, and a raft of scholarship in cultural studies in
which the fluvial nature of the ocean is used to signal a world of mobilities, betweeness, instabilities,
and becomings. While all of these perspectives on the sea serve a purpose in that they suggest ways for
theorizing an alternative ontology of connection, Blum cautions that they fail to incorporate the sea as a real,
experienced social arena. Instead, she argues for a perspective that ‘‘draws from the epistemological
structures provided by the lives and writings of those for whom the sea was simultaneously workplace, home, passage, penitentiary, and
promise’’ and that is thereby ‘‘attentive to the material conditions and praxis of the maritime world.’’2 I applaud
Blum’s aversion to those who would reduce the ocean to a metaphorical space of connection; indeed, in the
first part of this article I amplify her comments in this regard. At the same time, however, I find her alternative the study of works that emerge
from the actual, material encounters of humans with the sea somewhat wanting. While
the sea is a social (or human) space a ‘‘social
construction’’ it is not just a social construction.3 Indeed, human encounters with the sea are, of necessity,
distanced and partial. The encounter from the shore, from the ship, from the surface, or even from the
depths, while laden with affective feelings, captures only a fraction of the sea’s complex, fourdimensional materiality.4 To be certain, the combination of emotional intensity with material distance
that characterizes our understanding of the sea has made for some excellent literature.5 Art, after all,
thrives on the distance between affective and cognitive understandings. 6 This tension also happens to have led to
some relatively enlightened environmental management practices.7 But the partial nature of our encounter with the ocean
necessarily creates gaps, as the unrepresentable becomes the unacknowledged and the
unacknowledged becomes the unthinkable. To that end, following a discussion of some of the problems
with the way that the maritime is often considered in literary, historical, cultural, and geographical studies, I
suggest three, related alternative perspectives that directly engage the ocean’s fluid mobility and its
tactile materiality. To be clear, my aim is not to deny the importance of either the human history of the ocean or the suggestive power of
the maritime metaphor. Rather, I am asserting that in order to fully appreciate the ocean as a uniquely fluid and
dynamic space we need to develop an epistemology that views the ocean as continually being
reconstituted by a variety of elements: the non-human and the human, the biological and the
geophysical, the historic and the contemporary. Only then, can we think with the ocean in order to
enhance our understanding of and visions for the world at large.
The K overtheorizes the ocean, and leads to a misunderstanding of human interactions
with the ocean. The plan is necessary to balance social theory with oceanographic
practice to best understand the ocean as spatial phenomenon.
Steinberg, Professor of Geography at Florida State, 13
(Philip E. Steinberg is Professor of Geography at Florida State University and Marie Cure International
Incoming Fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London, “Of other seas: metaphors and materialities in
maritime regions”, Atlantic Studies, 2013, Vol. 10, No. 2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14788810.2013.785192)
The late twentieth century saw the ocean rise to the forefront of the humanities from two different
perspectives. Since Fernand Braudel’s classic work on the Mediterranean, scholars have sought to
replace the terrestrial bias in historical and literary studies with one that focuses on ocean regions.8
Land-based regionalizations, whether centered on the community, the nation-state, or the continent,
typically privilege settlements, place-based identities, and the development of stable social institutions,
most notably those associated with state power. By contrast, advocates of an ocean basin-based (or
maritime) regionalization contend that their alternate perspective gives greater prominence to the
cultural and economic interchange between societies that is the hallmark of historical and modern
political economy.9 The trend toward ocean basin-based regionalizations has accelerated in recent
decades, with numerous interdisciplinary conferences, working groups, books, and journals (including,
of course, Atlantic Studies) focusing on the study of one or another maritime region. Typically, the
geographic scope of each region is defined by a central sea and depending on the disciplinary focus of
the conference, working group, book, or journal its limits are those of that sea’s historical, cultural,
economic, or geopolitical watershed.10 While this is a welcome trend, it is also problematic. All too
often, the ocean that binds the societies of the ocean region is undertheorized: reduced in the scholarly
literature to a surface, a space of connection that merely unifies the societies on its borders. Thus, when
Arif Dirlik asks, ‘‘What is in a rim?’’ with reference to the Pacific basin, his response inadvertently
reinterprets the question as ‘‘What is on a rim?’’ or ‘‘What passes through the space in the middle of the
rim?’’ He states: ‘‘The material basis [of the Pacific rim] is defined best not by physical geography but by
relationships (economic, social, political, military, and cultural) that are concretely historical, . . . [by]
motions of people, commodities, and capital.’’11 The ocean region thus comes to be seen as a series of
(terrestrial) points linked by connections, not the actual (oceanic) space of connections. The material
space in the middle what is actually in the rim drops off the map. If this turn toward ocean region
studies which broadly can be associated with historically informed political economy undertheorizes the
ocean, the second foundation for the rise of ocean region studies which can be associated with
poststructuralist critical theory overtheorizes the ocean. For scholars in this second group, the ocean is
an ideal medium for rethinking modernist notions of identity and subjectivity and the ways in which
these are reproduced through land-centered divisions and representations of space. Thus, for Deleuze
and Guattari the ocean is the ‘‘smooth space par excellence,’’ a space that lies apparently, if
provisionally, apart from the striations that make difference calculable and amenable to hierarchy.12
Similarly, in his unpublished but oft-cited essay ‘‘Of Other Spaces,’’ Michel Foucault calls the ship at sea
the ‘‘heterotopia par excellence,’’ a space of alternate social ordering.13 These assertions, in turn, are
frequently reproduced by scholars who pay little attention to the actual lives of individuals who
experience and interact with the sea on a regular, or even occasional, basis. The disconnect between the
idealized sea of poststructuralist theorists and the actual sea encountered by those who engage it is
captured in David Harvey’s response to Foucault’s declaration that ‘‘in civilizations without boats,
dreams dry up, espionage takes the place of adventure and police take the place of pirates.’’ ‘‘I keep
expecting these words to appear on commercials for a Caribbean Cruise,’’ writes Harvey. ‘‘. . .And what
is the critical, liberatory and emancipatory point of that? . . . I am not surprised that [Foucault] left the
essay unpublished.’’14 For scholars in this second, poststructuralist, group, the ocean is not so much
ignored as it is reduced to a metaphor: a spatial (and thereby seemingly tangible) signifier for a world of
shifting, fragmented identities, mobilities, and connections. While metaphors provide powerful tools for
thought, spatial metaphors can be pernicious when they detract attention from the actual work of
construction (labor, exertions of social power, reproduction of institutions, etc.) that transpires to make
a space what it is.15 Thus, the overtheorization of ocean space by poststructuralist scholars of maritime
regions is as problematic as its undertheorization by political economy-inspired scholars. In this light, it
is interesting to compare Dirlik’s Pacific Rim with Paul Gilroy’s The Black Atlantic.16 At first glance, Gilroy
seems to cover the material (and the space) ignored by Dirlik. Whereas the distance and materiality of
the ocean inside Dirlik’s Pacific Rim are seamlessly transcended by the circuits of multinational capital,
the space in the middle (the Atlantic) and the frictions encountered in its crossing are central for Gilroy.
The Black Atlantic is primarily a book about the connections that persist among members of the African
diaspora and the ungrounded, unbounded, and multifaceted identities that result, and the trope of the
Middle Passage is deployed throughout the book to reference the travel of African-inspired ideas and
cultural products, as well as bodies, that continues to this day. Nonetheless, even as Gilroy appears to
reference the ocean, the ultimate target of these references is far removed from the liquid space across
which ships carrying Africans historically traveled. In fact, the geographic space of the ocean is twice
removed from the phenomenon that captures Gilroy’s attention: it is used to reference the Middle
Passage which in turn is used to reference contemporary flows, and by the time one connects this chain
of references the materiality of the Atlantic is long forgotten. Venturing into Gilroy’s Black Atlantic, one
never gets wet. 158 The problem, then, is not that studies that reference an oceanic center lack
empirical depth. Rather, the problem is that the experiences referenced through these studies typically
are partial, mediated, and distinct from the various non-human elements that combine in maritime
space to make the ocean what it is. This then leads us back to Blum’s call for a turn to actual experiences
of the sea, as have been chronicled by anthropologists, labor historians, and historical geographers, as
well as in maritime or coastal-based fiction. Unfortunately, a scholar of (Western) literature or history
who pursues this agenda soon runs into methodological limits. As John Mack notes, Western accounts of
‘‘life at sea,’’ whether fictional or historical, are typically about ‘‘life on ship,’’ as they fail to attend to
the surface on which the ship floats, let alone what transpires beneath that surface.17 And yet, contrary
to Dirlik’s dismissal, the physical geography of the ocean does matter. How we interact with, utilize the
resources of, and regulate the oceans that bind our ocean regions is intimately connected with how we
understand those oceans as physical entities: as wet, mobile, dynamic, deep, dark spaces that are
characterized by complex movements and interdependencies of water molecules, minerals, and nonhuman biota as well as humans and their ships. The oceans that unify our ocean regions are much more
than surfaces for the movement of ships (or for the movement of ideas, commodities, money, or
people) and they are much more than spaces in which we hunt for resources. Although these are the
perspectives typically deployed in humancentered sea stories (i.e. the ones advocated by Blum), such
perspectives only begin to address the reality of the sea that makes these encounters possible. Rather,
the oceans that anchor ocean regions need to be understood as ‘‘more-than-human’’ assemblages, 18
reproduced by scientists,19 sailors,20 fishers,21 surfers,22 divers,23 passengers, 24 and even pirate
broadcasters25 as they interact with and are co-constituted by the universe of mobile non-human
elements that also inhabit its depths, including ships, fish, and water molecules.26 Although the actions
and interests of humans around the ocean’s edges and on its surface certainly matter, a story that
begins and ends with human ‘‘crossings’’ or ‘‘uses’’ of the sea will always be incomplete. The physical
boundaries of a maritime region are indeed human-defined as Dirlik asserts, but the underlying, and
specifically liquid nature of the ocean at its center needs to be understood as emergent with, and not
merely as an underlying context for, human activities.
Ocean exploration is essential to transforming our understanding of the oceans. The
plan enables a fundamental ontological shift in our understanding of space.
Mathematical and scientific oceanographic techniques are a precondition to the
alternative.
Steinberg, Professor of Geography at Florida State, 13
(Philip E. Steinberg is Professor of Geography at Florida State University and Marie Cure International
Incoming Fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London, “Of other seas: metaphors and materialities in
maritime regions”, Atlantic Studies, 2013, Vol. 10, No. 2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14788810.2013.785192)
Of course, land is also, in a geological sense, mobile. Doreen Massey points this out as she uses the geological
mobility of land to undermine modernist notions of place as static and amenable to development along a single
trajectory.29 However, I would assert that the mobility of water is qualitatively different because its fluidity is
inevitably experienced by anyone who actually encounters its physicality (as opposed to observing its representation
on a map). It is readily apparent to the untrained observer that water is constituted by moving molecules and by forces that push these
molecules through space and time. By contrast, the invisibility of plate tectonic movement endows terrestrial space with an aura of stability
that is expressed in an idealization of place that transcends the vicissitudes of time and movement; indeed, it is the power of this image on land
that prompts Massey to destabilize place by turning to the hidden mobilities of plate tectonics. To
develop ways for understanding
the ocean as a uniquely mobile and dynamic space, as well as one with depth, it is useful to turn to the
tools of oceanography, a discipline rarely engaged by humanities-oriented scholars (or, for that matter,
social scientists) who adopt a regional seas perspective. In particular, I turn here to the distinction that
oceanographers make between Eulerian and Lagrangian modeling techniques.30 Oceanographers who work from
a Eulerian perspective measure and model fluid dynamics by recording the forces that act on stable buoys. Eulerian researchers compare the
presence and characteristics of these forces at different points in an effort to identify general patterns across space and time. Eulerian
research remains dominant in oceanography, perhaps because it mimics the terrestrial spatial ontology
wherein points are fixed in space and mobile forces are external to and act on those points, or perhaps
because the alternative is both costlier and mathematically more complex.31 From the Eulerian perspective,
as in the modernist ontology that tends to inform our understanding of regions (whether they are defined by a
central continent or by a central ocean), matter exists logically prior to movement. The fixed points of geography,
represented in the world of Eulerian oceanography by buoys, would persist even in the absence of the forces
of movement that cross the space between and beyond these points. Likewise, from this perspective, London and
New York would exist as points on a map and, if they were settled, they would have social dynamics and institutions, even if they did not have
centuries of linkages as nodes in a trans-Atlantic economy. The
alternative is to adopt a Langrangian perspective
wherein movement, instead of being subsequent to geography, is geography. Oceanographers working
from this perspective trace the paths of ‘‘floaters’’ that travel in three-dimensional space, with each
floater representing a particle, the fundamental unit in Lagrangian fluid dynamics. Movement is defined by the
displacement across space of material characteristics within mobile packages, not abstract forces, and
these characteristics are known only through their mobility.32 In other words, objects come into being as they move (or
unfold) through space and time. Conversely, space ceases to be a stable background but a part of the unfolding. The world is
constituted by mobility without reference to any stable grid of places or coordinates. From this perspective,
movement is the foundation of geography.33 To return to the previous example, London and New York exist as they are only in their continual
reconstruction through flows of connectivitity. These connections (and the space central to these connections the ocean) can be seen only as
constitutive parts/processes of the cities, not as manifestations of their external functions. Although
not specifically referencing
oceanographic research, Manuel DeLanda elaborates on the conceptual links between, on the one hand,
Deleuzian philosophy and, on the other hand, the Riemannian differential geometry that forms the
mathematical basis for Lagrangian fluid dynamics.34 In both cases, there is an ‘‘absence of a
supplementary (higher) dimension imposing an extrinsic coordinatization, and hence, an extrinsically
defined unity.’’35 Space, from this perspective, is less a thing or a stationary framework than a medium
that is constantly being made by its dynamic, constitutive elements. My point in introducing this strand
of fluid dynamics is not to suggest that the world of ocean-basin regions can be ‘‘modeled’’ in Lagrangian fashion. Rather, I discuss it to
suggest an alternate route for developing decentered ontologies of connection. This is, after all, the
explicit goal of the poststructuralist cultural studies wing of ocean region studies and it is even implicit
among political economists who seek to denaturalize the assumed primacy of the (re)productionoriented terrestrial region (e.g. the territorial nation-state). However, as I noted in the previous section, all too often
this agenda is pursued by scholars who reduce to a metaphor the ocean that lies at the center of the
ocean region or, worse yet, who simply ignore it. Following, but also going beyond, Blum’s provocation, I propose that, as part of
the process of incorporating actual, lived experiences of the ocean into the studies of maritime regions,
we need also to bring the ocean itself into the picture, not just as an experienced space but as a dynamic
field that through its movement, through our encounters with its movement, and through our efforts to
interpret its movement produces difference even as it unifies. A Lagrangian-inspired ontology may well
provide a means for doing this.
The K leads to an incomplete understanding of human interactions with the ocean.
The focus on the ocean as solely a site of transportation of people or commodities
prevents us from recognizing the ocean’s fluid ontology. The permutation solves best.
Steinberg, Professor of Geography at Florida State, 13
(Philip E. Steinberg is Professor of Geography at Florida State University and Marie Cure International
Incoming Fellow at Royal Holloway, University of London, “Of other seas: metaphors and materialities in
maritime regions”, Atlantic Studies, 2013, Vol. 10, No. 2,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14788810.2013.785192)
In her review of recent ocean-related scholarship in social and cultural geography, Kimberley Peters
asks, ‘‘Oceans and seas are three-dimensional, fluid and liquid, yet they are also undulating surfaces;
how does the texture, the currents and the substance of the water impact contemporary social and
cultural uses of that space?’’46 Others have raised similar points. For instance, Elizabeth DeLoughrey
asserts, ‘‘Unlike terrestrial space, the perpetual circulation of ocean currents means that as a space, [the
sea] necessarily dissolves local phenomenology and defracts the accumulation of narrative.’’47 In a
similar vein, Lambert, Martins, and Ogborn write, ‘‘Clearly, climatic, geophysical, and ecological
processes belong in work on the sea . . . .Overemphasis on human agency, especially in accounts of the
Atlantic, makes for a curiously static and empty conception of the sea, in which it serves merely as a
framework for historical investigations, rather than being something with a lively and energetic
materiality of its own.’’48 Yet even those who advocate a ‘‘more-than-human’’ approach have difficulty
incorporating the ocean’s geophysicality, not just as a force that impacts humans but as part of a marine
assemblage in which humans are just one component. Thus, Lambert, Martins, and Ogborn discuss
narratives of the White Atlantic (European migration), Black Atlantic (postcolonial connections), and Red
Atlantic (the Atlantic as a space of labor) but curiously leave out a Blue Atlantic (a geophysical space of
dynamic liquidity), and their example of the North Atlantic circular system supporting the ‘‘triangular
trade’’ culminates in a distinctly human set of patterns and interrelations in which, as with all maritime
trade, the underlying water is idealized as absent.49 Despite their best intentions, the ocean
environment, although recognized as being more complex than a mere surface, is still treated as ‘‘a
framework for historical investigations.’’ A more systematic attempt to integrate geophysicality into our
understanding of human activities in the sea can be seen in recently published works by Kimberley
Peters and by Jon Anderson. Peters focuses on pirate radio broadcasters who are continually thwarted
in their attempts to idealize the ocean as an abstract, extra-legal, extra-national space. Reflecting on the
affective interaction between the maritime broadcaster and the sea, she conceptualizes a ‘‘hydromateriality’’ that incorporates 164 P.E. Steinberg Downloaded by [Pennsylvania State University] at
05:27 30 April 2013 mobile biota (both human and non-human) as well as technologies and objects.50
The geophysical properties of the ocean take on an even more profound role in Anderson’s research on
surfing. He uses the relationship between the surfer and the wave to explore how the assemblage
perspective can be expanded (or modified) to interpret fleeting moments of socio-biological-geophysical
convergence. This ontology of convergence may well characterize all moments in time, but its
applicability is particularly profound in the ocean because of the ocean’s underlying dynamism.51 Peters
and Anderson propose just two of the many ways in which we can take the ocean seriously as a complex
space of circulations. These circulations are comprised not just of the people, ideas, commodities, and
ships that move across its surface or the fish who swim in its water. Rather, in a more fundamental way,
the ocean is a space of circulation because it is constituted through its very geophysical mobility. As in
Lagrangian fluid dynamics, movement is not something that happens between places, connecting
discrete points on a ‘‘rim.’’ Rather, movement emerges as the very essence of the ocean region,
including the aqueous mass at its center. From this perspective, the ocean becomes the object of our
focus not because it is a space that facilitates movement the space across which things move but
because it is a space that is constituted by and constitutive of movement. This perspective not only
enables us to understand the ocean in its entirety; it disassembles accepted understandings of relations
between space and time, between stasis and mobility, and between human and non-human actants like
ships, navigational aids, and water molecules. This perspective suggests an ambitious agenda, and one
that goes well beyond more established goals in the ocean-region studies community, such as
highlighting exchange over production or emphasizing the hybrid nature of cultural identities. And yet, it
is only through engaging with the ocean in all its material complexity that we can develop the fluid
perspective that allows us to use the sea to look beyond the sea.
Enviro Reps Good
Our representations are good - framing society as both the perpetrator of
environmental degradation and the advocate for sustainability is key to effective and
sustainable environmental policy
Christie, School of Marine Affairs and Jackson School of International Studies,
University of Washington, 11
[Patrick, 4/6/11, University of Washington, “Creating space for interdisciplinary marine and coastal
research: five dilemmas and suggested resolutions,”
https://depts.washington.edu/smea/sites/default/files/u43/Christie%20Multi%20Disc%20Researc.2011.
Env%20Conserv.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, TYBG]
Providing a more pluralistic form of research to guide coastal and marine policy will require
reconceptualization of environmental problems and solutions. A fully social ecological conceptualization
of problem and solution implies equal attention is paid to both social and ecological aspects.
Environmental frameworks and policies, which are social constructs of which ecological conditions are
only one of many considerations, are most effective when grounded in reliable and detailed
understandings. For ethical, theoretical and practical reasons, the human dimension should not be
reduced to mainly economic calculations of, albeit important, ecosystem services or quantified general
principles (Campbell et al. 2009). Just as robust ecological research must span the breadth of natural
history, population dynamics and genetics, social research should include, at a minimum, attempts to
understand the social context over time, the environmental management process, institutional design
principles, human adaptation and social impacts of policy with a consideration for justice (Campbellet al.
2009; Jones 2009).
Recasting the position of society within social ecological research will create opportunities for balanced
IR. In the predominant narrative of ocean decline and global policy response, society is generally
reduced to the role of perpetrator of environmental degradation, with humans located outside of
nature (Campbell et al. 2009). The conclusion that ocean resources are in a state of decline in many
places is important and accurate, and has generated considerable impetus to alter ocean policy.
