OSEA AFF
1AC
Contention 1 – Inherency
Contention 1 is Inherency – The National Ocean Policy is a failure. Budget and
coordination efforts hamstring holistic strategy for exploration.
Lee, 12 (Jane, writer for Science Magazine, “US National Ocean Policy: No Success Without Science?”
Science, 5/7/12, http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/05/u.s.-national-ocean-policy-no-success-withoutscience)
Coaxing U.S. federal agencies to work together is no small feat. But an emerging National Ocean Policy (NOP) is
attempting to do just that. The Obama Administration's proposed NOP will help federal agencies better organize marine research efforts and
inject data into policy decisions—and potentially prevent conflicts between ocean users and save money, U.S. officials argue. But recent public
comments on the Administration's plan for implementing the new policy suggest that researchers are concerned that budget shortfalls and
program eliminations could undermine efforts to realize these goals. U.S. policymakers
have tried to come up with a
coordinated ocean-use policy for years. The most recent effort started in 2000 when Congress passed the Oceans Act, which called
for the formation of a U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. The commission issued recommendations for a national ocean policy in a report
released in 2004. But it wasn't until July 2010, when President Barack Obama signed Executive Order 13547, that the most recent iteration of
NOP was put into place. NOP is intended to enable "the integration of information through the ocean policy agencies that has really not
happened in the past," Sally Yozell, director of policy at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), said last week during a
science policy conference hosted by the American Geophysical Union. And that coordination "is going to help us and industry save millions of
dollars," she predicted. In particular, the policy highlights nine goals that seek to address the most pressing issues regarding the oceans and
Great Lakes. They include shifting regulators to a more holistic ecosystem-based management perspective, better integrating scientific
information in policy decisions, and creating a planning process for determining what kinds of activities should take place in different parts of
U.S. waters (a concept officially known as coastal and marine spatial planning). It also aims to encourage 26 federal agencies to work together
on ocean management and research efforts. In January, the Administration released a plan for implementing the policy, and the general public
had until the end of March to submit their thoughts and opinions to the National Ocean Council. The thousands of pages of comments,
including many from researchers and science organizations, reveal a range of views praising and criticizing the plan. Coastal and marine spatial
planning in particular has elicited worries that local and regional interests will be excluded from decision-making processes. Some commercial
fishers are also concerned that decisions based solely on scientific information won't take into consideration the cultural and historical
traditions of their communities. Many of the research-focused commenters, however, said they appreciated the NOP's intent to have the
government manage resources using an ecosystem-based perspective. That marks a shift from many traditional government management
strategies, which often focus on sustaining one type of marine organism or user group without considering the system as a whole. "I applaud
the emphasis on ecosystem-based management," wrote David Jay, a physical oceanographer at Portland State University in Oregon. "Too often,
federal agency initiatives are based on narrow analyses that fail to consider impacts of a project from a broad ecosystem perspective." Other
commenters, however, expressed concerns about how proposed
budget cuts would affect the government's ability to
implement NOP. For example, a joint statement by Clean Ocean Action, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, and NY/NJ Baykeeper laments a
recent White House proposal to eliminate NOAA's James J. Howard Marine Science Lab at Sandy Hook, New Jersey, as
well as the agency's Marine Mammal Rescue Assistance Grant Program, which helps researchers rescue and study stranded
whales and seals. The programs also generate data on ocean acidification, marine mammal health, and water quality. Ocean
observing equipment, such as buoys and ships, is also facing budget problems, other commenters noted. "Flat budgets in
times of escalating costs have resulted in a near-halving of ship utilization, putting the ships at the brink of unsustainability,"
wrote Kathleen Ritzman, assistant director at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in San Diego, California. One solution, she wrote, would be to
better coordinate the use and funding of U.S.-based research vessels by federal agencies, including NOAA, the U.S. Geological Survey, and the
Department of Energy; these agencies often arrange ship time independently for their vessel-based studies. In an interview with ScienceInsider,
NOAA's Yozell agreed with the need to be smarter about how agencies use their ocean observing platforms. "[We are] looking across the
federal family and assessing capabilities that our oceanographic fleet has," she said. The goal is to see how agencies can share some of their
missions and assets, such as buoys or unmanned vehicles, rather than operate piecemeal. NOP's
goal of better coordinating ocean
the scientific questions being asked by agencies,
Yozell said at last week's symposium, but officials hope it will change how data are shared and used. "The hope is, more
research across the federal government won't necessarily change
information being brought together to manage resources are going to have a better end result," she said.