Relatively little is known about the conditions and mechanisms through which society either prevents
environmental degradation or actively restores environment. For example, until the seminal work of
political scientist Ostrom (1990) and others, the seemingly inevitable ‘tragedy of the commons’ was a
predominant explanation for why much of the non-private environment was in decline (Hardin 1968).
Casting society as both perpetrator of environmental degradation and advocate of environmental
sustainability will allow for more meaningful research, theory and policy.
Historicization Good
Historicizing the ocean is important to understanding how human regulations and
interactions affect marine life
Bolster, Chair of Humanities at the University of New Hampshire, associate professor
of history, 6
(W. Jeffrey, “Opportunities in Marine Environmental History,” Environmental History 11
http://fishhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BolsterEH2006.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
The ocean may be the next frontier for environmental historians. People have depended on the ocean
for centuries and quietly reshaped it. Recently the tragic impact of overfishing, habitat destruction, and
biological invasions has become apparent. Yet the history of human interactions with marine
environments remains largely uninvestigated, in part because of the enduring assumption that the
ocean exists (or existed) outside of history. Historians should take seriously the challenge to historicize
the ocean. That will include investigating its changing nature and peoples’ historically specific
assumptions about using and regulating it. Arguing that marine environmental history can complement
on-going research in historical marine ecology, this essay invokes recent scientific work while staking out
distinct terrain for historians.
Historicizing the oceans is the key to understanding core issue revolving around
oceans themselves
Bolster, Chair of Humanities at the University of New Hampshire, associate professor
of history, 6
(W. Jeffrey, “Opportunities in Marine Environmental History,” Environmental History 11
http://fishhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BolsterEH2006.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
This essay makes a case for the support and development of marine environmental history. We need to
better understand many things: how different groups of people made themselves in the context of
marine environments, how race, class, fashion, and geo-politics influenced the exploitation and
conservation of marine resources, how individual and community identities (and economies) changed as
a function of the availability of marine resources, how technological innovation frequently masked
declining catches, how fishermen’s knowledge of localized depletions accumulated in the past, how
public policy debates revealed historically specific values associated with the ocean, how collaboration
between (and then antagonism among) fishermen and scientists affected marine environments, how
faith in the certainty of marine science waxed and waned, how different cultures perceived the ocean at
specific times, and—when possible— how past marine environments looked in terms of abundance and
distribution of important species.18
These are the constituent parts that get to a deeper historical question: the nature of the greatest sea
change in human history. Only good marine environmental history can get to the heart of the ecological
and cultural transformations that have cast the twenty-first-century ocean as vulnerable rather than
eternal. Despite obstacles and problems, preliminary work in this field makes it look immediately
relevant, professionally challenging, and intellectually rewarding.
Ocean Policymaking
Ocean policies and a discussion of the human effect on oceans are key to resolving
issues of environmental degradation
Bolster, Chair of Humanities at the University of New Hampshire, associate professor
of history, 6
(W. Jeffrey, “Opportunities in Marine Environmental History,” Environmental History 11
http://fishhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BolsterEH2006.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
No matter the sources they use, would-be marine environmental historians will need to address headon the quandary of disciplinary boundaries. Deeply rooted assumptions concerning the typology of
knowledge, specifically what is of interest to whom in scholarly or scientific circles, has circumscribed
the development of marine environmental history. Environmental historians (terrestrial ones, mind you)
faced an uphill challenge convincing colleagues in history departments that aquifers, earthworms, forest
succession, and bioregionalism were germane to history, even though every village and city throughout
time relied on biological and geophysical resources, and affected its non-human natural surroundings. It
goes without saying that humans’ reliance on, affection for, and intimacy with the ocean has been but a
fraction of that of the land. Moreover, the results of humans’ environmental impact on the ocean have
essentially remained invisible, hidden below an inscrutable surface. To be accepted, much less to
flourish, marine environmental historians will need to constantly reiterate how abalone, oyster reefs,
Bluefin Tuna (formerly referred to derisively as “horse mackerel”), invasive jellyfish, and marine
foodwebs are the stuff of history; how, in other words, humans and the living ocean share a common
destiny.
The problems posed by the overstressed ocean today are not yet insurmountable according to some
optimistic marine scientists, even though depletion of the oceans’ living resources is clearly
worsening.64 If policies and enforcement don’t encourage conservation soon, however, the species
composition of the oceans will change forever, impoverishing marine ecosystems, human economies,
and cultural traditions. Questions are already begging for answers: “how long have people been making
an impact on the ocean,” “when did warning signs first appear,” “what constellation of assumptions and
policies led to a virtually unrestrained plunder of oceanic resources and the cascading effects that
followed”?
Those concerns, along with a desire to better understand the sociology of past maritime communities
and a passion to tell a new generation of sea stories, provide a template for marine environmental
history. Done well, it can add materially to our understanding of the interactions between human
culture and non-human nature in the early modern and modern world. Lord Byron was wrong when he
wrote in the early nineteenth century, “Man marks the earth with ruin, his control Stops with the
shore.” It is up to historians in the early twenty-first century to explain what happened.
Collaboration on ocean exploration policies is necessary to understand oceanic
habitats and solve ecological destruction
Costello et al 10
(Mark, Marta Coll, Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), Barcelona, Roberto Danovaro, Department of
Marine Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy, Pat Halpin, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America, Henn Ojaveer,
Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Pa¨rnu, Estonia, Patricia Miloslavich, Departamento de
Estudios Ambientales and Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simo´n Bolı´var, Caracas,
Venezuela, “A Census of Marine Biodiversity Knowledge, Resources, and Future Challenges” Published:
August 02, 2010,
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00121
10&representation=PDF, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
The lack of a clear species-area relationship across the regions was indicative of the lack of sampling in
major areas and habitats of the oceans, and insufficient species identification guides and taxonomic
expertise. The more developed countries had more marine research laboratories and ships. However,
they also suffered from insufficient knowledge for many taxonomic groups and declining taxonomic
expertise [5,23,25]. That the number of experts did not correlate with any metrics of diversity,
resources, or knowledge (except the number of endemic species) may indicate the variable distribution
of expertise globally and even within a region, but may also have been influenced by the difficulty of
defining who is an expert. Most undiscovered species are likely to be found in the tropics, deep seas,
and seas of the Southern Hemisphere, including many developing countries. It is unlikely that every
country needs expertise in every taxonomic group or large research facilities, so collaboration between
countries, as already occurs informally, is critical to developing knowledge on all species. There is
potential for further benefits, cost-efficiencies, and quality control in taxonomy, ecology, and resource
management through collaboration between countries and international organisations. There appear to
be roles here for organisations such as the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO
and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) to coordinate cooperation between countries
(reflecting their national memberships); the International Association for Biological Oceanography as
part of the International Union of Biological Sciences and thus the International Council of Scientific
Unions, which represent the national academies; and grass-roots taxonomic societies involved in
networking through conferences and online databases (e.g., the Society for the Management of
Electronic Biodiversity Databases, Crustacean Society).
Ocean Knowlege
Despite some understanding of the world’s oceans, there are still many untapped
pools of knowledge to be attained
Webb, Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, et al 10
Thomas J. and Edward Vanden Berghe, Ocean Biogeographic Information System, Institute of Marine
and Coastal Sciences, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, New Jersey, United States of America, and Ron
O'Dor, Census of Marine Life, Consortium for Ocean Leadership, Washington, D. C., United States of
America, “Biodiversity's Big Wet Secret: The Global Distribution of Marine Biological Records Reveals
Chronic Under-Exploration of the Deep Pelagic Ocean”, Published: August 02, 2010DOI:
10.1371/journal.pone.0010223,
http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=2&sid=2a1e8d35-45cf-4f1e-ac7693f5bbc10b4b%40sessionmgr110&hid=125, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
The tragedy of studying biodiversity during an extinction crisis is that we are losing our subject matter
faster than we are able to describe it [1]. This is especially true in the marine environment, where the
need to value and conserve taxa and habitats that we know little about has been termed a paradox of
marine conservation [2]. Recent efforts by international networks such as the Marine Biodiversity and
Ecosystem Functioning EU Network of Excellence (www.marbef.org) and the Census of Marine Life
(www.coml.org) have substantially advanced our knowledge of the marine diversity of specific regions
[3,4] and habitats [5], in large part by harnessing the power of integrated databases [6]. As well as
highlighting what we know about marine biodiversity, however, such databases also allow us to quantify
what we do not know. For instance, global synthetic analyses have revealed that even for the best
known marine taxa, regional inventories remain worryingly incomplete [7]. Spatial biases are also
apparent. In particular, the deep pelagic ocean is revealed as biodiversity’s big wet secret.
The marine pelagic environment is the open oceans and seas, away from the coasts and above the sea
bed; and the deep pelagic ocean is typically defined as that part of the water column deeper than 200m.
It constitutes a vast biovolume of space in which organisms can exist – by far the largest on Earth at over
a billion km3 [8-11]. We know that this vast realm and the organisms living in it provide globally
important ecosystem services [11], including the support of fisheries, the provision of a range of natural
products of potential use in medicine and other applications, as well as the regulation of climate and
ocean chemistry through the capture and storage of atmospheric carbon and the production of marine
carbonate. But, the limits of our knowledge of this system are continually exposed by the regular
discovery of new clades of often large, active and conspicuous organisms [12] whenever surveys are
undertaken. Even a charismatic, widely distributed and very large species, the megamouth shark
Megachasma pelagios, was not discovered until 1976, and has since been recorded so rarely that each
individual specimen has become well known [13].
Our understanding and framing of the oceans incorrectly assumes the ocean exists
outside of what we know as history
Bolster, Chair of Humanities at the University of New Hampshire, associate professor
of history, 6
(W. Jeffrey, “Opportunities in Marine Environmental History,” Environmental History 11
http://fishhistory.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/BolsterEH2006.pdf, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
This literary and spiritual sense of the ocean’s immortality, the idea that it rolled on before human life
existed, and that it will roll on changelessly thereafter, long contributed to the fundamentally flawed
assumption that the ocean, unlike forests, plains, and deserts, has always existed outside of history.
The myth of the timeless ocean has been so seductive that even professional historians have
succumbed. “To stand on a sea-washed promontory looking westwards at sunset over the Atlantic is to
share a timeless human experience.” So begins Barry Cunliffe’s Facing the Ocean: The Atlantic and Its
Peoples, 8000 BC-AD 1500. “We are in awe of the unchanging and unchangeable as all have been before
us and all will be.” This is a rather ahistorical opening to a history book. It suspends attention to the
viewers’ cultural frames of reference and to changes in the sea. But it is remarkably similar in its mythic
content to the first two lines of medievalist Vincent H. Cassidy’s The Sea Around Them: The Atlantic
Ocean, A.D. 1250. “No gesture is equal in futility to scratching the surface of the sea. Although many a
momentary wake left by some frail ocean-borne craft has been of permanent significance to mankind,
the ocean has made more of an impression upon men than they have made upon the ocean.”24
This conceptual stumbling block has impeded the development of marine environmental history. A new
generation of historians can make their mark by delineating how cultural assumptions about the oceans
(and the oceans themselves) have changed through time, sometimes dramatically within a short span of
years. People today neither use nor imagine the oceans in the same ways as their ancestors.25
Until very recently it has been difficult for historians to imagine the unsustainability of industrial
fisheries, much less pre-industrial ones. The idea of the eternal sea, after all, had intellectual legitimacy
for centuries. In the first half of the eighteenth century Baron du Montesquieu asserted that oceanic fish
were limitless. J. B. Lamarck concurred. “But animals living in the waters, especially the sea waters,” he
wrote in 1809 in his Zoological Philosophy, “are protected from the destruction of their species by man.
Their multiplication is so rapid and their means of evading pursuits or traps are so great, that there is no
likelihood of his being able to destroy the entire species of any these animals.”
Four fifths of the species that inhabit the Earth are unknown to people are in the
oceans and we’ve defaulted to trivial taxonomy practices
Costello et al 10
(Mark, Marta Coll, Institute of Marine Science (ICM-CSIC), Barcelona, Roberto Danovaro, Department of
Marine Sciences, Polytechnic University of Marche, Ancona, Italy, Pat Halpin, Nicholas School of the
Environment, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, United States of America, Henn Ojaveer,
Estonian Marine Institute, University of Tartu, Pa¨rnu, Estonia, Patricia Miloslavich, Departamento de
Estudios Ambientales and Centro de Biodiversidad Marina, Universidad Simo´n Bolı´var, Caracas,
Venezuela, “A Census of Marine Biodiversity Knowledge, Resources, and Future Challenges” Published:
August 02, 2010,
http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchObject.action?uri=info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.00121
10&representation=PDF, accessed 7/6/14, LLM)
The resources available for research are always limited. When setting priorities for research funding,
governments, industry, and funding agencies must balance the demands of human health, food supply,
and standards of living, against the less tangible benefits of discovering more about the planet’s
biodiversity. Scientists have discovered almost 2 million species indicating that we have made great
gains in our knowledge of biodiversity. However, this knowledge may distract attention from the
estimated four-fifths of species on Earth that remain unknown to science, many of them inhabiting our
oceans [1,2]. The world’s media still find it newsworthy when new species are discovered [1]. However,
the extent of this taxonomic challenge no longer appears to be a priority in many funding agencies,
perhaps because society and many scientists believe we have discovered most species, or that doing so
is out of fashion except when new technologies are employed. Another symptom of this trend may be
that the increased attention to novel methods available in molecular sciences is resulting in a loss of
expertise and know-how in the traditional descriptive taxonomy of species [3]. The use of molecular
techniques complements traditional methods of describing species but has not significantly increased
the rate of discovery of new species (at least of fish), although it may help classify them [4]. At least in
Europe, there was a mismatch between the number of species in a taxon and the number of people with
expertise in it [5]. Unfortunately, because most species remain to be discovered in the most species-rich
taxa [2,5,6,7], there are then few experts to appreciate that this work needs to be done. Evidently, a
global review of gaps in marine biodiversity knowledge and resources is overdue.
Ocean Policy Debate Key
Critiques of ocean policy fail to engage productive reform – only a balanced debate
can provide solutions to problems
Campbell et. Al., Nicholas School of Environment, Duke University, 9
[Lisa M., Noella J. Gray, Elliott L. Hazen, Janna M. Shackeroff, “Beyond Baselines: Rethinking Priorities for
Ocean Conservation,” Ecology and Society, Vol. 14, No. 1, TYBG]
Although Bolster poses these questions as ones of historical interest, they can be recast in the present.
We need to better understand many of these things now, and how they will play out as we move from
describing the past to charting the future. To provide just one example, Aswani and Hamilton (2004)
illustrate how an understanding of local marine tenure regimes and attitudes toward management in
the Western Solomon Islands can (and should) be used to guide conservation interventions and predict
their success.
Broader interdisciplinary collaboration will enhance the analysis of both problems and potential
solutions, and may also help avoid the divide that has arisen in terrestrial conservation, where
interactions between social and natural scientists have been characterized as a “dialog of the deaf”
(Agrawal and Ostrom 2006). The impasse is attributed to both groups: natural scientists who are hostile
and resistant to critiques of their efforts, and social scientists who, having delivered such critiques, fail
to engage in constructive policy reform (Redford et al. 2006). Although there are hints that such divides
could emerge in the marine realm [e.g., Pitcher (2005) dismisses as uniformed the critiques of SBS by
unnamed social scientists], we hope that wider, earlier engagement of social and natural scientists can
put marine research and conservation on a more productive trajectory.
Science Good
Science is key to problem solving and informed policymaking
Pena, Chair of the International Council for Science, 4
(J. A. De La, December 2004, “The Value of Basic Scientific Research,”
http://www.icsu.org/publications/icsu-position-statements/value-scientific-research, accessed 7-92014, LK)
Major innovation is rarely possible without prior generation of new knowledge founded on basic
research. Strong scientific disciplines and strong collaboration between them are necessary both for the
generation of new knowledge and its application. Retard basic research and inevitably innovation and
application will be stifled.
New scientific knowledge is essential not only for fostering innovation and promoting economic
development, but also for informing good policy development, and as a sound foundation for
education and training. Notwithstanding, it is sometimes argued at a national level that investment in
research should focus primarily, or even exclusively, on the use of existing information to develop
applied solutions. Superficially at least, such an approach appears to be facilitated by the emergence of
a global society, linked by internet and a continuous flow of information that anyone is able to access
and use.
Whilst an exclusive focus on application may have some merit in the short-term, there are several
reasons why neglecting basic research is seriously flawed in the longer-term:
Basic and applied science are a continuum. They are inter-dependent. The integration of basic and
applied research is crucial to problem-solving, innovation and product development.
Negative
Inherency
Funding
The status quo solves - $23 million in federal funding has been allocated, and other
research vessels exist
Providence Business News, 11
[9/12/11, “New NOAA research vessel Okeanos to call Quonset home,” Providence Business News,
TYBG]
A deep-sea exploration ship, Okeanos will be for the next decade at Pier One in the Port of Davisville.
According to a news release, the facility includes 8,280 square feet of energy-efficient space for NOAA’s
Office of Marine and Aviation Operations, which will contain office space for the ship’s support staff and
warehouse space.
Okeanos Explorer is 224 feet in length with a beam of 43 feet and a draft of 15 feet. The ship can embark
46, including crew members and those assigned to mission support.
According to the release, Reed secured more than $23 million in federal funding to make Okeanos
Explorer the first U.S. government ship dedicated solely to ocean exploration and to bring it to Rhode
Island.
The Okeanos will join the Endeavor, a smaller research vessel owned by the National Science Foundation
and home-ported in Narragansett at the University of Rhode Island Bay Campus and
NOAA Partnerships
The aff is indistinguishable from the status quo – NOAA exploration and tech company
partnerships solve extensive ocean exploration
Schectman, reporter for the Wall Street Journal, 13
[Joel, 7/19/13, Wall Street Journal, “Government and Tech Companies Plan Exploration of Oceans,”
http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2013/07/19/government-and-tech-companies-plan-exploration-of-oceans/,
accessed 7/11/14, TYBG]
The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is meeting today with scientists and
technology companies like Google Inc.GOOG +1.41%, in Long Beach, Calif. to create a national plan to
explore and map the 3.3 million miles of ocean that fall under America’s sovereignty — a size nearly
equal to the continental U.S. That understanding could help the U.S. discover new fuel sources, better
regulate the nation’s fishing resources and preserve endangered species.
The complexity and remoteness of ocean floors have stalled these efforts for decades, says Stephen
Hammond, a senior scientist at NOAA. “Ocean scientists would be hard pressed to tell you what the sea
floor looks like and what are the animals that live there. That’s very surprising to most people,” Mr.
Hammond said. But new data systems, says Mr. Hammond, that allow for more collaboration and access
by the world’s scientists are beginning to “blow the doors open” on the world’s ocean systems.
The complexity of ocean systems, with their interplay of tidal forces, animal species, and underwater
geography, has frustrated previous efforts at understanding the ecology below 75% of the world’s
surface.
The sciences involved in ocean exploration have been “stove-piped,” with researchers specializing in the
migration of whales or ocean currents and not working together towards “an interconnected
understanding of the system,” said Larry Mayer, a University of New Hampshire oceanographer, who is
participating in the planning session.
For example, scientists were unable to fully understand the effect of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon spill
on the Gulf’s sea creatures, Mr. Mayer said. “We’re not yet at the point where we have this overall view
of the complete ecosystem model for a system as complex as Gulf of Mexico,” said Mr. Mayer, who sat
on a National Academy of Sciences committee that advised government on the issue. “What we have
are little models of subcomponents. But we don’t have comprehensive models of how the ecosystems
interact — particularly in the deep sea.”
Advances in data tools, which allow scientists to layer maps with thousands of separate information
sources, now make that three-dimensional understanding possible, Mr. Mayer said. “We are just now at
the point where where we can use these tools to look at the system in its entirety,” Mr. Mayer said.
NOAA says the exploration will involve dozens of public and private partnerships, with technology
companies like Esri Inc., the mapping software firm, and Google, which are both participating in the
planning forum. For example, Esri Chief Scientist Dawn Wright, says sensors placed on whales, and data
sent from vessels, will help policy makers and companies use Esri software to get real time information
on whether a shipping lane is effecting an animal population.
China Solves
China solves – it just renewed funding for its ocean exploration program
Fan, writer for Chinese news source ECNS, 14
[Wang, 7/3/14, ECNS, “China takes lead in underwater exploration,” http://www.ecns.cn/2014/0703/122159.shtml, accessed 7/11/14, TYBG]
The Jiaolong submersible won the 2014 Hans Hass Fifty Fathoms Award in Sanya, Hainan province, in
June. The award is jointly given by the Historical Diving Society Hans Hass Award Committee and Swiss
watchmaker Blancpain.
The submersible, independently developed in China, reached as deep as 7,062 meters in the Mariana
Trench in the western Pacific Ocean in 2012, setting a new record among Chinese divers.
The committee initiated a double prize for Cui Weicheng, deputy chief designer of Jiaolong, for his
individual achievements, and the State Oceanic Administration for its support in building the
submersible.
The award has been honoring individuals for excellence in underwater science and technology since
2003. Previous recipients include renowned film director and diving pioneer James Cameron and Stan
Waterman, pioneering underwater film producer and photographer. This is the first time a Chinese
project has won the award.
"Today, it is China that is leading the world in its commitment to manned deep ocean exploration," says
Krov Menuhin, chairman of the award committee and advisory board member at the Historical Diving
Society, an international non-profit organization that studies man's underwater activities and promotes
public awareness of the ocean.
"And the far-sighted vision, the courage and the immense engagement to implement this program is in
keeping with the pioneering spirit of Hans Hass. He entered the ocean with the same vision, courage and
commitment," he says.
The winners received a framed cast bronze plaque, with an image of Hans Hass, designed by ocean artist
Wyland. And Blancpain presented them Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe diving watches with specially
engraved cases.
The brand will serve as the official time keeper for Jiaolong's future underwater expeditions. It also
announced a collaboration with the State Oceanic Administration to launch projects to raise public
consciousness of the ocean in China in the coming years. The details are still being discussed.
"We are very impressed with Jiaolong with its ability to constantly dive into new depths, especially its
crew, whose courage, focus and action enabled them to reach new frontiers all the time," says Marc
Junod, vice-president and head of sales at Blancpain.
The research and development of Jiaolong basically started from zero in 2002. None of the crew
members had seen, let alone been in, a virtual submersible before.
Fu Wentao, one of the oceanauts of Jiaolong, shared his experience underwater, including encounters
with curious creatures.
"Unlike the terrestrial creatures, those under the water are not cautious at all. They are actually very
curious and will even swim toward us," Fu says.
Cui is planning to launch a project to develop a submersible that will be able to dive as deep as 11,000
meters with financial support from both the government and the private sector.
"The combination will fuel faster development in underwater science," Cui says. "The sea is vast and
rich, but we have a lot of research to do before we can exploit it."
While funds for the financing of manned deep-ocean explorations in the West are drying up, China has
just committed to a long-term project that will change the way everyone thinks about the sea, says
Menuhin.
Solvency
NOAA Bad – Fund Siphoning
NOAA will redirect the aff’s funds – tanks solvency
Rein, writer for the Washington Post, 12
[Lisa, 6/20/12, Washington Post, “Congress to allow National Weather Service to reconfigure budget,”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/congress-to-allow-national-weather-service-to-reconfigurebudget/2012/06/20/gJQAG8jVrV_story.html, accessed 7/12/14, TYBG]
Congress will allow the National Weather Service to reallocate $36 million to stave off furloughs of 5,000
employees this summer, lawmakers said Wednesday.
But they said they are no closer than they were a month ago to an explanation for why the weather
service moved millions of dollars a year that Congress approved for other projects to pay employees,
without asking permission.
The decision to allow the practice “does not conclude the committee’s examination into the [National
Weather Service’s] long standing budget formulation and execution problems,” Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski
(D-Md.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) wrote Wednesday in a letter to Acting Commerce Secretary
Rebecca Blank.
The senators are chairman and ranking Republican, respectively, of the Appropriations subcommittee on
commerce, justice, science and related agencies, which approved the request, called a
“reprogramming.”
The money will come largely from funding for long-term capital projects, including a planned system to
provide weather data using advanced technology.
A similar House panel headed by Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.) is scheduled to hold a hearing Thursday on the
practice of reallocating money from one department budget to another without asking Congress.
“We just want to get to the bottom of it,” Wolf said Wednesday. “If they had asked for the
reprogramming, we would have approved it. Why didn’t they just come up and ask?”
Wolf said his panel is likely to approve the reprogramming request.
Officials with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees the weather
service, did not respond to a request for comment on Congress’ action. Since they revealed the budget
problems in May following an internal investigation, NOAA leaders have said little except that they were
not aware that the practice was going on.
The investigation prompted the abrupt retirement of the weather service’s director, John L. “Jack”
Hayes, after the agency’s chief financial officer was replaced.
Union leaders have said NOAA was long aware that the weather service could not pay for critical
forecast operations without reallocating money from other projects, but did not address the problem.
“We thank them for looking out for the weather service and going the extra mile,” Dan Sobien,
president of the National Weather Service Employees Organization, said Wednesday. “The real question
is what happens next year.”
The Senate and House have included millions of dollars in additional funding for the agency in next
year’s budget.
After the weather service made a formal request to reallocate the $36 million, Mikulski and Hutchison
said they would not agree until they knew why the agency had “manipulated” its budget. But
negotiations sped up in recent weeks after NOAA officials notified lawmakers and the union that
furloughs, while a last resort, were possible.
With labor costs of $2 million a day, the weather service said it could not pay forecasters and other
employees through September, the end of the fiscal year.
NOAA Bad – Wasteful Spending
NOAA management fails and wastes taxpayer dollars
Travis, writer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, 94
[John, 7/8/94, “NOAA's "Arks" Sail Into a Storm,” Science, New Series, Vol. 265, No. 5169, pg. 176-178,
TYBG]
Rough seas are pounding against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) these
days, as waves of criticism have battered plans to rejuvenate its aging oceanographic fleet. Over the past
2 years, NOAA and its $1.9-billion blueprint for fleet renewal have taken hits by groups ranging from an
advisory committee for the Commerce Department--NOAA's parent department--to Vice President Al
Gore's National Performance Review. The latest blast came in April, when a committee of the Marine
Board of the National Research Council--in a report written at NOAA's own behest--condemned the plan
as unrealistic, misleading, and a potential waste of taxpayer money. "We told the truth. It's just a flawed
plan," says oceanographer Donald Walsh of International Maritime Inc., who headed the review panel.
The object of all this scorn is NOAA's Fleet Replacement and Modernization plan (FRAM), potentially the
largest shipbuilding program in the history of oceanography. Without replacing aged vessels and
updating research equipment, agency officials say, NOAA will soon lose the ability to carry out many of
its scientific missions, such as annual studies of U.S. fisheries, numerous ocean and atmospheric
circulation investigations of global warming and other climate concerns, and the production of accurate
charts for maritime commerce. Even critics like Walsh note these are important tasks. "They do a lot of
marine scientific research not done by others," he says.
But critics also say that in its rush to build a new fleet, the agency has ignored other, more cost-effective
data-gathering options such as chartering private ships, contracting out research tasks, or using
airplane-borne technology. There are growing signs that Congress, which until now has strongly
supported NOAA's shipbuilding aspirations, may take heed of these rebukes--and as a result, the agency
may be forced to rethink its ambitious plans. In light of current budget realities, "NOAA is going to
reassess the number and types of platforms we need," says Admiral William Stubblefield. director of the
agency's FRAM office.
NOAA Bad - Cost Overruns
NOAA is especially prone to cost overruns – there’s no accountability and oversight
fails
Morello, writer for the Joint Ocean Committee, 6
[Lauren, 7/14/6, Joint Ocean Committee, “APPROPRIATIONS: Senate panel boosts ocean, fisheries
research at NOAA,” http://www.jointoceancommission.org/news-room/in-the-news/2006-0714_Senate_panel_boosts_ocean_&_fisheries_research_at_NOAA@E&E_Daily.pdf, accessed 7/12/14,
TYBG]
"If not for DOD, this committee wonders at what point NOAA would have acted on its own to report the
cost overruns and conduct its own recertification," the CJS committee report reads, echoing similar
harsh report language approved by House appropriators (E&E Daily, June 21). The Senate report goes on
to cite "NOAA's history of passive oversight" as justification for the spending cuts, noting that the Senate
will withhold $100 million in NPOESS funds from NOAA until the agency contracts a "nonprofit research
organization," presumably the National Academy of Sciences, to conduct a cost and operational
effectiveness analysis of NPOESS.
NOAA Bad – Oversight Failure
NOAA oversight fails – insufficient planning
Cantwell, Senator from Washington, 10
[Maria, 6/29/10, Maria Cantwell Senator, “Cantwell: Top-to-Bottom Mismanagement of NOAA Home
Porting Decision, Millions of Taxpayer Dollars Could be Wasted,”
http://www.cantwell.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2010/6/post-38ade549-e8c2-4dc8-86cab0d80faf58e4, accessed 7/12/14, TYBG]
The IG report found flaws in the way NOAA handled the competition for the home port site selection,
though it said elimination of those flaws would not have changed the outcome. The most serious
problems, according to the IG, occurred before the beginning of the competition.
“In our view, the more fundamental problems pertain to NOAA’s process prior to the competitive lease
process,” the IG wrote in the letter. “A primary cause of these problems is grounded in the fact that
NOAA did not subject the MOC-P project to a rigorous capital investment planning and oversight
process….While the Department has a clear real property policy, NOAA did not follow it. NOAA thus
proceeded with requirements for its desired option of a consolidated MOC-P facility and an operating
lease, based on justification and consideration of alternatives that on their face and without additional
documentation were significantly lacking.”
Applied Science Good
Applied Research Good
Applied research is good – it’s key to US competitiveness, innovation in technology
and medicine
Holden, president and CEO of Research Triangle Park-based RTI International, 12
[E. Wayne, 8/23/12, News Observer, “The worth of applied research,”
http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/08/23/2285016/the-worth-of-applied-research.html, accessed
7/11/14, TYBG]
With the upcoming election and looming “fiscal cliff” due to sequestration of funds combined with
projected tax increases, our choices have become fewer and are now much tougher. These difficult
choices threaten many areas of the federal discretionary budget, including research and development
funding, which represents a small but vital investment in the future of our nation and economy.
Most of the commentary in support of federal R&D spending has thus far centered on the economic
payoffs in biotechnology, medical breakthroughs, new technologies and the resulting job creation from
these investments. Experts also have contrasted stagnant U.S. government spending to support R&D
with substantial increases in government spending in other parts of the world, most notably Asia, where
China’s year-over-year R&D spending increases are accelerating. Sustaining our investments in R&D is
critical to maintaining innovation and ensuring competitiveness in a global economy.
As president and CEO of an independent nonprofit institute dedicated to conducting research that
improves the human condition, I share these concerns. Decreases in federal R&D funding will have a
detrimental impact on many of the organizations in the Research Triangle, including universities, notfor-profit organizations and commercial entities. North Carolina currently ranks seventh overall as a
recipient of federal research funding, according to data compiled by Research! America. To maintain our
reputation for creativity and innovation as one of the world’s leading R&D centers, it is vital that we
continue to receive federal research funding.
But as a social scientist, I also take a broader view toward funding for federal research and closely
associated program evaluation studies. I believe that applied research – including program evaluation
and ongoing population-based surveillance – provides policy makers with the information they need to
make smart choices, not just tough ones.
At RTI, we have spent more than 50 years conducting economic and social policy research to help inform
and positively benefit public policy. We have conducted numerous studies to help federal officials
determine which programs work, which are most cost-effective and which are ineffective. We have
evaluated the cost and effectiveness of federal programs ranging from food stamps and K-12 education,
to Medicare and Medicaid and public health programs.
In just the past 18 months, RTI researchers completed studies that identified ways to improve dental
care among rural populations in Alaska and reduce health care costs by allowing nurse anesthetists to
provide care in appropriate settings. Other studies have found that the now widespread pay-forperformance programs cannot guarantee improvements in the quality or value of health care, nor do
they necessarily result in net health care savings. Additionally, RTI research showed that federal
government investment in prison-based drug treatment programs can help reduce overall costs across
the criminal justice system, because prisoners who receive treatment are less likely to commit future
crimes than those who don’t.
So when we consider the need to reduce federal spending, it’s important to have critical information
generated by studies like these. Rather than facing the binary logic of making or not making tough
choices – cutting federally funded programs or not – applied research allows us to decide which
programs work and which do not and to allocate federal funding for maximum positive impact on the
lives of people across the country.
There is a saying that it’s easy to be hard, but it’s hard to be smart. As our elected officials struggle with
difficult choices regarding the federal budget, I hope that they choose to continue investing in the
applied research that provides the information to enhance their decision-making.
All scientific innovation has been driven by practical questions of applied research –
pure science is useless and expensive – gendered language not endorsed
Mulder, writer for Science and You, 2K
[Henry, Science and You, “Pure Science and Applied Science,”
http://www.scienceandyou.org/articles/ess_09.shtml, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
This brings us to an interesting chicken-and-egg question. Are scientific insights in essence the product
of invention or to what degree is the inventor a scientist. Is there a fundamental difference between
pure and applied science? The current wisdom suggests that there is. In this model, the pure scientist
pursues knowledge strictly for its own sake. The applied scientist uses known principles to solve
practical problems1.
With that we have opened up a whole can of worms or a hornets' nest, which may be a better
metaphor. As usual, the controversy has to do with power and money. There is a large and powerful
lobby in the scientific community that wants to maintain the present state of affairs. That's what it's
about you see, affairs of State or more specifically the role of the State in providing a steady stream of
public money to feed the golden calf of "research".
Aside from the fact that this money ultimately comes out of your pocket and mine, there is the
additional problem that the results of all this research—pure science if you will—may not be all that
useful or even productive. Who says so? Terence Kealey, that's who in his controversial book The
Economic Laws of Scientific Research. In this book which is neatly summarized here, Professor Kealey
makes the case that pure research, funded and inspired by practical needs is historically much more
fruitful than the State-funded variety.
One of the points raised by Kealy is the role of technology, what we would call engineering or applied
science, in leading to pure research instead of the other way around. He argues that in the past both in
the United States and Britain the whole scientific enterprise was inspired by hobbyists who neither
sought nor received Government funding. According to Kealey, "The loss of the hobby scientists has
been unfortunate because the hobby scientists tended to be spectacularly good."
He continues, "They were good because they tended to do original science. Professional scientists tend
to play it safe; they need to succeed, which tempts them into doing experiments that are certain to
produce results. Similarly, grant-giving bodies which are accountable to government try only to give
money for experiments that are likely to work...They represent the development of established science
rather than the creation of the new. But the hobby scientist is unaccountable. He can follow the will-o'the-wisp...Neither (Henry) Cavendish nor (Charles) Darwin would have survived in a modern university
any better than did (1978 Nobelist Peter) Mitchell, yet they were scientific giants..."
Even Albert Einstein was essentially a "hobby" scientist. When he arrived at his insights on relativity was
he struggling with what for him were real practical problems? In a sense he was trying to invent
something—a theory that would account for the anomalies in the Newtonian physics of his day. It is said
that his revelations on relativity occurred because he had a dream. In this dream he was riding a beam
of light. With the kind logic only an Einstein could have mustered, this led him directly to the conclusion
that the speed of light was a constant. Eureka?
How did man discover that a polished lens could magnify things? Perhaps someone noticed that a large
drop of water appeared to enlarge what was directly underneath. Is this how discoveries happen? Pay
attention now! It gets tricky. In our hypothetical(?) case, what was the significant factor? Was it the fact
that someone saw objects magnified by a water drop or was it the next step?
For discovery to happen someone has to make the connection, the connection between the observed
phenomenon and its logical implications. One implication would be to arrive at some way to apply the
insight i.e. make a lens. However, without some practical use—magnifying things—why take the process
any further?
Without a need, real or perceived, discovery may not take place. Equally, without someone's having
noticed the effect in the first place there would not have been a phenomenon to exploit. With this in
mind let us visit some high points of discovery. We will see that man's curiosity is often influenced by
practical considerations.
Copernicus, Galileo, and Phlogiston
Discovery occurs because someone asked a question. As likely as not that question is in response to a
practical need. For example, shaping a piece of glass to duplicate the effect of that drop of water I
mentioned earlier, would probably not have occurred without the practical application of enhanced
vision.
In another example, what was Copernicus' mission? He wasn't looking to create a new cosmology. No,
his goal was to simplify, if only on paper, the awkward description of the motion of the planets devised
by Ptolemy. Ptolemy's system, as you may know, required the addition of evermore epicycles to the
motion of the planets in order to "save the appearances".
Copernicus developed the convenient "fiction" of having the Earth and the planets revolve around the
Sun, convenient because it addressed a need. Although it wasn't a perfect solution it reduced the
number of "orbits" considerably. Was it a whim that led Galileo to point his telescope to the heavens
and discover the moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus? We know that he was aware of Copernicus'
"fiction" and that probably caused to him check it out.
Most science starts with simple questions such as how, why or even why not. Even bad questions can
lead to a positive outcome. I am reminded of the birth of modern chemistry. As in the case of much of
science, there were many detours along the way. Very likely man's early attempts at metallurgy led him
to ask what made it all happen. He came up with some very strange answers.
Creating metals from the earth, it was thought, involved a process of birth. In fact there is evidence to
suggest actual embryos were tossed into the fire along with the ore to facilitate the process. The notion
arose that gold being the noblest of all metals, was produced from lesser metals through some form of
death and rebirth deep within the earth. This the alchemists tried to exploit
As many attempts were made to invent just the right combination of spiritual and secular events to
produce the magic results, a number of processes were developed. In time these processes turned out
to be useful as the experience of working with Mercury, Sulphur and other materials was applied to the
issues of analysis in Chemistry.
Boyle, Priestly and Lavoisier
For nearly 2000 years, scholars believed that everything was made up of combinations of just four
elements: air, earth, fire and water. This belief, predated Aristotle and survived until the 17th century. In
Chemistry, one of the first to challenge this notion was Robert Boyle. In his book, The Skeptical Chymist
he defined for the first time the modern idea of an element as a substance which cannot be broken
down into simpler ones. He likely borrowed this concept from René Déscartes which is a bit ironic.
Ironic, because his famous law on gases was the result of his experiments to prove that a vacuum can
exist, something Déscartes himself had roundly rejected. The law which states "that at a constant
temperature the volume of a gas varies inversely with its pressure", was in fact tossed in as an
afterthought to the main thrust of his research.
Anyway let's get back to Boyle's 'The Skeptical Chymist'. We now have a universe which chemically is
composed of many different elements. This was ultimately put into a neat perodic table by Dmitri
Mendeleev in 1869. But I digress. Let us talk instead about beer and a clergyman who lived next to a
brewery.
His name was Joseph Priestley and in 1772 he invented soda water. Beer, unless it's flat, contains a lot of
carbon dioxide. In fact the brewing process tends to produce too much of the stuff. Having access to an
abundance, Priestley hit on the idea of saturating ordinary water with this gas. Being the godly man he
was, he meant to create a cure for scurvy.
His concoction, carbonated water, never actually cured scurvy but it proved to be a delightful drink.
Aside from the fact that the world owes him a debt of gratitude for this little gem, Priestley's
experiments with gases led him to a much more significant discovery. In 1774 the Reverend discovered
oxygen. Trouble is he didn't really believe he had.
Being a staunch believer in the phlogiston theory, he was convinced his new gas was dephlogisticated
air. As soon as something was burned in its presence, the air would have it's phlogiston restored. It
would no longer be "de-phlogisticated" and all would be well. We of course know the real story. The
former was oxygen and the latter carbon dioxide.
In a little twist of history, unknown to the reverend, a German born, Swedish scientist Carl Wilhelm
Scheele is thought to have isolated oxygen two years before Priestley did. Scheele called it combustionsupporting-gas and let it go at that. For the next step in our adventure we turn to a French scientist,
Antoine Lavoisier. It wasn't until the work of Lavoisier that in 1770 the true nature of oxygen and its role
in combustion was understood.
After conducting many experiments he learned that when oxygen was consumed during combustion, it
increased the amount of fixed air, which was none other than carbon dioxide, the stuff Priestley used to
make his soda pop.
This insight was the final piece in the puzzle. It was now known that when things burned in the presence
of oxygen, the oxygen was diminished and the burned substance also lost mass. The lost mass of both
was converted to carbon dioxide and the equation was left intact. Some of these things were known and
the rest discovered through experiment until the theory fit the facts.
Antoine Lavoisier is often called the father of modern chemistry. This is not so much because he
correctly identified oxygen and its role, but more because of his quantitative approach to the subject of
analysis. Rather than argue about what the nature of this or that substance might be, he realized that by
measuring the quantity of things he could draw valid conclusions.
Because of his methods he discovered many of the fundamental concepts still used in chemistry today.
It is most unfortunate that at age 51 he became the victim of the French Revolution and was executed
on the guillotine.