Contention 2 – Science Diplomacy
Flight 370 proves that US ocean exploration is dismal.
Helvarg 4/1 (DAVID HELVARG, executive director of Blue Frontier, a marine conservation and policy
group. His latest book is "The Golden Shore: California's Love Affair With the Sea, It's no surprise we
can't find Flight 370, 4/1/2014, http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-0401-helvarg-flight-370ocean-exploration-20140401-story.html MB)
The weeks-long search for some physical sign of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is
not something we should wonder at, considering the frontier nature of our blue planet. The 29% of our planet that is land is inhabited by more than 7 billion of our species, at least a few
of whom would have reported a crash or hijacked aircraft. By contrast, the ocean that covers 71% of the Earth's surface and 97% of its living habitat rarely has
more than a few million people on or about its surface. These include commercial mariners, fishermen,
cruise ship passengers, sailors aboard the world's military fleets, offshore oil and gas workers, research
scientists and the odd sea gypsy.One reason we've not colonized the ocean, as science-fiction writers (and at least one senator, the late Claiborne Pell, of Rhode Island) once imagined, is that
Jet aircraft are large, but not compared with the ocean.
the ocean is a far rougher and more difficult wilderness than any encountered by terrestrial explorers, or even astronauts traveling in the consistent vacuum of space, with its occasional meteorites and space junk to avoid.The sea
pummels us with an unbreathable and corrosive liquid medium; altered visual and acoustic characteristics; changing temperatures, depths and pressures; upwellings; tides; currents; gyres; obscuring marine layers; sudden storms
and giant rouge waves; and life forms than can sting, poison or bite.¶ Even accounting for more than 70 years of classified military hydrographic surveys, we've still mapped less than 10% of the ocean with the resolution we've
, our ability to search for a missing aircraft at sea has come a long
way since Amelia Earhart disappeared while trying to cross the Pacific in 1937. But the patched-together satellite data and
electronic-signals processing that has so far pointed the Flight 370 search to an area 1,800 miles from
Perth, Australia, is no more than a crisis-mode, jury-rigged, extraordinary effort. Consider this: If you're a drug smuggler and you enter U.S. coastal waters in a speedboat at
used to map all of the moon, Mars or even several moons of Jupiter.¶ Obviously
night, and then go dead in the water during the day, with a blue tarp thrown over your vessel, odds are that you'll successfully deliver your contraband.¶ Our investment in ocean exploration, monitoring and law enforcement
Our chances of quickly finding the missing Malaysian flight would
have been improved if we had invested more money and effort on our planet's last great commons, with
efforts is at a 20-year low in the United States and not much better elsewhere.
observational tools such as in-situ labs and wired benthic observatories, remote and autonomous underwater vehicles and gliders, forward-looking infrared cameras and multi-beam shipboard, airborne (and space-deployed)
scanning systems, and other smart but woefully underfunded sea technologies.¶ The fact remains that while hundreds of people have gone into space, only three humans have ventured to the lowest point on our planet seven
. Meanwhile, when it comes to
exploring the cosmos, NASA — even in its diminished state — outspends NOAA's ocean exploration
program roughly 1,000 to 1. Yet when we get to Mars, the first thing we seek as proof of life is water.
Meanwhile, we have a whole water planet that remains a challenge we've once again discovered to be far greater than we thought.¶ Whatever the final resolution of the Flight
370 tragedy, that challenge is bound to become greater as our food and coastal security, marine transportation systems, even our basic ecosystem processes such
as the oxygen generated by ocean plankton, are increasingly stressed through overfishing, pollution, loss
of coastal habitat and ocean impacts from climate change. Investing in the exploration and understanding of our
planet's largest habitat should be a given. Perhaps that will be a lesson learned from our latest human disaster. Unfortunately, while the sea is still vast, our ability to act wisely
miles down in the Mariana Trench, and the latest of these — filmmaker explorer engineer James Cameron — had to self-fund his 2012 mission ¶
in our own interests is often limited.
Centralized and coordinated ocean exploration boosts international cooperation;
serves as a global model for synergy.
Pages & Kearney, 4 (Patrice, magazine editor @ American Chemical Society, and Bill, editor @ Ocean
Drive magazine, “Exploration of the Deep Blue Sea: Unveiling the Ocean’s Mysteries,” In Focus
Magazine, Winter/Spring, vol. 4, no. 1, http://www.infocusmagazine.org/4.1/env_ocean.html)
The oceans cover nearly three-quarters of the Earth's surface, regulate our weather and climate, and
sustain a large portion of the planet's biodiversity, yet we know very little about them. In fact, most of
this underwater realm remains unexplored. Three recent reports from the National Research Council
propose a significantly expanded international infrastructure for ocean exploration and research to close
this knowledge gap and unlock the many secrets of the sea. Already a world leader in ocean research,
the United States should lead a new exploration endeavor by example. "Given the limited resources in
many other countries, it would be prudent to begin with a U.S. exploration program that would include
foreign representatives and serve as a model for other countries," said John Orcutt, the committee
chair for one of the reports and deputy director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of
California, San Diego. "Once programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could then
collaborate on research and pool their resources under international agreements." Using new and
existing facilities, technologies, and vehicles, proposed efforts to understand the oceans would follow
two different approaches. One component dedicated to exploration would utilize ships, submersibles,
and satellites in new ways to uncover the ocean's biodiversity, such as the ecosystems associated with
deep-sea hydrothermal vents, coral reefs, and volcanic, underwater mountains. A second component -a network of ocean "observatories" composed of moored buoys and a system of telecommunication
cables and nodes on the seafloor -- would complement the existing fleet of research ships and satellites.
The buoys would provide information on weather and climate as well as ocean biology, and the cables
would be used to transmit information from sensors on fixed nodes about volcanic and tectonic activity
of the seafloor, earthquakes, and life on or below the seafloor. Also, a fleet of new manned and
unmanned deep-diving vehicles would round out this research infrastructure. Education and outreach
should be an integral part of new ocean science efforts by bringing discoveries to the public, informing
government officials, and fostering collaborations between educators and the program's scientists, the
reports say. These activities will expand previous international programs. For example, the observatory
network will build on current attempts to understand the weather, climate, and seafloor, such as the
Hawaii-2 Observatory -- which consists of marine telephone cables running between Oahu and Hawaii
and the California coast -- and the Tropical Atmosphere Ocean Array, which contains about 70 moorings
in the Pacific and was key to predicting interannual climate events such as El Niño.
These partnerships boost US science diplomacy and build coalitions to preserve global
stability.
Carnahan, 12 (Russ Carnahan represents Missouri’s Third Congressional District from 2005-2013 and
serves on the House Committees on Foreign Affairs, Transportation and Infrastructure, and Veterans’
Affairs. Science Diplomacy and Congress, AAAS center for scientific diplomacy, 08.02.2012,
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-congress, A.G)
As a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and a former member of the House Committee on Science, I believe that the
coordination of international science and technology (S&T) diplomacy is paramount to U.S. interests. The
United States has the potential to build more positive relationships with other countries through science.