As we trace the events that led to the development of modern science we see that the quest for
knowledge was driven by practical needs. Archimedes was trying to expose a fraud. Ptolemy was trying
to create a chart of the movement of the stars and planets. Copernicus was trying to simplify these
charts. Galileo wanted to confirm his suspicions that Copernicus' charts were probably the way things
really were.
The alchemists were trying to manufacture gold. Boyle's law grew out of his desire to prove that a
vacuum could exist and that the ether did not. Priestley was trying to find a cure for scurvy. Lavoisier
was trying to prove that phlogiston did not exist. Most of these people were engaged in "pure" science.
Were they driven simply by idle curiosity? Doesn't look like it.
Applied science is key to technological advancement but government funding is key
Miller, Chair of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, 12
[Andrew, 7/24/12, The Economist, “Research funding: Should public money finance applied research?,”
http://www.economist.com/debate/days/view/867, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
I have concerns about the funding gap that already exists between pure and applied science. In my view
this would be exacerbated if the public purse suddenly removed support for applied research. Would
the private sector rush to fill the gap? I think not. I worry that artificial labels might generate greater
divisions between pure and applied science and that the gap would steadily grow, resulting in a
disconnect between innovative new science and market pull.
There is a need for business to react to new fundamental research discoveries. There is also a need for
academia to understand where there is an economic imperative to solve a fundamental problem. If an
artificial gap is created between pure and applied science, what would bridge the gap to allow this kind
of efficient co-ordination of research effort? Publicly funded research should recognise and address
problems that contribute to the public good, whether those issues are based in fundamental or in
applied science.
Private funders of research will rarely be persuaded to put the necessary money into the long-term, lowreturn applied research that was crucial to the early development of space technology or future energy
potential such as advanced battery technology. There needs to be clever, consistent and insightful
provision of public funds to ensure that vital technologies are progressed and developed in addition to
those from which private funders can see a quick return.
Science is richer when funding is fluid—that is, when public money occasionally helps to fund research
very close to the market and when private money occasionally is drawn into research that has no
immediate applied use. Science benefits when artificial labels do not get in the way of what a scientist
can and cannot investigate.
Applied Research 1st
Applied research is good and is a pre-condition to basic research – it’s key to test the
legitimacy of basic research – that turns the case
Herrmann et. Al., Ph.D, Indiana State University, 98
[Douglas; Douglas Raybeck, Ph.D. Hamilton College; Michael Gruneberg, Ph.D. University of Wales;
Robert Grant, Ph.D.; Carol Yoder, Ph.D. Indiana State University, “The Importance of Applied Research to
Demonstrating the Utility of Basic Findings and Theories: Commentary on Buschke, Sliwinski, and
Luddy,” Cognitive Technology, Vol: 3, Issue 2, TYBG]
Applied research has been said to be crucial to demonstrating the utility of basic findings and theories. If
applied research fails to demonstrate that basic findings and theories can be applied, such a failure
would suggest that the basic findings and theories are not valid and/or that the application efforts are
invalid. Presently, the basic research community pays little or no attention to applied research failures.
We propose that the credibility that basic research attributes to well designed studies which do not
support a theory should be extended to properly executed applications. Like basic research, applied
research may fail to test basic findings and theories adequately due to weaknesses in the research.
Nevertheless, there are criteria that permit evaluation of the adequacy of applied research. Our point is
that basic researchers have failed to realize that the vast field of applied research provides an
abundance of data that could help accelerate the development and refinement of basic research and
theories. Buschke, Sliwinski, and Luddy (1998) argue that the failure to support a prediction derived
from a basic theory cannot be used to reject the theory and accept the null hypothesis because the null
hypothesis cannot be proved. However, sometimes null findings are credible. For example, a null finding
obtained repeatedly under different conditions by different investigators contrary to theoretically-based
predictions raise serious challenge to any theory. For basic research to refuse to consider null findings
slows the advance of science and makes irresponsible use of public funds for research.
Basic Research Bad
Basic research fails – costs are too high and the process is risky – that kills investment
Remedios, Member of Council, IUPAB, and Director, Institute for Biomedical Research,
The University of Sydney, 6
[Cris dos Remedios, The International Union for Pure and Applied Biophysics, “The Value Of
Fundamental Research,” http://iupab.org/publications/value-of-fundamental-research/, accessed
7/11/14, TYBG]
HIGH COSTS
The actual costs of basic research are high. Salaries comprise the major cost of research projects but by
community standards, scientists’ salaries are not high. Part of the problem is that basic research often
requires a critical mass of scientists and this generates a multiplier effect (see below). Modern research
requires increasingly sophisticated equipment and it is well known that the cost of scientific equipment
(e.g. a glassware drying oven) can be inflated compared to equivalent commercial equipment (e.g. a
food-warming oven).
INHERENT RISK
Fundamental research is inherently a high-risk process and yet there is built into the peer-review system
of scientific evaluation an oddly contradictory philosophy. Research councils which review scientific
projects feel that it is their responsibility to minimise the risk to limited funds. At the same time, many
scientists realise that if occasional failures do not eventuate, then the funding agencies might justifiably
be criticised for having been too cautious. Thus the question becomes, how much risk is acceptable?
Perhaps only one experiment out of seven will succeed but that is not to say the other six experiments
are of no value or that the time was wasted.
Indeed, failed experiments often form the basis of important new research programmes. On the other
hand, this philosophy of inherent risk can be a major impediment to investment by private enterprise,
which normally expects a worthwhile return on investment within a short time-scale. We are not stuck
with the minimal risk model. In the US, the DARPA grants deliberately seek to provide funding for wildly
radical ideas (e.g. they fund a project which uses bees to sniff out land mines). Here researchers must
provide clear milestones which must be met before funding continues.
Pure Science Bad
Pure science is ethically corrupt and distorted – advocating pure research represents a
shirking of scientific responsibility
Douglas, Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo, 14
[Heather, 4/8/14, Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo, “Pure Science and the Problem of
Progress,” http://www.academia.edu/4547054/Pure_Science_and_the_Problem_of_Progress, accessed
7/12/14, TYBG]
John Dewey, who also sought to make philosophy more scientific, disagreed with this characterization of
science. Rather than shielding pure science from responsibility for the problematic impacts of applied
science, Dewey argued instead that the artificial distinction between pure and applied science was in
fact the reason why so many harmful outcomes were being seen. He saw the undesirable "materialism
and dominance of commercialism of modern life" as due not to "undue devotion to physical science,"
but rather to the artificial divisions such as the "separation between pure and applied science." (Dewey
1927.1954, pp. 173-174) The separation brings with it "honor of what is 'pure' and contempt for what is
'applied'," which leads to "a science which is remote and technical, communicable only to specialists,
and a conduct of human affairs which is haphazard, biased, unfair." (ibid., p. 174) Because pure science
is pursued without regard to the import for society, it cannot effectively inform the needed discussions
over public affairs, leading to poor social decisions. Dewey was emphatic that this way to pursue science
is problematic forboth society and science: "Science is converted into knowledge in its honorable and
emphatic sense only in application. Otherwise it is truncated, blind, distorted." (ibid., emphasis his) The
implications for practicing scientists are stark: "The glorification of 'pure' science... is a rationalization of
an escape; it marks a construction of an asylum of refuge, a shirking of responsibility." (ibid., p. 175)
Scientists should not, could not, hide behind claims that they were only doing pure science and so the
impact of science on society was not part of their burden. Indeed, it was this kind of thinking that had
led to there being such harmful impacts of science as were found in World War I.
Pure science fails – it’s too costly, risky, and unpredictable – their evidence is hype
Sarewitz, co-director of the Consortium for Science and Policy and Outcomes, 13
[Daniel, 5/22/13, Nature, “Pure hype of pure research helps no one,”
http://www.nature.com/news/pure-hype-of-pure-research-helps-no-one-1.13031?WT.ec_id=NEWS20130528, accessed 7/12/14, TYBG]
The core argument of the scientific community and its leaders has always been that they are perfectly
capable of ensuring accountability themselves, thank you. After all, the outcomes of basic research are
unpredictable and therefore politicians need only pour in the money and stand aside as the scientists
make the world a better place.
This simplistic and self-serving myth was trotted out yet again in an 8 May letter from former NSF
officials to Smith, which explained that the “history of science and technology has shown that truly basic
research often yields breakthroughs … but that it is impossible to predict which projects (and which
fields) will do that … Over the years, federal funding of basic research, using peer review evaluation, has
led to vast improvements in health care, national security, and economic development.”
Smith seems to believe all of this. Conservative politicians are typically loyal supporters of basic science
because they recognize that it is one domain that does not provide sufficient incentives for private
sector investment, so government must play a part. What Smith is doing is reminding the scientific
community about Congress’s authority to establish broad research spending priorities in the context of
the ongoing budget gridlock, and he is reminding the NSF about its accountability to his committee:
“The draft bill maintains the current peer review process and improves on it by adding a layer of
accountability.”
So the problem here isn’t that Smith doesn’t understand what the scientific community is saying, it’s
that after more than 60 years of hype about unpredictability and the inevitable benefits of pure science,
he and other conservatives seem to understand and believe it all too deeply. Thus it’s no surprise that
when budgets are tight and progress towards achieving many goals — from curing cancer to revitalizing
the nation’s manufacturing base — is a lot slower than promised, a new conservative chairman would
seek to make his mark by trying to make things run better. The grave danger here is not that he is going
to interfere with peer review but that he will discover that the real world of science — in which progress
is often halting and incremental, a lot of research isn’t particularly innovative or valuable, and
institutional arrangements are often more important than peer review or serendipity for determining
the social value of science — doesn’t match very well to the world on which he has been sold.
As of now, Smith’s bill has not been formally introduced for congressional consideration, and perhaps it
is best understood as a shot across the science community’s bow. But with years of budgetary stress
ahead, the science community needs to be much more assertive in articulating a vision for science that
doesn’t depend on continually rising budgets and isn’t defended by resort to some mythical ideal of
pure research. Hype is fine until people start to believe in it.
Pure Focus Bad
Focusing solely on pure science blurs scientific progress and is divorced from reality –
that turns the case
Douglas, Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo, 14
[Heather, 4/8/14, Department of Philosophy, University of Waterloo, “Pure Science and the Problem of
Progress,” http://www.academia.edu/4547054/Pure_Science_and_the_Problem_of_Progress, accessed
7/12/14, TYBG]
Rather than pursue these technical arguments, I want to try a different tack, to try to get at the
underlying sense of progress that seems undeniable for science. This sense, that across the broad sweep
of history, that across deep ontological and conceptual change, science has been getting better at
something, undergirds much public appraisal of science, even as the public might contest particular
scientific claims. I think that this problem of characterizing the progress of science arises for Kuhn, and
indeed for philosophers of science generally, primarily because Kuhn (and the current philosophical
community) is focused on pure science, quite divorced from applied science. It is an interest in theory, in
the theoretical development of science, and theory alone, that generates the puzzle of progress. As
such, it is somewhat an artificial problem. If we relinquish the idea that science is only or primarily about
theory, the problem of progress disappears. If instead we see science as both a theoretical and a
practical activity, progress becomes easier to track and assess.
Science Bad
Bias
Scientific objectivity is a joke even to scientists – societal pressures and theoretical
prejudice contribute to data falsification even among the likes of Newton
Sheldrake, Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge, 1995
(Rupert, Ph.D. in biochemistry from U of Cambridge, Research Fellow of the Royal Society,
[www.rense.com/general93/crit.htm] AD: 6-25-11, jam)
The illusion of objectivity is most powerful when its victims believe themselves to be free of it. Along
with a laudable sense of honor, a tendency to self-righteousness has been present in experimental
science right from the outset. With Galileo, the desire to make his ideas prevail apparently led him to
report experiments that could not have been performed exactly as described. Thus an ambiguous
attitude toward data was present from the very beginning of Western experimental science. On the
one hand, experimental data was upheld as the ultimate arbiter of truth, on the other hand, fact was
subordinated to theory when necessary and even, if it didn't fit, distorted. A similar vice afflicted other
giants in the history of science, not least Sir Isaac Newton. He overwhelmed his critics with an exactness
of results that left no room for dispute. His biographer Richard Westfall has documented how he
adjusted his calculations on the velocity of sound and the precession of the equinoxes, and altered the
correlation of a variable in his theory of gravitation to give a seeming accuracy of better than 1 part in
1,000. Not the least part of the Prindpias persuasiveness was its deliberate pretense to a degree of
precision quite beyond its legitimate claim. If the Prindpia established the quantitative pattern of
modern science, it equally suggested a less sublime truth -- that no one can manipulate the fudge factor
so effectively as the master mathematician himself. Probably the commonest kind of deception -- and
of self-deception -- depends on the selective use of data. For example, from 1910 to 1913, the
American physicist Robert Millikan was engaged in a dispute with an Austrian rival, Felix Ehrenfeld,
about the charge on the electron. Both Millikan's and Ehrenfeld's early data were rather variable. They
depended on introducing oil drops into an electric field and measuring the strength of the field needed
to keep them suspended. Ehrenfeld claimed that the data showed the existence of subelectrons with
fractions of a unit electron charge. Millikan maintained there was a single charge. To rebut his rival, in
1913 he published a paper full of new, precise results supporting his own view, emphasizing in italics
that "this is not a selected group of drops but represents all of the drops experimented upon during sixty
consecutive days." A historian of science has recently examined Millikan's laboratory notebooks,
which reveal a very different picture. The raw data were individually annotated with comments such
as "very low, something wrong" and "beauty, publish this." The 58 observations published in his article
were selected from 140. Ehrenfeld meanwhile went on publishing all his observations, which continued
to show a far greater variability than Millikan's selected data. Ehrenfeld was disregarded while Millikan
won the Nobel Prize. Millikan was no doubt convinced that he was right, and did not want his
theoretical convictions to be disturbed by messy data. Probably the same was true of Gregor Mendel,
the results of whose famous pea-breeding experiments were, according to modern statistical analysis,
too good to be true. The tendency to publish only the "best" results and to tidy up data is certainly not
confined to famous figures in the history of science. In most if not all areas of science, good results are
likely to advance the career of the person who produces them. And in a highly competitive and
hierarchical professional environment, various forms of improving the results are widely practiced, if
only by omitting unfavorable data. This practice is indeed normal. Apart from anything else, journals are
disinclined to publish the results of problematical or negative experiments. Little professional credit
results from unclear data or seemingly meaningless results. I know of no formal study on the percentage
of research data that are actually published. In the fields I know best from personal experience -biochemistry, developmental biology, plant physiology, and agriculture -- I estimate that only about 520 percent of the empirical data are selected for publication. I have asked colleagues in other fields of
inquiry, such as experimental psychology, chemistry, radioastronomy, and medicine, and come up with
similar results. When the great majority of the data are discarded in private processes of selection -often 90 percent or more -- there is obviously plenty of scope for personal bias and theoretical
prejudice to operate both consciously and unconsciously. The selective publication of data creates a
context in which deception and self-deception become a matter of degree. Moreover, scientists usually
regard their research notebooks and data files as private, and tend to resist any attempts by critics and
rivals to go through them. True, it is usually assumed that a researcher will, within reason, make his or
her data available to any colleague who might express a desire to see them. But in my own experience,
this ideal is far from the reality. On the several occasions I have asked researchers if I may see their raw
data, I have been refused. Maybe this says more about me than about prevailing scientific norms. But
one of the very few systematic studies of this cherished principle of openness gives little ground for
confidence. The procedure was simple. The person conducting it, a psychologist at Iowa State
University, wrote to thirty-seven authors of papers published in psychology journals requesting the raw
data on which the papers were based. Five did not reply. Twenty-one claimed that their data had
unfortunately been misplaced or inadvertently destroyed. Two offered access only on very restrictive
conditions. Only nine sent their raw data; and when their studies were analyzed, more than half had
gross errors in the statistics alone.
Objectivity assumes science happens in a vacuum – social, economic, and political bias
inevitably seeps in
Sheldrake, Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of Cambridge, 1995
(Rupert, Ph.D. in biochemistry from U of Cambridge, Research Fellow of the Royal Society,
[www.rense.com/general93/crit.htm] AD: 6-25-11, jam)
Many non-scientists are awed by the power and seeming certainty of scientific knowledge. So are most
students of science. Textbooks are full of apparently hard facts and quantitative data. Science seems
supremely objective. Moreover, a belief in the objectivity of science is a matter of faith for many
modern people. It is fundamental to the worldview of materialists, rationalists, secular humanists, and
all others who uphold the superiority of science over religion, traditional wisdom, and the arts. This
image of science is rarely discussed explicitly by scientists themselves. It tends to be absorbed implicitly
and taken for granted. Few scientists show much interest in the philosophy, history, or sociology of
science, and there is little room for these subjects in the crowded curriculum of science courses. Most
simply assume that by means of "the scientific method," theories can be tested objectively by
experiment in a way that is uncontaminated by the scientists' own hopes, ideas, and beliefs. Scientists
like to think of themselves as engaged in a bold and fearless search for truth. Such a view now excites
much cynicism. But I think it is important to recognize the nobility of this ideal. Insofar as the scientific
endeavor is illuminated by this heroic spirit, there is much to commend it. Nevertheless, in reality most
scientists are now the servants of military and commercial interests. Almost all are pursuing careers
within institutions and professional organizations. The fear of career setbacks, rejection of papers by
learned journals, loss of funding, and the ultimate sanction of dismissal are powerful disincentives to
venture too far from current orthodoxy, at least in public. Many do not feel secure enough to voice
their real opinions until they have retired, or won a Nobel Prize, or both. Popular doubts about the
objectivity of scientists are widely shared, for more sophisticated reasons, by philosophers, historians,
and sociologists of science. Scientists are part of larger social, economic, and political systems; they
constitute professional groups with their own initiation procedures, peer pressures, power structures,
and systems of rewards. They generally work in the context of established paradigms or models of
reality. And even within the limits set by the prevailing scientific belief system, they do not seek after
pure facts for their own sake: they make guesses or hypotheses about the way things are, and then test
them by experiment. Usually these experiments are motivated by a desire to support a favorite
hypothesis, or to refute a rival one. What people do research on, and even what they find, is influenced
by their conscious and unconscious expectations. In addition, feminist critics detect a strong and often
unconscious male bias in the theory and practice of science. Many practicing scientists, like doctors,
psychologists, anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and academics in general, are well aware that
detached objectivity is more an ideal than a reflection of actual practice. In private, most are prepared
to acknowledge that some of their colleagues, if not they themselves, are influenced in their researches
by personal ambition, preconceptions, prejudices, and other sources of bias. The tendency to find what
is being looked for is deep-seated. It has a basis in the very nature of attention. The ability to focus the
senses in accordance with intentions is a fundamental aspect of animal nature. Finding what is looked
for is an essential feature of everyday human life. Most people are well aware that other people's
attitudes affect the way they interact with the world around them. We are not surprised by such biases
in politicians, nor by the differences in the way people see things within different cultures. We are not
surprised to find many everyday examples of self-deception in members of our families and among
friends and colleagues. But the "scientific method" is generally supposed to rise above cultural and
personal biases, dealing only in the currency of objective facts and universal principles. Biases in
science are easiest to recognize when they reflect political prejudices, because people of opposing
political views have a strong motive to dispute the claims of their opponents. For example,
conservatives like to find a biological basis for the superiority of dominant classes and races, explaining
their differences as largely innate. By contrast, liberals and socialists prefer to see environmental
influences as predominant, explaining existing inequalities in terms of social and economic systems. In
the nineteenth century, this "nature-nurture" debate focused on measurements of brain size; in the
twentieth, on measurements of IQ. Eminent scientists who were convinced of the innate superiority of
men over women and of whites over other races, were able to find what they wanted to find. Paul
Broca, for example, the anatomist after whom the speech area of the brain is named, concluded that:
"In general, the brain is larger in mature adults than in the elderly, in men than in women, in eminent
men than in men of mediocre talent, in superior races than in inferior races."3 He had to overcome
many factual obstacles to maintain this belief. For example, five eminent professors at Gottingen gave
their consent to have their brains weighed after they died; when these cerebral weights turned out to
be embarrassingly close to average, Broca concluded that the professors hadn't been so eminent after
all! Critics of a more egalitarian political persuasion have been able to show that generalizations based
on different brain sizes or IQ scores rested on the systematic distortion and selection of data.
Sometimes the data themselves "were actually fraudulent, as in the case of some of the publications of
Sir Cyril Burt, a leading defender of the view that intelligence is largely innate. In his book The
Mismeasure of Man, Stephen Jay Gould traces the sorry history of these purportedly objective studies of
human intelligence, showing how persistently prejudice has been clothed in scientific garb. "If -- as I
believe I have shown -- quantitative data are as subject to cultural constraint as any other aspect of
science, then they have no special claim on final truth."4
Not Objective
Thought and reality are entirely disconnected – no basis for objectivity, the
“knowledge” of science is all defined by the discourse within science – it’s historically
created
Hekman, Professor of Political Science at the University of Texas, 1983
(Susan, Professor of Political Science @ U Texas, The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 36, No. 1, Mar., p.