Our country can better advance U.S. national security and economic interests by helping build technological capacities
in other nations and working with international partners to solve global challenges. This is why I have worked in a
bipartisan manner to lead the introduction of four bills at the intersection of science and diplomacy: the International Science and Technology
Cooperation Act; the Global Conservation Act; the Global Science Program for Security, Competitiveness, and Diplomacy Act; and the Startup
Act 2.0. International
challenges are just that: global in their scope and in their solutions. The United States cannot solve
multifaceted, multinational problems in scientific or diplomatic isolation. Forging networks with scientists and institutions abroad
helps the United States and its partners find technical solutions to key global challenges. In an era where international
skepticism about U.S. foreign policy abounds, civil society—including scientists and engineers—plays a critical
role in reinforcing U.S. foreign policy priorities via engagement with its counterparts
Scientific diplomacy is necessary to solve multiple scenarios for extinction – transcends IR to
solve war.
Sackett, 10 (Penny, former Chief Scientist for Australia, former Program Director at the NSF, PhD in theoretical
physics, the Director of the Australian National University (ANU) Research School of Astronomy and Astrophysics,
8/10, “Science diplomacy: Collaboration for solutions,” Forum for Australian-European Science and Technology
Cooperation, http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1p10y/FEAST/resources/134.htm)
Imagine for a moment that the globe is inhabited by a single individual who roams free across outback plains, through rainforests, across pure
white beaches — living off the resources available. Picture the immensity of the world surrounding this one person and ask yourself, what
possible impact could this single person have on the planet? Now turn your attention to today’s reality. Almost 7
the planet and this number increases at an average of a little over one per cent per year.
billion people inhabit
That’s about 2 more mouths to feed every
second. Do these 7 billion people have an impact on the planet? Yes. An irreversible impact? Probably. Taken together this huge number of
people has
managed to change the face of the Earth and threaten the very systems that support them. We are
now embarked on a trajectory that, if unchecked, will certainly have detrimental impacts on our way of life and to
natural ecosystems. Some of these are irreversible, including the extinction of many species. But returning to that single individual, surely
two things are true. A single person could not have caused all of this, nor can a single person solve all the associated problems. The message
here is that the human-induced global
problems that confront us cannot be solved by any one individual, group, agency or nation.
It will take a large collective effort to change the course that we are on; nothing less will suffice. Our planet is facing several
mammoth challenges: to its atmosphere, to its resources, to its inhabitants. Wicked problems such as climate change, overpopulation, disease, and food, water and energy security require concerted efforts and worldwide collaboration
to find and implement effective, ethical and sustainable solutions. These are no longer solely scientific and technical matters. Solutions must be
Common understandings and
commitment to action are required between individuals, within communities and across international networks.
Science can play a special role in international relations. Its participants share a common language that
transcends mother tongue and borders. For centuries scientists have corresponded and collaborated on
international scales in order to arrive at a better and common understanding of the natural and human world. Values integral to
science such as transparency, vigorous inquiry and informed debate also support effective international relation practices.
Furthermore, given the long-established global trade of scientific information and results, many important international links are already
in place at a scientific level. These links can lead to coalition-building, trust and cooperation on sensitive scientific issues
which, when supported at a political level, can provide a ‘soft politics’ route to other policy dialogues. That is, if
nations are already working together on global science issues, they may be more likely to be open to
collaboration on other global issues such as trade and security.
viable in the larger context of the global economy, global unrest and global inequality.
Contention 3 – Pharmaceuticals
Land based pharmaceutical development has plateaued – new drugs are needed in the
face of emerging disease resistance. Ocean exploration unlocks innovative drugs.
National Research Council 9 The National Academics Advisors to the Nation on Science,
Engineering, and Medicine, 2009, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/staticassets/osb/miscellaneous/Oceans-Human-Health.pdf) jml
In 1945, a young organic chemist named Werner Berg- mann set out to explore the waters off the coast of south-ern Florida. Among the marine
organisms he scooped from the sand that day was a Caribbean sponge that would later be called Cryptotethya crypta . Back in his lab,
Bergmann extracted a novel compound from this sponge that aroused his curiosity. The
chemical Bergmann identified in this sponge,
spongothymidine, eventually led to the development of a whole class of drugs that treat cancer and viral diseases and
are still in use today. For example, Zid- ovudine (AZT) fights the AIDS virus, HIV, and cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) is used in the treatment of
leukemias and lymphomas. Acyclovir speeds the healing of eczema and some herpes viruses. These are just a few examples of how
the study of marine organisms contributes to the health of thousands of men, women, and children around the world. New antibiotics, in
addition to new drugs for fighting cancer, inflammatory diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases (which often
cannot be treated successfully today), are greatly needed. With drug resistance nibbling away at the once-full toolbox of
antibiotics, the limited effectiveness of currently available drugs has dire consequences for public health. Compounds
with medical potential have been found in several species of marine sponges, such as this bright orange sponge. (Image
from Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Florida) _ OCEAN SCIENCE SERIES exploring the promises of ocean science OCEANS
AND HUMAN HEALTH 3 Historically, many
medicines have come from nature —mostly from land-based natural organisms.
Because scientists have nearly exhausted the supply of terrestrial plants, animals, and microorganisms that have interesting
medical properties, new sources of drugs are needed. Occupying more than 70 percent of the Earth’s surface, the
ocean is a virtually unexplored treasure chest of new and unidentified species—one of the last frontiers for sources of new
natural products. These natural products are of special interest because of the dazzling diversity and uniqueness of the creatures
that make the sea their home. One reason marine organisms are so interesting to scientists is because in adapting to the
various ocean environments, they have evolved fascinating repertoires of unique chemicals to help them survive. For example,
anchored to the seafloor, a sponge that protects itself from an animal trying to take over its space by killing the invader has been compared
with the human immune system trying to kill foreign cancer cells. That same sponge, bathed in seawater containing millions of bacteria,
viruses, and fungi, some of which could be pathogens, has developed antibiotics to keep those pathogens under control. Those same
antibiotics could be used to treat infections in humans. Sponges, in fact, are among the most prolific sources of
diverse chemical compounds. An estimated 30 percent of all potential marine-de- rived medications currently in the pipeline—and
about 75 per- cent of recently patented marine-de- rived anticancer compounds—come from marine sponges. Marine-based
microorganisms are another particularly rich source of new medicines. More than 120 drugs available today derive from
land-based microbes. Scientists see marine-based microbes as the most promising source of novel medicines
from the sea. In all, more than 20,000 biochemical compounds have been isolated from sea creatures since the 1980s. Because drug
discovery in the marine frontier is a relatively young field, only a few marine-derived drugs are in use today. Many others
are in the pipeline. One ex- ample is Prialt, a drug developed from the venom of a fish-killing cone snail. The cone snails produce neurotoxins to
paralyze and kill prey; those neurotoxins are being developed as neuromuscular blocks for individuals with chronic pain, stroke, or epilepsy.
Other marine- derived drugs are being tested against herpes, asthma, and breast cancer. The National Research Council report Marine
Biotechnology in the Twenty-First Century (2002) concluded that the exploration
of unique habitats, such as deep-sea
environments, and the isolation and culture of marine microorganisms offer two underexplored opportunities for
discovery of novel chemicals with therapeutic potential. The successes to date, which are based upon a very limited investigation
of both deep-sea organisms and marine microorganisms, suggest a high potential for continued discovery of new
drugs.
Specifically, coral reefs are home to life-saving medicines
Bruckner 13 (Andrew W., Andrew W. Bruckner (andy.bruckner@noaa.gov) is a coral reef ecologist in the
National Marine Fisheries Service’s Office of Protected Resources, Silver Spring, Maryland, “Life-Saving Products
from Coral Reefs”, Issues in Science and Technology, November 27, 2013, http://issues.org/18-3/p_bruckner/) KD
Coral reefs are storehouses of genetic resources with vast medicinal potential, but they must be properly managed.