98-115, JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/447847, JMB, accessed 6-26-11)
Althusser's theory of the production of scientific concepts, like that of his deconstruction of the concept
of "man" is rooted in his understanding of Marx's theoretical approach. His theory can be reduced to
two theses which he derives from Marx's analysis in Capital: first, the radical separation of the realms
of thought and reality, and second, the analogy between the production of scientific concepts and the
production of objects in the material world. The first thesis stems from the position that science has
no object outside its own activity but, rather, produces its own norms and the criterion of its own
existence. Althusser opposes this theory to what be labels the "empiricist" conception of knowledge, a
position roughly equivalent to what was referred to above under the heading of positivism. On
Althusser's definition the empiricist sees knowledge as the extraction of the essence from ihe real,
concrete object. This extraction, which retains the reality of the object sought, is accomplished through
the use of the scientist's "abstract" concepts. In opposition to this conception of knowledge Althusser
proposes a radical separation of the realms of thought and reality that entails a rejection of the
empiricist notion that knowledge is a part of the real world. Marx's analysis in Capital, Allhusser claims
is informed by this position. For Marx the production process of real, material objects takes place
entirely in the real world, while the production of thought objects takes place entirely in the realm of
thought (1970: 41). The goal of Marx's analysis, then, is not to understand the relationship between the
real and the thought, but, rather, to analyze the process of production of thought objects (1970: 54). As
Althusser understands it, then, what is accomplished in the acquisition of scientific knowledge is not,
as in the empiricist account, the appropriation of the real world by the world of thought. This is the
case because "the sphere of the real is separate in all its aspects from the sphere of thought" (1970:
H7).s The goal of Althusser's theory, rather, is to present an analysis of how the scientist produces and
manipulates concepts within the realm of thought. His point of departure is the assertion that, in the
separate worlds of the real and the theoretical, an analogous form of production occurs. Like production
in the material world, the production of scientific concepts begins with raw materials. But these raw
materials are not, as the empiricists claim, "objective" or "given" facts about the real world. They are,
rather, the body of concepts operative in the scientific community at a particular time. This body of
concepts will necessarily differ from one historical period to another and with the developmental
level of a particular science. But they are at any given point a product of the norms and values of
scientific discourse and the particular problematic motivating that discourse." This understanding of the
process of the production of scientific concepts provides Althusser with answers to a number of
questions central to the definition of knowledge in the social sciences. One of these questions is the
definition of what constitutes a scientific concept. Scientific concepts, on Althusser's account, have no
connection with the real world. They are formulated with only one end in view: the production of
knowledge. Another question concerns the means of guaranteeing the scientificity of the knowledge
produced by the scientific community. Althusser's answer to this is very straightforward: the guarantee
of scientificity is given by the operating norms and rules wholly internal to scientific discourse (1970:
67). Two important results follow from this position. First. Althusser clearly rejects the empiricist notion
that the scicntificity of results is guaranteed through reference to the "facts." Since there are no
"facts" in the sense of real world data in Althusser's theory, there can be no "checking" of the facts to
guarantee the accuracy of the results. In short, the whole question of the "objectivity" of scientific facts
is dissolved. The second result is equally significant. Since Althusser claims that the criterion of
scientificity is given by the norms of scientific discourse and that these norms change with the
development of the particular science, it follows that those things that are recognized as
"knowledges" arc historically conditioned. Since the norms of the scientific community are historically
produced, there is no general criterion of 'scientificity, but only the particular criteria developed by
particular sciences! 1970: (>2-7).T Ii can be concluded, then, that despite the differences between the
two theories, Althusser, like Gadamer, rejects the Enlighienment conception of scientific methodology
not by claiming, as the humanists do, that it is inapplicable to the social sciences, but, rather, by
attacking its central epistemological tenets. He rejects the possibility or even desirability of "objective
knowledge" provided by this model not by claiming that the 'mill sciences are inherently subjective but
by denying any connection between the real and theoretical worlds. He also establishes the
unavoidable historicity of knowledge by defining the production of scientific discourse in historical
terms. In sum, he grounds his conception of knowledge entirely within the confines of scientific
discourse and grounds that discourse firmly in history.
AT: Progress
Establishing science as the only way of knowing reverse progress
Watson, Graduate in Philosophy from Macquarie University 2003
(Brett, Graduate Diploma in Philosophy, Macquarie University, Jun 16,
[www.nutters.org/docs/feyerabend] AD: 6-26-11, jam)
Although Feyerabend does not cite any particular source when he mentions the application of
Darwinism to "the battle of ideas", I think the relevance of the issue is fairly obvious. If the competitive
forces of evolution can give us the very brains by which we are able to conduct this discussion, then
competitive forces between opposing views must surely work to the advantage of those views in terms
of weeding out weak arguments, fallacies, anomalies, and so on. Mill's suggestion that we should
manufacture dissent is the intellectual equivalent of a fighter seeking a competent sparring partner. We
typically acknowledge "competition" as an agent of improvement in biology, economics, and sports; why
not, then, in the field of science? A defender of science might object, at this point, that we do have
such competition in the field of science. There are, for example, competing theories with regards to the
mechanism of evolution; and scientific revolutions could not occur at all unless there were at least two
competing theories at the time. These points are true, but the diversity exists despite the prevailing
culture, not because of it. Diversity is not encouraged; the existence of competing theories is viewed
as a problem, since at least one of them must be false. Feyerabend addresses this when he compares
Mill's approach to that of Karl Popper. Finally, Popper's standards eliminate competitors once and for
all: theories that are either not falsifiable or falsifiable and falsified have no place in science. Popper's
criteria are clear, unambiguous, precisely formulated; Mill's criteria are not. This would be an
advantage if science itself were clear, unambiguous, and precisely formulated. Fortunately, it is not. —
Paul Feyerabend, How to Defend Society Against Science
Arguments for scientific progress conflate results with method
Watson, Graduate in Philosophy from Macquarie University 2003
(Brett, Graduate Diploma in Philosophy, Macquarie University, Jun 16,
[www.nutters.org/docs/feyerabend] AD: 6-26-11, jam)
Our first straw-man believes we should ignore Feyerabend because science works. If the progress of
science weren't self-evident enough, then the accompanying march of technology must surely be
proof. When did any religion offer us such technological progress? Surely, therefore, one cannot
construct a meaningful case against science as knowledge; the only kind of argument in which one can
reasonably engage is that of why science does work. This straw-man is largely playing definitional
games; equating "science" with "progress". Under this definition, something is "science" to the extent
that it effects "progress", for values of that term principally relating to technology. But note that this
formulates science in terms of its results rather than its methods, and Feyerabend's main thrust is
against method, not against results. Thus, this argument would appear to be a non sequitur; it fails to
address Feyerabend's actual point. Even if we were to grant the very generous assumption that the
results in question can be best obtained by a particular "scientific method", the selection of results is
value-laden. On what rational grounds could we say that the person who prefers "spiritual progress"
over "technological progress" is wrong?
To this, our straw-man may retort that technological
progress is objectively measurable, whereas anything that might be called "spiritual progress" (whatever
it is) is subjective at best, and purely imaginary at worst. This is, of course, absolutely true, so long as we
accept the metrics used in making the judgment. But the preference for one system of metrics over
another is also a value judgment, and therein lies a strong indicator that science could be something
against which society ought to be defended. No doubt our straw-man considers it bad for religions to
impose their value-judgments on society as a whole; why should it be different for science?
AT: Innovation
Science restricts innovation and is biased towards status quo knowledge
Stevenson 99 (Ian, U of Virginia School of Medicine, Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp.
266-267 JF)
I believe it is more difficult now than formerly to introduce new ideas and concepts and have them
accepted by scientists. I attribute this to the larger number of practicing scientists compared with
former times. This larger number of scientists increases the likelihood that one or more of them will
make important discoveries. Unfortunately, it also has the disadvantage of presenting a larger mass of
scientists resistant to change. “A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and
making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die and a new generation grows
up that is familiar with it” (Planck, l950, pp. 33–34). To this we may add that death is often not a
sufficient facilitator of the acceptance of new ideas. How did science arrive at this condition? It
sometimes seems that little has changed since Francis Bacon, who, surveying the world of learning in his
time, remarked that “the last thing anyone would be likely to entertain is an unfamiliar thought”
(1607/1964, p. 79). Scientists who think for themselves have few defenses against the thoughtcollective. In principle, peer review of research grant applications and articles submitted to scientific
journals should boost their chances of escaping the vigilance of thwarting conservatives. That it does
not do so is not news. In 1793 the Royal Society rejected Jenner’s paper on vaccination (Magner, 1992);
he published it privately five years later (Jenner, 1798). In the next century anonymous reviewers for the
Annalen der Physik refused to publish Helmholtz’s paper on the conservation of energy (Graneau &
Graneau, 1993). Readers who wish experimental evidence of the imperfections of peer review can find
it in Mahoney’s (1977) study of the influence of personal bias on referee’s judgments of the quality
(and hence suitability for publication) of manuscripts submitted to a journal. Horrobin (1990) has gone
so far as to stigmatize peer review as a suppressor of innovation.
State Guts Solvency
The state frames the debate on questions of science which inevitably destroys
objectivity
Borders, Fellow at Phillips Foundation, 9
(Max, Robert Novak, Dec 4, [washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/examiner-opinion-zone/separationscience-and-state] AD: 6-27-11, jam)
In America, religion flourishes. It gets no subsidies from the government except for various tax
exemptions. There is religious diversity and religious dynamism. In Europe, governments have
subsidized Roman Catholicism and Protestantism over the years. In these countries, religion either
languishes or tends to be monolithic. But don’t take my word for it. Read the work of Laurence
Iannaccone, a top expert on the economics of religion. The more the government gets mixed up in
religion, science – or anything for that matter – the more bias, corner-cutting and groupthink is likely
to result. Climate science is starting to look like a really good example of this effect. Indeed, if you are
one that thinks the $23 million Exxon-Mobil has thrown at climate change skepticism has lead to “bias,”
consider the $79 billion since 1989 in government largess that has gone to “consensus” climate
science. Wait. You don’t think government-funded scientists face perverse incentives? Think again.
One of the principle players in the Climategate scandal has, himself, received over $3 million for his
contributions to the IPCC’s body of research. When you consider that climate skepticism has gotten
1/1000th of that from Big Oil, accusations that the oil industry has corrupted the debate start to look a
little silly. “But the government’s charge is only to find the truth!” they’ll cry. “They don’t have a stake
in the outcome.” (Now look in the mirror and say that three times with a straight face.) For politicians,
$79 billion is an investment in the trillions in ROI they can expect from cap-and-trade revenues—not to
mention all the green energy special interests groups that will jockey to fill their campaign coffers. I
know, I know. Many bureaucrats are honest folks. But the idea that government scientists and their
funders are immune to incentives because they get our tax dollars is, well, laughable. Of course, none
of this is to argue that scientific truth doesn’t stand on its own. Arguments should be judged on their
merits and on accurate observable data, not whether they were funded by oil money or Barack Obama’s
federal credit card. So here’s a radical idea: how about the separation of Science and State modeled
after the 1st Amendment? I can hear the outcries: “Heavens! What will be the fate of science if
government funding dries up? It will disappear! We won’t get pure research!” Again, there are plenty of
analogs in American religion. But more importantly, no one ever stops to ask what kinds of science
never emerges because central bureaucrats decide to pick and choose what’s important and what’s
not--using our scarce resources to pick those winners and losers. With a decentralized system of
science funded via private patronage and university-based philanthropy, we may not get capital-T Truth
to rise up and glow above the people like a beacon. But we will get more diversity and less
politicization. Then we’ll be more likely to get a natural coalescence of the scientific community around
a view – one subject to the forces of refutation, rather than politics and activism.
History proves that, when the government uses scientific findings or initiate studies,
autonomy is lost and the science becomes useless – Lysenko incident
Reznik 8 (David, Episteme, vol 5, p. 220-238, lido)
There is historical evidence that government interference in scientific decisionmaking can stunt or
retard the growth of science (Sheehan 1993). The example I will discuss in this article is the negative
effect of government control of science in the former Soviet Union, where biology suffered the effects
of Marxist ideology from the 1930s to the 1960s. Following the Russian revolution of 1917, David B.
Resnik the All Union Communist Party (a.k.a. the Bolsheviks) demanded that all social institutions,
included science, conform to Marxist political theory. Members of the Party opposed scientific ideas
they regarded as the product of Bourgeoisie thought, such as free market economics and Mendelian
genetics. They also favored scientific ideas that supported the idea of re-engineering human society
along Marxist lines. In the 1920s, Trofim D. Lysenko (1898–1976) developed a theory of inheritance that
found favor among powerful members of the Party. Lysenko developed a process, known as
vernalization, that involved soaking and chilling seeds from summer crops for winter planning.
Lysenko claimed that vernalization could improve agricultural productivity, when, in fact, it could not.
Scientists and politicians accepted Lysenko’s ideas, even though he had little evidence to support his
ideas, he did not keep good research records, and he manipulated the data by not reporting negative
results (Sheehan 1993). In 1930, the Ukrainian Commissioner of Agriculture created a vernalization
department at a genetics institute in Odessa (Sheehan 1993). Lysenko proposed a theory to explain
vernalization phenomena: one can alter the development of a plant by changing its environment
because plants have different needs at different stages of development. Lysenko and I. I. Prezent, a
member of the Communist Party, proposed a new environmental theory of heredity that stood in sharp
contrast to Mendel’s theory of inheritance. The theory found favor with other members of the
Communist Party, because it implied that human behavior can be changed through environmental
manipulation, making it possible to overcome greed, selfishness, and possessiveness to create a
communist state. Proponents of Mendelian genetics objected to the environmental theory as
unscientific and unsound, but their criticisms could not overcome the theory’s political appeal
(Sheehan 1993). Lysenko soon won the support of Joseph Stalin (1878–1953), the General Secretary of
the Communist Party. In 1938, Lysenko was appointed President of the Lenin Academy for Agricultural
Sciences, and in 1940 he became Director of the Department of Genetics at the Soviet Academy of
Science (Hossfeld and Olsson 2002). By 1948, Lysenkoism became the official view of the Communist
Party, and the Soviet government began to repress Mendelian genetics. Soviet scientists who attacked
Lysenkoism or endorsed Mendelianism were denounced, declared mentally ill, imprisoned, exiled, or
even murdered. Soviet scientists were not allowed to teach Mendelian ideas or conduct research in
Mendelian genetics until the 1960s, when the period of official repression ended (Joravsky 1986). The
suppression of ideas that contradicted Marxist ideology had a devastating effect on Soviet genetics, but
many other disciplines also suffered, including zoology, botany, evolutionary biology, agronomy, and
economics (Sheehan 1993). Before the 1940s, some of the world’s leading geneticists, such as
Theodosius Dobzhansky (1900–75), lived in the Soviet Union, but by the 1960s, genetics and many
other scientific disciplines in the Soviet Union were decades behind Western science (Joravsky 1986).
Lysenkoism is an extreme example of what can happen when the government restricts the autonomy
of individuals, groups, and organizations; yet it still offers us some important lessons that apply to
situations where science is not as politicized. The Soviet Union’s repression of views that contradicted
Lysenkoism undermined the progress of science in several different ways. First, the Soviet government’s
actions interfered with objectivity of science. Theories of inheritance were accepted or rejected based
on political reasons, not epistemological ones. Scientists were forced to ignore the evidence against
Lysenkoism and the evidence in favor of Mendelianism. Second, the actions of the government
interfered with communication among scientists and the sharing of ideas. Honest, open communication
is vital to scientific inquiry, criticism, and debate (Burke 1995); yet the Soviet government stifled the
exchange of information concerning some topics. Scientists were rightfully afraid to criticize Lysenkoism
in public or to discuss or teach Mendelian theory. Third, the repression of Mendelian genetics nearly
extinguished creativity in many areas of science. Creativity flourishes only when scientists are free to
explore new ideas, theories, and methods and to challenge existing ones (Kantorovich 1993). The Soviet
government violated the freedom of many citizens, and scientists were no exception. The government
dictated the areas of science and the scientific ideas that would and would not be studied. It
established a rigid research program geared toward promoting Marxist ideology. The government
interfered with the freedom of scientists, scientific groups, and scientific institutions. Fourth, the
Soviet government’s restrictions had a widespread impact. Many different research disciplines were
directly or indirectly affected by the government’s repressive policies. The plague of Lysenkoism spread
throughout the research community and affected many different scientists, scientific groups, and
scientific institutions. Even people working in fields of research far removed from human genetics were
apprehensive about potential intimidation, harassment, or repression (Joravsky 1986). The moral of
Lysenkoism is that governments should be very wary of interfering with scientific decisions. Scientists
(and scientific groups and organizations) should be granted autonomy within their domains of practice
and expertise. The progress of science depends on its independence from government control and
authority.
Info Sharing DA
The US is winning the space race now, but Russia and China are main competitorsinformation sharing like the aff makes them competitive with the US and causes
conflict
Gruss, Military Analyst, 2-28-14
(Mike, February 28th, “U.S. Space Assets Face Growing Threat From Adversaries, Stratcom Chief Warns”,
http://www.spacenews.com/article/military-space/39669us-space-assets-face-growing-threat-fromadversaries-stratcom-chief, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
“The U.S. still retains a strategic advantage in space as other nations are investing significant resources
— including developing counterspace capabilities — to counter that advantage,” Haney testified. “These
threats will continue to grow in the next decade.” Haney, who as Stratcom’s commander is responsible
for space surveillance and protecting U.S. space systems from hostile actions, did not identify these
nations by name. Nor did the commander of Air Force Space Command, Gen. William Shelton, when he
warned in a Feb. 7 speech at the Air Force Association here that the threat to U.S. space assets is moving
at a quick pace. “I’ll tell you the considered wisdom of the intelligence community has produced some
really good seminal work on the space threats that are out there,” Shelton said. “And what we are
finding is they were maybe a little too conservative. Things are moving much faster than we certainly
would like and certainly they had predicted.” Shelton’s comments came a little more than a week after
U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told the Senate Intelligence Committee that the
United States will face increased threats to its national security space assets in 2014, specifically
mentioning China and Russia. “Threats to U.S. space services will increase during 2014 and beyond as
potential adversaries pursue disruptive and destructive counterspace capabilities,” Clapper said in
written testimony. “Chinese and Russian military leaders understand the unique information advantages
afforded by space systems and are developing capabilities to disrupt U.S. use of space in conflict.”
Shelton has also identified China by name, telling SpaceNews in a Jan. 27 interview that defense leaders
saw a mismatch between Chinese space activities and rhetoric. “If you listen to their rhetoric it is
peaceful purposes, regional power, not global hegemony, but the kind of capability we see them
demonstrating don’t match that same rhetoric,” he said. At the start of the Senate Armed Services
Committee’s wide-ranging Feb. 27 hearing on U.S. Strategic Command and U.S. Cyber Command
matters, Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-Mich.) asked Haney to address “steps that may be needed
to ensure that we can protect or reconstitute our space assets in any future conflict.” Haney did not
provide many specifics but he did testify that disaggregation — the concept of distributing space
capabilities among a greater number of platforms to better protect them against attack and other
hazards — needs more analysis before it is accepted as a cost-cutting measure. “We are exploring
options such as disaggregation as a method to achieve affordable resilience but additional analysis is
necessary in this area,” he said, according to his written testimony. Air Force Space Command, which is
expected to complete a series of studies on disaggregation later this year, has embraced the space
architecture concept as a way to improve resiliency while cutting costs. In April, Shelton and officials
from the U.S. Government Accountability Office said preliminary study results suggest disaggregation
would in fact save the Air Force money. Haney also testified Feb. 27 that while space situational
awareness (SSA) is one of the nation’s top priorities, there are concerns about sharing more data
internationally because it may help competitors. “Sharing SSA information with other nations and
commercial firms promotes safe and responsible space operations, reduces the potential for debrismaking collisions, builds international confidence in U.S. space systems, fosters U.S. space leadership,
and improves our own SSA through knowledge of other owner/operator satellite positional data,”
Haney said in his written testimony. “For all its advantages, there is concern that SSA data sharing
might aid potential adversaries.”
Data sharing crashes the economy, creates Sino-US military competition, and Chinese,
Russian, and Iran nanotech development
Clayton, Staff Writer and international analyst for CS Montior, 2011
(Mark, November 3rd, “US names names – China and Russia – in detailing cyberespionage”,
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Foreign-Policy/2011/1103/US-names-names-China-and-Russia-indetailing-cyberespionage, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)
"The evidence has simply become overwhelming," says Joel Brenner, head of US counterintelligence in
the Office of the Director of National Intelligence from 2006 to 2009. "It was the gorilla in the room that
could no longer be ignored. Not to have named these countries would have yielded a report that would
have been irrelevant." The report also identified allies like France. But China, in particular, was fingered
for massive ongoing cyberespionage against American companies in an alleged effort to gather the
technological insights needed to make its economy more competitive. An official spokesman for China
vehemently denied any sponsorship of such attacks. But naming China was probably inevitable,
intelligence experts say: A number of countries, including Britain, Germany, and South Korea, have
already been placing blame. "One of the biggest challenges America faces is how to deal with countries
like China that have been so blatant in their theft of economically important information," says Scott
Borg, director of the US Cyber Consequences Unit, a nonprofit think tank. The report, Mr. Borg adds,
appears to be moving the issue of cyberespionage into a more formal realm where diplomats will
negotiate the issue. "This is a serious threat to our economy, yet it's so new that government officials
don't know what would be an appropriate response,” he says. “This report looks like another step
toward putting this on the diplomatic agenda." The Office of the National Counterintelligence Executive
was formed in 2001. Its purpose is better evaluation of counterintelligence threats from foreign nations
and nonstate actors, as well as integration of all counterintelligence activities. Whereas in the past,
individual spies might have painstakingly collected and transferred physical copies of secret corporate
documents, the ease and anonymity of downloading files from the Internet or copying thousands of
documents at a time onto a portable thumb drive have made cyberespionage a crucial threat to the
nation, the report says. Project 863, for instance, is a clandestine initiative launched by China in 1986,
the report says, "to enhance China's economic competitiveness and narrow the science and technology
gap between China and the West in areas like nanotechnology, computers and biotechnology."
Cyberespionage is now a big part of Project 863, it says. Against that backdrop, the report says,
American companies and specifically cybersecurity companies have "reported an onslaught of computer
network intrusions" originating from Internet Protocol (IP) addresses in China. Private security firms in
the US have dubbed the trend the "advanced persistent threat." Examples cited by the report include: •
A February 2011 report by the cybersecurity firm McAfee found that Chinese hackers had broken into
the computer networks of global oil, energy, and petrochemical companies. Their alleged goal: steal
data on sensitive proprietary operations and the financing of bids and operations for oil and gas fields.
(The McAfee report substantially corroborated a January 2010 Monitor report that found Chinese links
to cyberespionage attacks on three global oil giants – Marathon Oil, ExxonMobil, and ConocoPhillips.) •
The Chinese government sponsored hackers' intrusions into Google’s networks, VeriSign iDefense
reported in January 2010. Google later claimed that its source code had been stolen, a claim China
denies. • Last year, computer security firm Mandiant reported secret business information stolen from
the corporate network of a Fortune 500 company while that company was in negotiations to buy a
Chinese company. The stolen data may have helped the Chinese company in its negotiations. In his new
book "American the Vulnerable," Mr. Brenner amplifies what is contained in the report. What became
known as Operation Aurora, he writes, was a "coordinated attack on the intellectual property of several
thousand companies in the United States and Europe – including Morgan Stanley, Yahoo, Symantec,
Adobe, Northrop Grumman, Dow Chemical and many others. Intellectual property is the stuff that
makes Google and other firms tick." A spokesman for the Chinese Embassy in Washington rebuts the
report. "China's rapid development and prosperity are attributed to its sound national development
strategy and the Chinese people's hard work as well as China's ever enhanced economic and trade
cooperation with other countries that benefits all," writes Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese
Embassy, in an e-mail. "Willfully making unwarranted accusations against China is irresponsible, and we
are against such demonization efforts as firmly as our opposition to any forms of unlawful cyberspace
activities." Looking ahead a few years, the study cites a technological shift toward a "proliferation of
portable devices that connect to the Internet and other networks, [which] will continue to create new
opportunities for malicious actors to conduct espionage." Such devices are expected to double from
12.5 billion in 2010 to 25 billion by 2015. Another trend that could make the nation more vulnerable is
the massive swing toward "cloud computing," which pools information processing and storage. While
cheaper than hosting computer services in-house, data sharing will provide new means for cyberspies
to do their work, the report warns. According to the report, key targets of cyberspies going forward will
include information and communications technology and military technologies, especially those
pertaining to naval propulsion and aerospace. But the focus will also include civilian and dual-use
technologies, including clean-energy technologies such as solar, wind, and other "energy-generating
technologies" – expected to be the fastest-growing investment sector in many nations. China's 863
program, the report says, is trying to acquire advanced materials and manufacturing techniques, in
particular to boost its industrial competitiveness in aviation and high-speed rail. Meanwhile, Russia and
Iran are focusing on advanced materials like nanotechnology.
DA Links
Politics – Science
Republicans strongly oppose science funding
McKelwee, writer and researcher of public policy, 13
(Sean, November 13th, “GOP is an anti-science party of nuts (sorry, Atlantic!)”,
http://www.salon.com/2013/11/13/gop_is_an_anti_science_party_of_nuts_sorry_atlantic/, accessed
7/11/14, LLM)
What is the false dichotomy between those who support science and those who oppose it? Scientists
should actively war with any administration or politicians who opposes science. The Bush
administration, for instance, happily filled up federal bureaucracies with partisans, and 60 scientists
(including 20 Nobel laureates) wrote a letter criticizing him for “distorting and suppressing findings that
contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with
ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether.” In contrast, the Obama
administration has poured money into mapping the brain and political capital into fighting climate
change (perhaps one reason 68 Nobel Prize-winning scientists signed a letter endorsing Obama).
There is a real dichotomy between those who support science and those who don’t — and those who
don’t are generally on the Republican side. One hundred and thirty-one members of the Republican
caucus deny the science behind climate change. A disturbing 17 of those Republican members are on
the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. As to the Huxley quote, scientists need to treat
themselves like any other lobby, and support candidates and policies that promote their profession and
research. That means supporting Democrats, as most of them do (only 6 percent of scientists identify as
Republicans). The false equivalence that blames both parties for the cuts to science funding, the lack of
research and our inadequate response to global warming will only make it harder to shame the party
responsible for its intransigence. The idea that Republicans are anti-science isn’t a caricature. It’s a sad
fact.
Science funding is extremely partisan
Bailey, Science Correspondent for Reason Magazine, 11
(Ronald, October 4th, “Are Republicans or Democrats More Anti-Science?”, accessed 7/11/14, LLM)
A fight has broken out in the blogosphere over whether Team Blue or Team Red is more “anti-science.”
Microbiologist Alex Berezow, editor of RealClearScience, struck the first blow in the pages of USA Today.
"For every anti-science Republican that exists," he wrote, "there is at least one anti-science Democrat.
Neither party has a monopoly on scientific illiteracy."
The battle of the blogs was joined when Chris Mooney, author of The Republican War on Science,
denounced Berezow’s column as “classic false equivalence on political abuse of science,” over at the
Climate Progress blog at the Center for American Progress. He accused Berezow of trying “to show that
liberals do the same thing” by “finding a few relatively fringe things that some progressives cling to that
might be labeled anti-scientific.”
Berezow acknowledged that a lot prominent Republican politicians including—would-be presidential
candidates—deny biological evolution, are skeptical of the scientific consensus on man-made global
warming, and oppose research using human embryonic stem cells. As evidence for Democratic antiscience intransigence, Berezow argued that progressives tend to be more anti-vaccine, antibiotechnology when it comes to food, anti-biomedical research involving tests on animals, and antinuclear power.
In support of his claims, Berezow cited some polling data from a 2009 survey done by the Pew Research
Center for the People and the Press. In fact that survey identified a number of partisan divides on
scientific questions. On biological evolution, the survey reported that 97 percent of scientists agree that
living things, including human beings, evolved over time and that 87 percent of them think that this was
an entirely natural process not guided by a supreme being. Some 36 percent of Democrats believe that
humans naturally evolved; 22 percent believe that evolution was guided by a supreme being; and 30
percent don’t believe humans have evolved over time. The corresponding figures for Republicans are 23
percent, 26 percent, and 39 percent, respectively.
On climate change, the Pew survey reported that 84 percent of scientists believe that the recent
warming is the result of human activity. Among Democrats, 64 percent responded that the Earth is
getting warming mostly due to human activity, whereas only 30 percent of Republicans thought so. That
is truly a deep divide on this scientific issue.
The Pew survey next asked about federal funding of human embryonic stem cell research. Democrats
favored such funding by 71 percent compared to only 38 percent among Republicans. The Republican
response is likely tied to two issues here: (1) the belief that embryos have the same moral status as
adult people; and (2) less general support for spending taxpayer dollars on research. With regard to the
latter, the Pew survey reports that 48 percent of conservative Republicans believe that private
investment in research is enough, whereas 44 percent believe government “investment” in research is
essential. As Mooney might say, the partisan differences over stem cell research might be considered a
“science-related policy disagreement” that should not be “confused with cases of science rejection.”
Science funding and research sparks partisan battles
Fidalgo, communications director for the Center for Inquiry, 13
(Paul, November 14th, “Are Republicans Unfairly Pegged as Anti-Science? (Mostly No)”,
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/friendlyatheist/2013/11/14/are-republicans-unfairly-pegged-as-antiscience-mostly-no/, accessed 7/11/14, LLM)
In a piece in The Atlantic, Fisher argues that Democrats are, more or less, just as prone to anti-scientific
thinking as Republicans, but on different subjects, and that Republicans aren’t nearly as backward on
science acceptance as their more extreme clown-characters like Paul Broun and Michele Bachmann
would make them seem to be.
At the outset, let me just say I agree with where Fisher is going with his argument, but its presentation is
flawed.
First, the problems. He attempts to make a wash of Republicans’ and Democrats’ beliefs on creationism,
Yes, an embarrassing half of Republicans believe the earth is only 10,000 years old — but so do more
than a third of Democrats. And a slightly higher percentage of Democrats believe God was the guiding
factor in evolution than Republicans.
That’s fine, but the number of Republicans who believe this, not mentioned by Fisher, is 52% — a
majority. That’s a lot more than one-third. And even if the numbers were closer to each other, the fact
remains that the elected representatives that Republican voters put in power are far more likely to resist
science than the folks the Democrats put in power, even if many of those Democrats think the Bible is a
biology textbook.
But maybe this is also an unfair presupposition on my part? Okay, I’m willing to be wrong here. But look
at his own proof of pro-science Republicanism. It’s anecdote.
Of the many Republican members of Congress I know personally, the vast majority do not reject the
underlying science of global warming.
Now remember, Fisher was a science policy staffer for the House GOP, so of course he’s going to be
exposed to a proportionally higher number of science-accepting Republicans, probably a higher
percentage than actually exist among Republicans generally. So maybe he rubs elbows with realitybased GOPers, but the Republicans that are getting elected to positions of power are folks like Bobby
Jindal, Rick Perry, and George W. Bush; just a sampling of chief executives who reject basic premises of
science, or advocate policies that directly combat science in the name of theology. Don’t even get me
started on the House Science Committee.
I’m also unconvinced by Fisher’s take on which party is better at funding scientific research, but rather
than get into it here, I’ll just say that it seems to me that when Democrats are lackluster on this point, it
has more to do with politics in the sense of “art of the possible,” seeking to fund that which has a
chance of being funded, or directing it at things that have a known (or anticipated) payoff, such as clean
energy.
Politics – NOAA
NOAA funding is highly partisan and sparks heated debates
Jensen, Political and Science Analyst for the Clarion Peninsula, 12
(Andrew, April 27th, “Congress takes another Ax to NOAA budget”,
http://peninsulaclarion.com/news/2012-04-27/congress-takes-another-ax-to-noaa-budget, accessed
7/13/14, LLM)
In a Congress defined by fierce partisanship, no federal agency has drawn as much fire from both
parties as NOAA and its Administrator Jane Lubchenco.
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass., has repeatedly demanded accountability for NOAA Office of Law
Enforcement abuses uncovered by the Commerce Department Inspector General that included the use
of fishermen's fines to purchase a luxury boat that was only used for joyriding around Puget Sound.
There is currently another Inspector General investigation under way into the regional fishery
management council rulemaking process that was requested last August by Massachusetts Reps. John
Tierney and Barney Frank, both Democrats.
In July 2010, both Frank and Tierney called for Lubchenco to step down, a remarkable statement for
members of Obama's party to make about one of his top appointments.
Frank introduced companion legislation to Kerry's in the House earlier this year, where it should sail
through in a body that has repeatedly stripped out tens of millions in budget requests for catch share
programs. Catch share programs are Lubchenco's favored policy for fisheries management and have
been widely panned after implementation in New England in 2010 resulted in massive consolidation of
the groundfish catch onto the largest fishing vessels.
Another New England crisis this year with Gulf of Maine cod also drove Kerry's action after a two-year
old stock assessment was revised sharply downward and threatened to close down the fishery. Unlike
many fisheries in Alaska such as pollock, crab and halibut, there are not annual stock assessment surveys
around the country.
Without a new stock assessment for Gulf of Maine cod, the 2013 season will be in jeopardy.
"I applaud Senator Kerry for his leadership on this issue and for making sure that this funding is used for
its intended purpose - to help the fishing industry, not to cover NOAA's administrative overhead," Frank
said in a statement. "We are at a critical juncture at which we absolutely must provide more funding for
cooperative fisheries science so we can base management policies on sound data, and we should make
good use of the world-class institutions in the Bay State which have special expertise in this area."
Alaska's Sen. Mark Begich and Murkowski, as well as Rep. Don Young have also denounced the National
Ocean Policy as particularly misguided, not only for diverting core funding in a time of tightening
budgets but for creating a massive new bureaucracy that threatens to overlap existing authorities for
the regional fishery management councils and local governments.
The first 92 pages of the draft policy released Jan. 12 call for more than 50 actions, nine priorities, a new
National Ocean Council, nine Regional Planning Bodies tasked with creating Coastal Marine Spatial
Plans, several interagency committees and taskforces, pilot projects, training in ecosystem-based
management for federal employees, new water quality standards and the incorporation of the policy
into regulatory and permitting decisions.
Some of the action items call for the involvement of as many as 27 federal agencies. Another requires
high-quality marine waters to be identified and new or modified water quality and monitoring protocols
to be established.
Young hosted a field hearing of the House Natural Resources Committee in Anchorage April 3 where he
blasted the administration for refusing to explain exactly how it is paying for implementing the National
Ocean Policy.
"This National Ocean Policy is a bad idea," Young said. "It will create more uncertainty for businesses
and will limit job growth. It will also compound the potential for litigation by groups that oppose human
activities. To make matters worse, the administration refuses to tell Congress how much money it will
be diverting from other uses to fund this new policy."
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Doc Hastings, R-Wash., sent a letter House Appropriations
Committee Chairman Hal Rogers asking that every appropriations bill expressly prohibit any funds to be
used for implementing the National Ocean Policy.
Another letter was sent April 12 to Rogers by more than 80 stakeholder groups from the Gulf of Mexico
to the Bering Sea echoing the call to ban all federal funds for use in the policy implementation.
"The risk of unintended economic and societal consequences remains high, due in part to the
unprecedented geographic scale under which the policy is to be established," the stakeholder letter
states. "Concerns are further heightened because the policy has already been cited as justification in a
federal decision restricting access to certain areas for commercial activity."
Congress refused to fund some $27 million in budget requests for NOAA in fiscal year 2012 to
implement the National Ocean Policy, but the administration released its draft implementation policy in
January anyway.
Begich told the Journal when the draft implementation plan was released that fund diversion was a
"main concern."
"At a time Congress is reining in spending, I think the administration needs to prioritize funding for
existing services especially those which support jobs such as fishery stock assessments and the like, and
not new and contentious initiatives," he said.
Murkowski called the administration's implementation plan "clear as mud" at an Appropriations
Committee hearing April 19.
"It's expensive; there are no dedicated funds for agencies to follow through with the commitments that
have been identified in the draft implementation plan," she said. "I have been told that the national
ocean policy initiative is going to be absorbed by these existing programs, but yet the agencies haven't
been able to provide me with any indication as to what work is actually going to be set aside as part of
that trade-off, so it is as clear as mud to me where the administration is really intending to take this."
NOAA and ocean policies are a mixed bag of partisan footballs
Kollipara, Political Science Analyst for the American Association for the Advancement
of Science, 14
(Puneet, June 3rd, “U.S. House Wants Limits on Climate, Marine Policy Programs”,
http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2014/06/u-s-house-wants-limits-climate-marine-policy-programs,
accessed 7/13/14, LLM
But lawmakers adopted several amendments that targeted marine research and climate science
programs. The U.S. Senate, which this week begins work on its version of the spending bill, would have
to agree to the amendments in order for them to become law (and in the past has stripped similar
provisions from the legislation). For now, however, these amendments remain in the mix:
Representative Bill Flores (R–TX) successfully added language barring the president from enforcing his
National Ocean Policy, which has been a partisan football in recent years. The amendment, which is
similar to past amendments adopted by the House but later stripped from final measures, was approved
on a voice vote.
In a 226 to 179 vote, the House adopted a proposal from Representative Mark Meadows (R–NC) to bar
the United States from entering international trade agreements to cut climate-warming greenhouse gas
emissions.
An amendment from Representative Scott Perry (R–PA), adopted on a voice vote, would bar spending
money on a number of government climate assessments and reports, including the U.S. Global Change
Research Program’s National Climate Assessment (NCA). The president has used the most recent NCA,
released last month, to bolster his Climate Action Plan to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.
Several other amendments offered by Democrats to bolster funding for ocean acidification and climate
research failed on voice votes.
Advocates for strong action on climate change are hoping the Senate will hold firm against the climaterelated funding restrictions and strip out the “poison pills,” says Michael Halpern of the Union of
Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The White House has also indicated its opposition to
climate research limits.
One ocean advocate, meanwhile, calls the House bill a “mixed bag. … We’re not thrilled but not
devastated,” says Jeff Watters, acting director of government relations at the Ocean Conservancy in
Washington, D.C. “It certainly doesn’t meet our expectation of what needs to happen.”
Overall, the bill would keep top-line funding numbers for the Commerce Department’s National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) roughly equal to current spending. But it would cut NOAA’s
climate-related research funding by $37.5 million, or 24%, from 2014. It also rejects a NOAA request to
spend $15 million on a package of three space-based instruments including the Total Solar Irradiance
Sensor, and a $9 million boost, to $15 million, for NOAA’s ocean acidification research and monitoring
programs.
K Links
Cap
Liberal democracies use science to prop up capital and science itself is then held
hostage for capital because the system is fueled by it
McCauley, Science Philosopher and Writer for the Oxford University Press, 11
(Robert N., “Why Religion is Natural and Science is Not”, pdf. p. 284, accessed 7/11/14, LLM)
One counterargument to my claims about the vulnerability of science looks to its intimate connections
with technology over the past century. The success of capitalist enterprises has largely depended upon
technological advances, and those advances have regularly emerged from research in the basic sciences,
so capitalism relies on basic science and will not permit its demise. This argument makes sense, so far
as it goes. The argument’s soundness, though, depends upon at least three unstated assumptions: (1)
that liberal, democratic governments will continue to be the principal source of support for scientific
research, (2) that the priorities of liberal, democratic governments will not be held hostage by corporate
interests, and (3) that executives will both recognize their corporations’ long-term interests and rank
those interests among their top priorities. The first and second assumptions describe conditions that
ensure that neither an entrenched political class (for example, the Communist party in China) nor
particular corporations (either individually or in concert) will dominate the character and direction of
that research in any scientific field. The third assumption aims to guard against the possibility that the
people who run corporations do not run them into the ground. Fortunately, current circumstances
satisfy these conditions fairly well in many liberal democracies around the world, but nothing
guarantees any of this. 139 The cultural and political arrangements, the legal measures, and the sheer
effort necessary to sustain such conditions quickly uncover the close connections between modern
science and open, democratic societies in a world where, simultaneously, the ties between science and
technology have become so intimate and the pursuit of science has become so esoteric.
The cornerstone for the capitalist knowledge regime is basic science and technology
that furthers pervasive modes of production that are used to stimulate elitists’ power
Amaral, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Matosinhos, Portugal, Meek,
University of New England, Armidale, Australia, and Larsen, Norwegian Institute for
Studies in Research in Higher Education, Oslo, Norway, 3
(Alberto, V. Lynn, Ingvild M., “THE HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION?”, pdf. pg 203,
accessed 7/12/14, LLM)
In this chapter, we argue that, in the United States, an academic public good knowledge regime is
shifting to an academic capitalist knowledge regime. The public good knowledge regime was
characterised by valuing knowledge as a public good to which the citizemy has claims. Mertonian norms
- such as communalism, universality, the free flow of knowledge and organised scepticism - were
associated with the public good model. The public service regime paid heed to academic freedom, which
honoured professors' rights to follow research where it led, and gave professors the right to dispose of
discoveries as they saw fit (Merton 1942). The cornerstone of the public good knowledge regime was
basic science that led to the discovery of new knowledge within the academic disciplines,
serendipitously leading to public benefits. Mertonian values are often associated with the Vannevar
Bush model, in which basic science that pushes back the frontiers of knowledge was necessarily
performed in universities (Bush 1945). The discoveries of basic science always preceded development.