During the past decade, marine biotechnology has been applied to the areas of public health and human disease,
seafood safety, development of new materials and processes, and marine ecosystem restoration and
remediation. Dozens of promising products from marine organisms are being advanced, including a cancer therapy made from algae
and a painkiller taken from the venom in cone snails. The antiviral drugs Ara-A and AZT and the anticancer agent Ara-C, developed
from extracts of sponges found on a Caribbean reef, were among the earliest modern medicines obtained from coral reefs. Other products, such as Dolostatin 10,
isolated from a
sea hare found in the Indian Ocean, are under clinical trials for use in the treatment of breast and
liver cancers, tumors, and leukemia. Indeed, coral reefs represent an important and as yet largely untapped source of
natural products with enormous potential as pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements, enzymes,
pesticides, cosmetics, and other novel commercial products. The potential importance of coral reefs as a source of life-saving and
life-enhancing products, however, is still not well understood by the public or policymakers. But it is a powerful reason for bolstering efforts
to protect reefs from degradation and overexploitation and for managing them in sustainable ways.
Between 40 and 50 percent of all drugs currently in use, including many of the anti-tumor and antiinfective agents introduced during the 1980s and 1990s, have their origins in natural products. Most of these
were derived from terrestrial plants, animals, and microorganisms, but marine biotechnology is rapidly expanding. After all, 80 percent
of all life forms on Earth are present only in the oceans. Unique medicinal properties of coral reef
organisms were recognized by Eastern cultures as early as the 14th century, and some species continue
to be in high demand for traditional medicines. In China, Japan, and Taiwan, tonics and medicines derived from
seahorse extracts are used to treat a wide range of ailments, including sexual disorders, respiratory and
circulatory problems, kidney and liver diseases, throat infections, skin ailments, and pain. In recent decades,
scientists using new methods and techniques have intensified the search for valuable chemical compounds and genetic
material found in wild marine organisms for the development of new commercial products. Until recently,
however, the technology needed to reach remote and deepwater reefs and to commercially develop marine biotechnology
products from organisms occurring in these environments was largely inadequate. The prospect of finding a new drug in the
sea, especially among coral reef species, may be 300 to 400 times more likely than isolating one from a terrestrial
ecosystem. Although terrestrial organisms exhibit great species diversity, marine organisms have greater phylogenetic
diversity, including several phyla and thousands of species found nowhere else. Coral reefs are home to sessile plants
and fungi similar to those found on land, but coral reefs also contain a diverse assemblage of invertebrates such as
corals, tunicates, molluscs, bryozoans, sponges, and echinoderms that are absent from terrestrial
ecosystems. These animals spend most of their time firmly attached to the reef and cannot escape environmental perturbations, predators, or other
stressors. Many engage in a form of chemical warfare, using bioactive compounds to deter predation, fight
disease, and prevent overgrowth by fouling and competing organisms. In some animals, toxins are also
used to catch their prey. These compounds may be synthesized by the organism or by the endosymbiotic microorganisms that inhabit its tissues, or
they are sequestered from food that they eat. Because of their unique structures or properties, these compounds may
yield life-saving medicines or other important industrial and agricultural products.
And, ocean floor bacteria can provide new chemicals for medical research.
QUEST 09 (QUEST is a subset organization of KQED Education Network, who’s goals are to explore a diverse array of topics that touch our
lives, to spotlight innovations that connect different fields of study, and to offer accurate and insightful reporting that inspires people to engage
in informed conversations about our changing world; “Medicine from the Ocean Floor” p. 1, 2009;
http://d43fweuh3sg51.cloudfront.net/media/alfresco/u/pr/KQED/QUEST%20Radio%20Medicine%20from%20the%20Ocean%20Floor_b63e334
2-7d12-4b3c-b454-76c089a6d256/Radio3_24_MedicinefromOceanFloor.pdf, RJ)
The ocean, which covers approximately 74 percent of Earth’s surface, is a natural resource that
continues to give human society resources that affect our economy, health and happiness. Ocean travel
and exploration, dating back to prehistoric times, has mainly been conducted on its surface, leaving
much of the bottom of the world's oceans unexplored and unmapped. Today scientists are mining ocean
floor sediments for potential medicines for disease like cholera, tuberculosis and malaria. By collecting
samples from the ocean floor, scientists find hundreds of bacteria they can test in the lab. Bacteria are
single-celled microorganisms found in every habitat on Earth. They are found in abundance in the ocean
floor and are vital in recycling nutrients, producing chemicals, and contributing to the overall health of
the ocean. Bacteria cause many diseases; however, certain bacteria produce distinct chemicals that have
the potential help fight diseases. Most bacteria from the ocean floor haven’t yet been identified. Now
scientists are using robotics to help accelerate this process. Robotics is the science and technology of
how robots are designed, manufactured and used in our society. A robot gets information from its
surroundings and does something physical, such as moving or manipulating objects. Scientist use robots
in the laboratory for specific tasks on a larger scale and at a faster pace than a person could do. Because
of this, robots allow scientists to identify more chemicals that are created from bacteria and they can
use these chemicals to create medicines for human diseases.
These diseases risk extinction.
Casadevall 12. (Arturo, MD and Ph.D from New York University. “The Future of Biological Warfare”
Microbial Biotechnology. March 21 2012 Wiley.)
In considering the importance of biological warfare as a subject for concern it is worthwhile to review the known existential threats. At this time
this writer can identify at three
major existential threats to humanity: (i) large-scale thermonuclear war followed by a
nuclear winter, (ii) a planet killing asteroid impact and (iii) infectious disease. To this trio might be added climate change
making the planet uninhabitable. Of the three existential threats the first is deduced from the inferred cataclysmic effects of nuclear war. For
the second there is geological evidence for the association of asteroid impacts with massive extinction (Alvarez, 1987). As
to an
existential threat from microbes recent decades have provided unequivocal evidence for the ability of
certain pathogens to cause the extinction of entire species. Although infectious disease has traditionally
not been associated with extinction this view has changed by the finding that a single chytrid fungus was
responsible for the extinction of numerous amphibian species (Daszak et al., 1999; Mendelson et al., 2006). Previously,
the view that infectious diseases were not a cause of extinction was predicated on the notion that many
pathogens required their hosts and that some proportion of the host population was naturally resistant.
However, that calculation does not apply to microbes that are acquired directly from the environment and
have no need for a host, such as the majority of fungal pathogens. For those types of host–microbe
interactions it is possible for the pathogen to kill off every last member of a species without harm to
itself, since it would return to its natural habitat upon killing its last host. Hence, from the viewpoint of
existential threats environmental microbes could potentially pose a much greater threat to humanity
than the known pathogenic microbes, which number somewhere near 1500 species (Cleaveland et al., 2001; Taylor et al., 2001),
especially if some of these species acquired the capacity for pathogenicity as a consequence of natural
evolution or bioengineering.
Contention 4 – STEM
US is falling behind in STEM
Department of Education 14 (United States Department of Education, “Science, Technology, Engineering and
Math: Education for Global Leadership”, U.S. Department of Education, 2014. http://www.ed.gov/stem, nyy)
The United States has become a global leader, in large part, through the genius and hard work of its
scientists, engineers and innovators. Yet today, that position is threatened as comparatively few
American students pursue expertise in the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics
(STEM)—and by an inadequate pipeline of teachers skilled in those subjects. President Obama has set a
priority of increasing the number of students and teachers who are proficient in these vital fields. Only
16 percent of American high school seniors are proficient in mathematics and interested in a STEM
career. Even among those who do go on to pursue a college major in the STEM fields, only about half
choose to work in a related career. The United States is falling behind internationally, ranking 25th in
mathematics and 17th in science among industrialized nations. In our competitive global economy, this
situation is unacceptable.
The plan is key to increasing STEM education – spurs programs and interest.
Beattie and Schubel, 13 (Ted A., President and C.E.O. of Shedd Aquarium, a nonprofit organization that works in
conservation and research of the world’s ecosystems, Jerry R., President of C.E.O. of Aquarium of the Pacific, A non-profit
organization who’s mission is to instill a sense of wonder, respect , and stewardship for the Pacfic Ocean , its inhabitants, and
ecosystems, “On the Importance of a National Program of Ocean Exploration to Education”. NOAA. July 19-21, 2013.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf nyy)
In the current competitive global economy, the United States faces a distinct disadvantage. Only 16
percent of American high school seniors are proficient in mathematics and interested in STEM careers.