Development occurred in federal laboratories and sometimes in corporations. It often involved building
and testing costly prototypes. Application followed development and almost always took place in
corporations. The public good model assumed a relatively strong separation between public sector and
private sector.
The academic capitalist knowledge regime values knowledge privatisation and profit taking, in which
institutions, inventor faculty and corporations have claims that come before the public's. Public interest
in science goods are subsumed in the increased growth expected from a strong knowledge economy.
Rather than a single, non-exclusively licensed, widely distributed product (e.g. vitamin D irradiated milk)
serving the public good, the exclusive licensing of many products to private firms contributes to
economic growth which benefits the whole society. Knowledge is construed as a private good, valued
for creating streams of high technology products that generate profit as they flow through global
markets. Professors are obligated to disclose their discoveries to their institutions which have the
authority to determine how knowledge shall be used. The cornerstone of the academic capitalism
model is basic science for use and basic technology, models that make the case that science is
embedded in commercial possibility (Stokes 1997; Branscomb 1997; Branscomb et al. 1997). These
models see little separation between science and commercial activity. Discovery is valued because it
leads to high technology products for a knowledge economy.
We look at state system and institutional intellectual property policies for three states to see if they
indicate a shift from a public good to an academic capitalist knowledge regime. The questions we are
particularly interested in answering are: What values are embedded or explicit in these policies? Have
they changed over time? Have the organisations that frame the values changed? What is the direction of
the change? What do these changes tell us about the relation between market, state and higher
education, and how these are valued?
Science is now used as a market actor that capitalism has taken hostage and is a pillar
of the commercial system at large- only a separation from the state and market soves
Amaral, Center for Higher Education Policy Studies, Matosinhos, Portugal, Meek,
University of New England, Armidale, Australia, and Larsen, Norwegian Institute for
Studies in Research in Higher Education, Oslo, Norway, 3
(Alberto, V. Lynn, Ingvild M., “THE HIGHER EDUCATION MANAGERIAL REVOLUTION?”, pdf. pg 225,
accessed 7/12/14, LLM)
As universities became more involved with the economy, the organisational structure surrounding
research changed. Universities were major actors in the process, responding to the opportunity
structure created by Bayh-Dole and an array of federal legislation supported by a bi-partisan
competitiveness coalition in the US Congress that began in the 1980s, the end of the Cold War, and the
rise of a global economy (Slaughter and Rhoades 1996; Slaughter and Leslie 1997). The NSF, in response
to the competitiveness coalition, began to support university-industry partnerships, initially in
engineering (Feller, Ailes and Roessner 2002). The NSF moved further away from funding basic research
when it took on the job of organising the Internet for privatisation (Slaughter and Rhoades forthcoming).
Periodic and severe fiscal crises in the several states encouraged state legislators to work with university
administrators to pass laws that made disclosure obligatory and public-private partnerships possible
(Eisinger 1988; Isserman 1994; Chew 1992).
As we have seen in our review of university intellectual property policies, these policies began to
reorganise research by dismantling the firewall that had separated the state (universities) from the
economy. The process of patenting and copyrighting enclosed knowledge, commodified it as property to
be licensed to corporations in return for royalties, making universities market actors. The royalty splits
provided powerful economic incentives for institutions and faculty. With anywhere from onethird to
one-half of the royalty stream as their reward for patenting, entrepreneurial faculty became part of a
compensation system that was more like that of CEOs paid 300 times that of their workers than like
faculty on merit or market-based salaries, governed by the norms of their disciplines. Simultaneously,
and ironically, the patent policies also made faculty more like all other workers, in that the institution,
intent on generating revenue streams, over the period considered, came to claim virtually all intellectual
property from all members of the university community, making faculty, staff and students less like
university professionals and more like corporate professionals whose discoveries are considered workfor-hire, the property of the corporation, not the professional. The patent policies also evidence the
creation of organisational capacity to engage the market: the development of technology transfer
offices that handle licensing, the creation of equity procedures and agreements that allow universities to
act as venture capitalists and faculty as state-subsidised entrepreneurs, and conflict of interest policies
to regulate the increasingly porous boundary between state and market. In sum, the patent policies
restructure the organisation of research so it is closer to a commercial system.
Currently, the Mertonian/Bush and academic capitalist knowledge regimes coexist and sometimes
overlap. However, the values of both systems depend in part on the organisational structures which
sustain the cultures of research. The academic status and prestige system is still concerned with
discovery, fundamental (broad) scientific questions, pushing back the frontiers of knowledge, and
recognition as reward. However, we think that system can be sustained only if there continues to be an
organisational infrastructure that supports it: a degree of separation from a (relatively autonomous)
state and a degree of separation from the market. The academic capitalist knowledge system is setting
up an alternative system of rewards, one in which discovery is valued because of its commercial
properties and economic rewards, broad scientific questions are framed so that they are relevant to
commercial possibilities (biotechnology, telecommunications, computer grids), knowledge is regarded
as a commodity rather than a free good, and universities have the organisation capacity (and are
permitted by law) to license and invest and profit from these commodities.
Thus far, the academic capitalist knowledge regime has developed around science and engineering,
which lends itself to patenting, and touches a relatively small number of research university faculty.
However, the passage of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the rapid development of university
copyright policies in the 1990s, suggest that the academic capitalist knowledge regime may touch the
lives of all faculty. Copyright policies cover software, courseware, making what is taught a commercial
property.
Ecofem
The notion of rationality is a masculine mode of thought that has swindled its way
into science and academia where the gender bias against women is exacerbated and
proliferated
Yurkiewicz, Biologist from Yale University, 12
(Ilana, September 23rd, “Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here’s why it matters.”,
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/unofficial-prognosis/2012/09/23/study-shows-gender-bias-inscience-is-real-heres-why-it-matters/, accessed 7/12/12, LLM)
In a real-world setting, typically the most we can do is identify differences in outcome. A man is selected
for hire over a woman; fewer women reach tenure track positions; there’s a gender gap in publications.
Bias may be suspected in some cases, but the difficulty in using outcomes to prove it is that the
differences could be due to many potential factors. We can speculate: perhaps women are less
interested in the field. Perhaps women make lifestyle choices that lead them away from leadership
positions. In a real-world setting, when any number of variables can contribute to an outcome, it’s
essentially impossible to tease them apart and pinpoint what is causative.
The only way to do that would be by a randomized controlled experiment. This means creating a
situation where all variables other than the one of interest are held equal, so that differences in
outcome can indeed be attributed to the one factor that differs. If it’s gender bias we are interested in,
that would mean comparing reactions toward two identical human beings – identical in intelligence,
competence, lifestyle, goals, etc. – with the one difference between them that one is a man and one is a
woman. Not exactly a situation that exists in the real world.
But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS last week by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues,
that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the
research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a
lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the
application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female
name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the
“males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student.
The scientists also offered lower starting salaries to the “female” applicants: $26,507.94 compared to
$30,238.10.
This is really important. This is really important.
Whenever the subject of women in science comes up, there are people fiercely committed to the idea
that sexism does not exist. They will point to everything and anything else to explain differences while
becoming angry and condescending if you even suggest that discrimination could be a factor. But these
people are wrong. This data shows they are wrong. And if you encounter them, you can now use this
study to inform them they’re wrong. You can say that a study found that absolutely all other factors held
equal, females are discriminated against in science. Sexism exists. It’s real. Certainly, you cannot and
should not argue it’s everything. But no longer can you argue it’s nothing.
We are not talking about equality of outcomes here; this result shows bias thwarts equality of
opportunity.
Here are three additional reasons why this study is such a big deal.
1)Both male and female scientists were equally guilty of committing the gender bias. Yes – women can
behave in ways that are sexist, too. Women need to examine their attitudes and actions toward women
just as much as men do. What this suggests is that the biases likely did not arise from overt misogyny
but were rather a manifestation of subtler prejudices internalized from societal stereotypes. As the
authors put it,
“If faculty express gender biases, we are not suggesting that these biases are intentional or stem from a
conscious desire to impede the progress of women in science. Past studies indicate that people’s
behavior is shaped by implicit or unintended biases, stemming from repeated exposure to pervasive
cultural stereotypes that portray women as less competent…”
2)When scientists judged the female applicants more harshly, they did not use sexist reasoning to do so.
Instead, they drew upon ostensibly sound reasons to justify why they would not want to hire her: she is
not competent enough. Sexism is an ugly word, so many of us are only comfortable identifying it when
explicitly misogynistic language or behavior is exhibited. But this shows that you do not need to use antiwomen language or even harbor conscious anti-women beliefs to behave in ways that are effectively
anti-women.
Practically, this fact makes it all the more easy for women to internalize unfair criticisms as valid. If your
work is rejected for an obviously bad reason, such as “it’s because you’re a woman,” you can simply
dismiss the one who rejected you as biased and therefore not worth taking seriously. But if someone
tells you that you are less competent, it’s easy to accept as true. And why shouldn’t you? Who wants to
go through life constantly trying to sort through which critiques from superiors are based on the content
of your work, and which are unduly influenced by the incidental characteristics of who you happen to
be? Unfortunately, too, many women are not attuned to subtle gender biases. Making those calls is
bound to be a complex and imperfect endeavor. But not recognizing it when it’s happening means
accepting: “I am not competent.” It means believing: “I do not deserve this job.”
Science contributes to a pervasive form of neurosexism that draws distinctions
between male and female rationale and cognitive thought, when no such thing exists that very accusation is what replicates gender binaries
McKie, Science and technology analyst for the Observer, 10
(Robin, August 14th, “Male and female ability differences down to socialisation, not genetics”,
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/aug/15/girls-boys-think-same-way, accessed 7/12/14, LLM)
It is the mainstay of countless magazine and newspaper features. Differences between male and female
abilities – from map reading to multi-tasking and from parking to expressing emotion – can be traced to
variations in the hard-wiring of their brains at birth, it is claimed.
Men instinctively like the colour blue and are bad at coping with pain, we are told, while women cannot
tell jokes but are innately superior at empathising with other people. Key evolutionary differences
separate the intellects of men and women and it is all down to our ancient hunter-gatherer genes that
program our brains.
The belief has become widespread, particularly in the wake of the publication of international
bestsellers such as John Gray's Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus that stress the innate
differences between the minds of men and women. But now a growing number of scientists are
challenging the pseudo-science of "neurosexism", as they call it, and are raising concerns about its
implications. These researchers argue that by telling parents that boys have poor chances of acquiring
good verbal skills and girls have little prospect of developing mathematical prowess, serious and
unjustified obstacles are being placed in the paths of children's education.
In fact, there are no major neurological differences between the sexes, says Cordelia Fine in her book
Delusions of Gender, which will be published by Icon next month. There may be slight variations in the
brains of women and men, added Fine, a researcher at Melbourne University, but the wiring is soft, not
hard. "It is flexible, malleable and changeable," she said.
In short, our intellects are not prisoners of our genders or our genes and those who claim otherwise
are merely coating old-fashioned stereotypes with a veneer of scientific credibility. It is a case backed
by Lise Eliot, an associate professor based at the Chicago Medical School. "All the mounting evidence
indicates these ideas about hard-wired differences between male and female brains are wrong," she
told the Observer.
"Yes, there are basic behavioural differences between the sexes, but we should note that these
differences increase with age because our children's intellectual biases are being exaggerated and
intensified by our gendered culture. Children don't inherit intellectual differences. They learn them.
They are a result of what we expect a boy or a girl to be."
Thus boys develop improved spatial skills not because of an innate superiority but because they are
expected and are encouraged to be strong at sport, which requires expertise at catching and throwing.
Similarly, it is anticipated that girls will be more emotional and talkative, and so their verbal skills are
emphasised by teachers and parents.
The latter example, on the issue of verbal skills, is particularly revealing, neuroscientists argue. Girls do
begin to speak earlier than boys, by about a month on average, a fact that is seized upon by supporters
of the Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus school of intellectual differences.
However, this gap is really a tiny difference compared to the vast range of linguistic abilities that
differentiate people, Robert Plomin, a professor at the Institute of Psychiatry in London, pointed out. His
studies have found that a mere 3% of the variation in young children's verbal development is due to
their gender.
"If you map the distribution of scores for verbal skills of boys and of girls you get two graphs that overlap
so much you would need a very fine pencil indeed to show the difference between them. Yet people
ignore this huge similarity between boys and girls and instead exaggerate wildly the tiny difference
between them. It drives me wild," Plomin told the Observer.
This point is backed by Eliot. "Yes, boys and girls, men and women, are different," she states in a recent
paper in New Scientist. "But most of those differences are far smaller than the Men Are from Mars,
Women Are from Venus stereotypes suggest.
"Nor are the reasoning, speaking, computing, emphasising, navigating and other cognitive differences
fixed in the genetic architecture of our brains.
"All such skills are learned and neuro-plasticity – the modifications of neurons and their connections in
response experience – trumps hard-wiring every time."
Science’s reliance on the idea of rationality is systemically gendered and oppressive- it
conflate nature and femaleness together to justify the “right kind of male domination
over her”
Lloyd, Philosopher and Feminist at Somerville College, Oxford, 87
(GENEVIEVE, “The Man of Reason”, p. 11, accessed 7/12/14, LLM)
In this new picture, the material world is seen as devoid of mind, although, as a product of a rational
creator, it is orderly and intelligible. It conforms to laws that can be understood; but it does not, as the
Greeks thought, contain mind within it.
Nature is construed not by analogy with an organism, containing its intelligible principles of motion
within it, but rather by analogy with a machine: as object of scientific knowledge, it is understood not in
terms of intelligible principles enforming matter, but as mechanism. Bacon thus repudiated the model of
knowledge as a correspondence between rational mind and intelligible forms, with its assumption that
pure intellect could not distort reality. There are, he thinks, errors which 'cleave to the nature of the
understanding'.
'For however men may amuse themselves, and admire, or almost adore the mind, it is certain, that like
an irregular glass, it alters the rays of things, by its figure, and different intersections.'14
The sceptics, rather than mistrusting the senses, should have mistrusted the 'errors and obstinacy of the
mind', which refuses to obey the nature of things.15
The mind itself should be seen as 'a magical glass, full of superstitions and apparitions'. The perceptions
of the mind, no less than those of the senses, 'bear reference to man and not to the universe'.16 Nature
cannot be expected to conform to the ideas the mind finds within itself when it engages in pure
intellectual contemplation. Knowledge must be painstakingly pursued by attending to Nature; and this
attending cannot be construed in terms of contemplation.
Bacon, notoriously, used sexual metaphors to express his idea of scientific knowledge as control of a
Nature in which form and matter are no longer separated. In Greek thought, femaleness was
symbolically associated with the non-rational, the disorderly, the unknowable — with what must be
set aside in the cultivation of knowledge. Bacon united matter and form - Nature as female and Nature
as knowable. Knowable Nature is presented as female, and the task of science is the exercise of the
right kind of male domination over her. 'Let us establish a chaste and lawful marriage between Mind
and Nature,' he writes.17
The right kind of nuptual dominance, he insists, is not a tyranny. Nature is 'only to be commanded by
obeying her'.18 But it does demand a degree of force: 'nature betrays her secrets more fully when in the
grip and under the pressure of art than when in enjoyment of her natural liberty.'19
The expected outcome of the new science is also expressed in sexual metaphors. Having established the
right nuptual relationship, properly expressed in a 'just and legitimate familiarity betwixt the mind and
things',20 the new science can expect a fruitful issue from this furnishing of a 'nuptual couch for the
mind and the universe'. From the union can be expected to spring 'assistance to man' and a 'race of
discoveries, which will contribute to his wants and vanquish his miseries'.21
The most striking of these sexual metaphors are in an early, strangely strident work entitled The
Masculine Birth of Time. I am come in very truth', says the narrator in that work, 'leading to you Nature
with all her children to bind her to your service and make her your slave.'22
In science, the more masculine, the more true – every decision as to what constitutes
truth is based off of who has the most power
Cambell, Professor of Science, 2009
(Nancy, prof of science, Fronteirs: A journal of womens studies, vol 30, 2009, p. 1-29, Muse, da: 6-242011, lido)
Striking resonances and parallels between post-positivist, feminist, and reconstructivist agendas include
the following. “Facts” are constructed and are thus not determinative of the forms that social
interactions and negotiations take. Negotiating the conceptual practices of power or ruling relations
inevitably involves conflicting and partial perspectives. Coping with disagreement is a necessary part
of social and political life (including those parts of it that shape decisions about what kinds of
technoscientific innovation to pursue). Science is not about closure but about interpretive flexibility in
the face of the ongoing production of uncertainty. Thus coping with uncertainty will inevitably
challenge those for whom science raises more questions than it answers. Reconstructivists argue that
“reconstructivism starts from the premise that ‘better’ design of sociotechnical life ought to be built
directly into scholarly inquiry. Notions of better and worse inevitably involve a partisan component. . . .
”22 Similarly, Haraway’s work on “situated knowledges” acknowledges the inevitably partial and
partisan processes by which knowledge claims are produced and negotiated.23 Weaving together the
strands of similarity between feminist and reconstructivist science and technology studies reveals a
tapestry against which the knowledge production projects of each stand out more clearly. Embracing
partisanship and struggle as they do, reconstructivists have 8 frontiers/2009/vol. 30, no. 1 taken to heart
various critiques of objectivity, among which feminists figure prominently. Quoting Harding’s Science
and Social Inequality (2006), Woodhouse and Sarewitz get the point that privilege is both a material
advantage and an epistemological disadvantage: that “those advantaged by the status quo tend to
operate in a state of denial about the maldistribution of costs and benefits of technoscience.”24 Taking
“science-policy influentials” to task for failing to mention inequality except in toothless and
conventional ways, Woodhouse and Sarewitz call for greater recognition of social conflict in the tussle
over who gets what, when, and how that is science and technology policy and politics. They share
with feminists the intention to “move equity considerations higher on science-policy agendas.” They
share the suspicion that the social organization of technoscience exacerbates social inequality and
consistently rewards the already affluent, while hurting the persistently poor. They call for refocusing
R&D on “poor people’s problems” yet do not call upon feminist scholarship to explain precisely how
welfare states and labor markets are structured to reproduce gendered and racialized poverty.25 How
can it be that well intentioned and well informed scholars seeking to refocus technoscientific R&D on
the needs of the poor, broaden participation in research priority-setting, and reorient technoscientific
innovation toward the creation of public goods miss the feminist point that addressing inequity
requires attending to how gender and power relations structure the world? How can those who set
out to “level the playing field among diverse social interests so that all are represented fairly” miss the
point that forms of “fairness” inattentive to power differentials lead to unfair processes and
outcomes?26 The reconstructivist agenda is too important to be dismissed by feminists as not “getting
it,” and thus it seems important to understand how reconstructivists propose to reshape inquiry by
encouraging scholars to adopt projects that incorporate “normative, activist, or reconstructive
intentions” into their research.27 Reconstructivists suggest a more collective agenda-setting process to
channel scholarly work into areas where inadequate attention has been directed to a collective need.
They urge scholars not to shy from “thoughtful partisanship” despite recognizing their own fallibility and
partiality, and encourage them to participate more actively in “positive efforts to shape technoscientific
activities in progressive directions.” They call for revision of the academic reward system so as to
recognize academic participation in public engagement and community building.
Science has an intersectional bias – poor women are underrepresented
Cambell, Professor of Science, 2009
(Nancy, prof of science, Fronteirs: A journal of womens studies, vol 30, 2009, p. 1-29, Muse, da: 6-242011, lido)
Upper-middle-class professional women of the sort who might be disadvantaged by gendering of
recruitment and advancement in science and engineering probably are getting about their fair share
of study these days, but poorer women . . . surely are not. And the deeper insights of feminist theory
rarely get applied concretely to science and technology policy outside the reproductive and medical
fields.12 While we may disagree with the sentiment that any women get their fair share of study or
decry the nonspecific language of “poorer women,” the impulse to direct inquiry toward those
excluded or marginalized aligns with feminist goals. Social inequality shapes not only what science is
done and how it is done, according to reconstructivists, but what science remains undone. David J.
Hess defines this problem in the following terms: Because political and economic elites possess the
resources to water and weed the garden of knowledge, the knowledge tends to grow (to be
“selected”) in directions that are consistent with the goals of political and economic elites. When
social movement leaders and industry reformers who wish to change our societies look to “Science”
for answers to their research questions, they often find an empty space—a special issue of a journal
that was never edited, a conference that never took place, an epidemiological study that was never
funded—whereas their better funded adversaries have an arsenal of knowledge to draw on. . . .
Heidegger/Managerialism
The foundation of managerialism sits atop the construct of a superior social class
based on scientific ability, science and its application has created the managerial and
industry-reliant socioeconomic system
Hsu, Business School of University of Newcastle, 3
(Shih-Wei, “Beyond Managerialism: Towards An Ethical Approach”,
http://www.mngt.waikato.ac.nz/ejrot/cmsconference/2003/proceedings/managementgoodness/Hsu.p
df, accessed 7/12/14, LLM)
The emergence of managerialism was first contributed by Fredrick Taylor, the founder of Scientific
Management (Bendix, 1974). In the end of the 19th century, with the increase in the size of work
organisations, the concept of management had become to refer to a certain social class. However, the
term manager was usually a pejorative one, because managers were seen as ‘agents’—a kind of
employees acting for ‘owners’, and this attitude is a legacy of the medieval European culture3 (Mant,
1979). Yet, at the beginning of the 20th century Taylor gave management a new sense. Taylor, as a
mechanical engineer, treats all work organisations as mechanical systems consisting of different
mechanical components, e.g. factory equipments, and workers. His contribution here is that he linked
management to science—he asserts that managers should be a specific social class whose main task is,
via ‘scientific’ study and analysis throughout ‘the mechanical arts’, to get the best out of men, for
benefit of all (Taylor, 1911: 25). At this point, Taylor seems to share the idea with the Enlightenment
thinker Francis Bacon. While Bacon, in seventeenth-century England, believed that scientists should be
treated as a special class, acting as ‘power brokers’ on behalf of the government (Garcia, 2001), Taylor
attempted to promote management to a special social class, based on their superior scientific ability—
or rationality, in the 20th century. The strong belief in science, or scientific methods, is central to our
dominant worldview. Science is, in essence, a process that eliminates the possibility of subjective bias,
hence producing purely objective knowledge. Science has always been power. In the period of
enlightenment, its major function was to liberate humankind from subordination to the other-worldly
force, i.e. the Judo-Christian orthodoxy. In the modern age, science, and its application—technology,
has successfully created our industry-dominated social/economic system.
Modern science attempts to calculate and enframe objects by revealing them, causing
man to forget that concealing belongs with revealing. This forgetting is the ultimate
danger because enframing causes man to become a standing-reserve unable to
encounter or realize himself
Cariño, Professor of Philosophy at the University of Santo Thomas, 9
(Jovito V., “PHILIPPINIANA SACRA”, Vol. XLIV, No. 132 September-December, 2009 pp. 491-504
Heidegger and the Danger of Modern Technology, Enframing and the History of Western Thought – The
Danger of Modern Technology)
Human subjectivity as mere calculation of objects first displays itself in the appearance of modern
physics as a modern science. “Modern science’s way of representing,” according to Heidegger,
“pursues and entraps nature as a calculable coherence of objects.” 27 The description
“modern,” Heidegger further added, points not so much to the sciences’ application of experiments
on nature but to modern sciences penchant to set up nature that it may be calculated in advance.
It is in this sense that modern physics is the herald of Enframing, 28 and as the essence of
modern technology, enframing “starts man upon the way of that revealing through which the
real everywhere, more or less distinctly, becomes standing reserve.” Enframing is a mode of
revealing that challenges forth and orders. As a mode of revealing, enframing also belongs to
destining, to Geschick. Man also belongs to destining because he is the one who listens and hears
but once he opens himself to the essence of modern technology, he can be swayed to the pursuit
only of what is revealed in the sense of ordering and challenging forth. In such an event, the other
possibility of belonging to what is unconcealed is also blocked. Even this, says Heidegger, is part of
the destining of man and part of the destining of all coming to presence. Following the Greeks,
Heidegger maintains that: “That which is earlier with regard to the arising that holds sway become
manifest to us men only later.” 30 In another essay, Heidegger describes that which manifests itself
only later as the “inaccessible and not to be gotten around.” 31 That is how what is concealed
reveals itself to us – as a concealment that unconceals itself in revealing and a revealing which
remains concealed in unconcealment. The two elements, concealing and revealing, always go hand
in hand. Modern man though, through the enchanting effect of modern technology, has been
fixated merely with what is revealed. It is this penchant for what is revealed that deceives man to
believe that he can grasp everything or to use Mcwhorter’s expression, manage everything. 32
When we delude ourselves this way, we forget not only ourselves but the passing of
unconcealment itself. Such forgetting is an element of what Heidegger points out as “danger”.
What is such danger? I shall explore Heidegger’s answer to this question in the third part of this
paper. The Danger of Modern Technology. In the destining that destines both man and Enframing,
two possibilities come to fore: first, the possibility of man pursuing nothing but what is revealed in
ordering and challenging forth; and second, the possibility of the blocking of man from being
admitted to what is unconcealed and apparently, given the contemporary man’s obsession to rule
and control the “mega-energies” of nature. It seems that the former possibility is the one holding
sway. Since nature is seen as a storehouse of resources, man’s relation with it is reduced in terms
of management. Earth’s resources are a plenty hence the necessity of management as a strategy
for domination and control, but the more he tries to manage everything, the more man distances
himself from what is essential. What makes the situation doubly unfortunate is that this fact is
hidden from man himself, that is, the fact of his belonging to what is concealed. McWhorter
writes: The danger of a managerial approach to the world lies not, then , in what it knows – not in
its penetration into the secrets of galactic emergence or nuclear fission – but in what it forgets,
what it itself conceals. It forgets that any other truths are possible, and it forgets that the
belonging together of revealing with concealing is forever beyond the power of human
management. We can never have, or know, it all; we can never manage everything. Man’s
belonging to what is concealed although oftentimes forgotten by man himself is within the
destining of man, the same destining which introduces itself to man as danger. It is danger or as
Heidegger calls it, “danger as such” because once the destining of revealing holds sway, man can
turn away from what is unconcealed by reducing it to what is calculable and can be represented.
Heidegger calls this representation of the unconcealed “correct determinations.” 36 Further,
Heidegger holds that God himself is not free from this representational thinking. He is invariably
called the cause or causa efficiens or whatever is convenient for those who think they exalt God by
domesticating him in their own categories. As pointed out by Heidegger, the determinations may
be correct but in the midst of these correct formulations, the danger can likewise persist, that “in
the midst of all that is correct the true will withdraw.” However, this is not yet the ultimate danger
for Heidegger. Man encounters the ultimate danger when the destining holds sway in the manner
of Enframing. Heidegger calls it the ultimate danger because in its holding sway, Enframing does
not only reduce objects as standing-reserve, as the orderer of the standing-reserve, man himself is
reduced to the status of standing-reserve. This leads to what Heidegger characterizes as “the
ultimate delusion” which man experiences when he “stands so decisively in attendance on the
challenging-forth of Enframing that he does not apprehend Enframing as a claim, that he fails to
see himself as the one spoken to and hence, also fails in every way to hear in what respect he
eksists, from out of his essence, in the realm of an exhortation or address, and thus can never
encounter himself.”
Science leads to the manipulation of nature such that its original essence is destroyed
along with humanity’s connection to it
Kidner 2k (David, faculty of humanites @ Nottingham Trent U, Environmental Ethics Vol. 22.4 Winter
Pg. 345-346 JF)
Science, then, may be a partial understanding which we often fatefully misconstrue as being a
complete description of nature, but it is nevertheless firmly anchored in realities which are beyond
the influence of language. To an increasing extent, however, even these realities are being modified
by industrialism, not only through the breeding of certain species and the elimination of others, but
also, and increasingly directly, through genetic manipulation. If nature, then, was not originally
constructed by technology and language, it is in many ways in the process of being reconstructed by
these means; and the metaphor of “construction” assumes the absence or obliteration of natural
structure, so that the world is simply made up of (verbal or physical) “raw materials.” This demolition
of the nature that frames and transcends human awareness, and its replacement by a “nature” which
is defined and constructed by industrial and discursive activity from the fragments of the original
nature, implies a corresponding redefinition of the person to fit a rational, commercial world—a
redefinition which, in Arthur Kleinman’s words, has “deepened discursive layers of experience . . .
while paradoxically making it more difficult to grasp and communicate poetic, moral, and spiritual
layers of the felt flow of living.”32 This transformation, suggests Kleinman, “can be of a kind to cancel,
nullify, or evacuate the defining human element in individuals—their moral, aesthetic, and religious
experience.”33 Social constructionism, then, can be seen as rooted within a broader reconstructive
project which reconfigures both humanity and the nonhuman world according to an industrialist
blueprint. The physical and ideological replacement of nature, understood as the larger order out of
which we grow, by a reduced order based on industrialist rationality finds its academic counterpart in
the doctrine that nature is a mere part-actor in the wider drama of human life and language.
Japan CP
1NC
Text: The government of Japan should _________________________.
The CP solves – Japan has one the best ocean exploration agencies in the world –
JAMSTEC can do the plan
Cizdziel, Chair of the American Chamber of Commerce Japan, 14
[Paul E., American Chamber of Commerce in Japan, “Deep Sea Exploration by the Japan Agency for
Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC),” http://www.accj.or.jp/en/events/details/21949deep-sea-exploration-by-the-japan-agency-for-marine-earth-science-and-technology-jamstec, accessed
7/13/14, TYBG]
JAMSTEC is one of the largest, most active and accomplished research agencies in the world. It operates
7 research vessels, one manned deep-sea submersible, four autonomous underwater vehicles, and
three remotely operated underwater vehicles. In addition, the agency is operating a scientific drilling
ship "Chikyu". The fleet is so strong that sediments, rocks and organisms from water depths exceeding
7000 m or from depths more than 2000 m below the surface of the ocean bottom have been collected
so far. Based on such high technologies, JAMSTEC have carried out a variety of unique sciences, such as
observation of fault rock that caused the Tohoku great earthquake, and biological research of microbes
living in the ultra-deep biosphere.
Dr. Yoshihisa Shirayama, Executive Director for Science of JAMSTEC, will provide updates on what is
happening now, and what we can look forward to next, in the field of deep-sea exploration carried out
by JAMSTEC.
Come join us for wine and finger foods, and an intellectually stimulating topic of importance to
everyone. Understanding the vast ocean biosphere and its critical role in the cycle of life on Earth is
essential for government and industry leaders to make smart choices. As a leading oceanographic
research institution, JAMSTEC contributes greatly to that knowledge.
2NC – Solvency – Investment
They’re already investing – they have the resources.
Ryall, writer for German news source DW, 14
[Julian, 1/17/14, DW, “Japan hopes seabed will yield data and resources,” http://www.dw.de/japanhopes-seabed-will-yield-data-and-resources/a-17369799, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
With scant energy and mineral reserves of its own, and nuclear plants mothballed since the Fukushima
nuclear disaster, Japan is investing heavily in exploring beneath the oceans for resources that will power
its future.
Seabed off coast of Japan On the first day of 2014, the Japanese research ship Chikyu set a new record
by drilling down to a point 3,000 meters beneath the seabed off southern Japan. It was an appropriate
way to ring in the new year and signals an increased commitment to learning more about the secrets
that lay beneath the floor of the ocean close to Japan.
The research has two distinct but connected driving forces. As Japan prepares to mark the third
anniversary of the March 11 Great East Japan Earthquake, the Chikyu is undertaking the most extensive
survey ever attempted of the Nankai Trough, a geological fault that extends for several hundred
kilometers parallel to the southern coast of Japan and widely seen as the source of the next major
earthquake that will affect this tremor-prone nation. And with all of Japan's nuclear reactors presently
mothballed in the aftermath of the disaster, which destroyed the Fukushima Dai-Ichi nuclear plant,
there is a new sense of urgency in the search for sources of energy and other natural resources close to
Japan.
2NC – Solvency – Leadership
Japan is already taking a leadership role in oceanic research
Teranishi and Oda, writers for Japanese news source Asahi Shimbun, 13
[Kazuo, Makoto, 12/28/13, “Japan seeks to make up for 'lost decade' in marine development,”
http://ajw.asahi.com/article/business/AJ201312280010, accessed 7/13/14, TYBG]
Japan has long lagged behind other countries in oceanic development of minerals and resources, despite
being one of the world's largest maritime states. Today, however, it is aggressively exploring the seabed
in search of natural riches.
In early October, the Hakurei, a state-of-the-art marine resources survey ship, set off from Shimonoseki
Port in western Yamaguchi Prefecture for the Okinawa Trough, located in waters northwest of the main
island of Okinawa.
The ship’s mission was to investigate oceanic resources that lie in the waters, which are within Japan’s
370-kilometer exclusive economic zone (EEZ), where the nation is allowed to develop minerals and
other resources.
Having a total area of 4.47 million square kilometers, Japan’s EEZ and territorial waters are the sixth
largest in the world. Experts believe a large amount of untouched natural resources rests beneath the
seabed.
Between January and February, Hakurei surveyed the Okinawa Trough, a potential gold mine of offshore
resources, at a depth of 1,600 meters. Drilling about 40 meters down into the seafloor, the survey vessel
discovered a large-scale submarine hydrothermal deposit that contains various minerals, such as zinc,
lead, copper and gold.
The 118-meter-long research vessel, which began operation in February 2012, is outfitted with 32meter-high drilling equipment on its stern.
The equipment can submerge to a depth of up to 2,000 meters and drill a maximum of 400 meters down
into the seabed--a major improvement from the 20-meter limit of Hakurei’s predecessor, which started
operation in 1980.
The survey vessel is operated by Japan Oil, Gas and Metals National Corp. (JOGMEC), a governmentaffiliated organization, which has been playing a leadership role in Japan’s marine resources exploration.
“We have many problems to solve, but hope to establish a new method in five years to mine seabed
resources and raise them from the ocean,” said Nobuyuki Okamoto, the chief of JOGMEC’s abyssal floor
survey section.
The Hakurei is just one sign that Japan is increasing its presence in the area of oceanic development.
In March, the deep-sea drilling vessel Chikyu successfully extracted natural gas from offshore methane
hydrate deposits for the first time in the world off Atsumi Peninsula in Aichi Prefecture.
China CP
1NC
Text: The People’s Republic of China should ____________.
The CP solves - China leads in ocean exploration and has extensive technological
expertise
Yuanqing, China Daily European Edition, 14
[Sun, 7-3-14, China Daily European Edition, “China takes lead in underwater exploration,”
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=5CK2-K9P1-JB4BV2F4&csi=270944,270077,11059,8411&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true, 713-14, FCB]
"Today, it is China that is leading the world in its commitment to manned deep ocean exploration,"
says Krov Menuhin, chairman of the award committee and advisory board member at the Historical
Diving Society, an international non-profit organization that studies man's underwater activities and
promotes public awareness of the ocean.
"And the far-sighted vision, the courage and the immense engagement to implement this program is
in keeping with the pioneering spirit of Hans Hass. He entered the ocean with the same vision,
courage and commitment," he says.
The winners received a framed cast bronze plaque, with an image of Hans Hass, designed by ocean
artist Wyland. And Blancpain presented them Fifty Fathoms Bathyscaphe diving watches with
specially engraved cases.
The brand will serve as the official time keeper for Jiaolong's future underwater expeditions. It also
announced a collaboration with the State Oceanic Administration to launch projects to raise public
consciousness of the ocean in China in the coming years. The details are still being discussed.
"We are very impressed with Jiaolong with its ability to constantly dive into new depths, especially its
crew, whose courage, focus and action enabled them to reach new frontiers all the time," says Marc
Junod, vice-president and head of sales at Blancpain.
The research and development of Jiaolong basically started from zero in 2002. None of the crew
members had seen, let alone been in, a virtual submersible before.
Fu Wentao, one of the oceanauts of Jiaolong, shared his experience underwater, including encounters
with curious creatures.
"Unlike the terrestrial creatures, those under the water are not cautious at all. They are actually very
curious and will even swim toward us," Fu says.
Cui is planning to launch a project to develop a submersible that will be able to dive as deep as 11,000
meters with financial support from both the government and the private sector.
"The combination will fuel faster development in underwater science," Cui says. "The sea is vast and
rich, but we have a lot of research to do before we can exploit it."
While funds for the financing of manned deep-ocean explorations in the West are drying up, China has
just committed to a long-term project that will change the way everyone thinks about the sea, says
Menuhin.
As the creator of the world's first modern diving wristwatch, Blancpain has long been a supporter of
major manned deep-water explorations.
"We are not just getting involved today because it is trendy to protect the Ocean. Our philosophy is to
help as many people as possible to learn about, and get familiar with, the underwater world. Because
we believe that people can only respect and protect what they love. And they can only love what they
know," says Junod.
2NC – Solvency - General
China has ocean exploration equipment – it solves the aff
Kashyap, Senior Editor at the International Business Times, 14
[Arjun, 1-27-14, “China-Led International Ocean Exploration Mission To Look For Oil In South China Sea,
Including In Disputed Regions”, http://www.ibtimes.com/china-led-international-ocean-explorationmission-look-oil-south-china-sea-including-disputed, Lexis, 7-13-14, FCB]
In a first-of-its-kind exercise for the world’s second-largest economy, an international scientific
expedition to look for oil in the South China Sea will set sail from Hong Kong on Tuesday, according to
the South China Morning Post.
The trip is part of the latest edition of the decade-long International Ocean Discovery Program that
will run from 2013 to 2023. The IODP was launched by the U.S. in the 1960s, and its latest effort will
include 31 scientists from 10 countries drilling at three different sites for two months.
"Oil and gas fields lie close to the coast, but the key is to open the treasure box buried beneath the
basin," Wang Pinxian, a marine geologist and member of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, told the Post
Monday.
The IODP invited proposals from 26 member nations and, while a proposal to drill in the controversial
South China Sea -- first proposed by China in 2008 -- was not the most popular one, it was reportedly
mainly chosen because the Chinese government agreed to pick up 70 percent, or $6 million, of the
mission’s tab. The NSF, which used to contribute 70 per cent of the Joides Resolution's expenses, cut its
annual ocean drilling budget to $50 million last year, David Divins, director of the IODP’s ocean drilling
program.
The expedition will sail aboard the American scientific drill ship, Joides Resolution, operated by the
National Science Foundation, or NSF, the Post reported, adding that the voyage will take the team to
waters claimed variously by China, the Philippines and Vietnam.
So far, the ship has received permission from the Philippines and Beijing but is waiting for a response
from the Vietnamese government to drill at a site in the southwest part of the South China Sea, the
Post reported, citing Divins, adding that the expedition may have to opt for an alternative site.
Tensions stemming from China's energy interests are a constant undercurrent to the region's
geopolitics. For instance, in May 2012, China began drilling to new depths in the South China Sea, 200
miles southeast of Hong Kong, with the launch of its first deep-water oil drilling rig, triggering tensions
between Manila and Beijing. In December 2012, China had asked Vietnam to stop exploring for oil in
disputed areas of the South China Sea and demanded that the latter not harass Chinese fishing boats.
However, findings of the IODP expedition, which includes 13 scientists from mainland China, nine from
the U.S. and one from Taiwan, will reportedly be shared around the world, including with countries that
are not part of the program.
2NC – Solvency – Mineral Expedition
The CP solves – China has the equipment for exploration – mineral expeditions prove
The Balochistan Times, 14
[“China speeds up Indian Ocean exploration for minerals,”
http://www.lexisnexis.com/lnacui2api/api/version1/getDocCui?lni=5BMF-K871-DXH0K41K&csi=270944,270077,11059,8411&hl=t&hv=t&hnsd=f&hns=t&hgn=t&oc=00240&perma=true,
Lexis, 7-13-14, FCB]
The State Oceanic Administration (SOA) hailed achievements by Chinese scientists onboard an oceanic
research vessel surveying polymetallic deposits in Indian Ocean, Authin mail web site reported.
The "Dayang-1" vessel arrived at the ocean's polymetallic sulfide exploration contract area on Jan 26
and left on Feb 19.
Scientists onboard the vessel discovered two seafloor hydrothermal areas and four hydrothermal
anomaly areas, and deepened understanding about the overall area.
They also gained insight on the origins of carbonate hydrothermal areas, and made successful
attempts to explore for sulfide, said the SOA.
Hydrothermal sulfide is a kind of sea-bed deposit containing copper, zinc and precious metals such as
gold and silver.
Those metals formed sulfides after chemical reactions and came to rest in the seabed in "chimney
vents."
Dayang-1 gathered three carbonate pieces and a "chimney vent," the first time Chinese scientists have
collected such a structure from the Ocean.
The team also secured many other samples, and two people designated by the International Seabed
Authority were trained during the expedition.