And among those who do pursue college degrees in STEM fields, only half choose to work in a STEMrelated career. The benefits of STEM education are clear. By 2018, the U.S. anticipates more than 1.2
million job openings in STEM-related occupations, including fields as diverse as science, medicine,
software development, and engineering. STEM workers, on average, earn 26 percent more than their
non-STEM counterparts, and experience lower unemployment rates than those in other fields. In
addition, healthy STEM industries are critical to maintaining a quality of life in the United States. A
national program of ocean and Great lakes exploration provides myriad ways to capture public
imagination and curiosity to support sustained involvement and more intense exposure not only to
STEM topics, but also the humanities and arts. New less expensive tools, such as small ROVs, remote
sensing station, and underwater cameras, enable everyone to participate in ocean and freshwater
exploration, such as through the NOAA kiosks stationed in Coastal Ecosystem Learning Centers, provide
a glimpse into the true nature of science: not merely as a bundle of textbook facts, but a dynamic
enterprise of investigation that is constantly changing as our understanding evolves. The effectiveness of
STEM-focused programs are evident; studies have shown not only that young people enjoy inquirybased STEM activities in and out of school settings, but also that sustained involvement and more
intense exposure to STEM topics increase youth interest and confidence in their scientific abilities. By
engaging the public with ocean and Great Lakes observation, we provide people of all ages with
opportunities to explore their natural aquatic environments, and to fall in love with the magic and
mystery of scientific exploration.
Increasing STEM cements the foundations for America’s economic growth and global
competitiveness.
Engler 12 (John, President of Buisness Roundtable and former governor of Michigan, “STEM Education Is the Key to the
U.S.'s Economic Future”, US News & World Report. June 15, 2012,
http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2012/06/15/stem-education-is-the-key-to-the-uss-economic-future, nyy)
A close look at American unemployment statistics reveals a contradiction: Even with unemployment at
historically high levels, large numbers of jobs are going unfilled. Many of these jobs have one thing in
common–the need for an educational background in science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics. Increasingly, one of our richest sources of employment and economic growth will be jobs
that require skills in these areas, collectively known as STEM. The question is: Will we be able to educate enough young
Americans to fill them? Yes, the unemployment numbers have been full of bad news for the past few years. But there has been good news
too. While
the overall unemployment rate has slowly come down to May's still-high 8.2 percent, for those
in STEM occupations the story is very different. According to a recently released study from Change the
Equation, an organization that supports STEM education, there are 3.6 unemployed workers for every
job in the United States. That compares with only one unemployed STEM worker for two unfilled STEM
jobs throughout the country. Many jobs are going unfilled simply for lack of people with the right skill
sets. Even with more than 13 million Americans unemployed, the manufacturing sector cannot find people with the skills to take nearly
600,000 unfilled jobs, according to a study last fall by the Manufacturing Institute and Deloitte. The hardest jobs to fill were
skilled positions, including well-compensated blue collar jobs like machinists, operators, and technicians,
as well as engineering technologists and sciences. As Raytheon Chairman and CEO William Swanson said at a
Massachusetts' STEM Summit last fall, "Too many students and adults are training for jobs in which labor surpluses
exist and demand is low, while high-demand jobs, particularly those in STEM fields, go unfilled." STEMrelated skills are not just a source of jobs, they are a source of jobs that pay very well. A report last October
from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce found that 65 percent of those with Bachelors' degrees in STEM
fields earn more than Master's degrees in non-STEM occupations. In fact, 47 percent of Bachelor's degrees in STEM occupations earn more
than PhDs in non-STEM occupations. But despite the lucrative potential, many young people are reluctant to enter into fields that require a
background in science, technology, engineering, or mathematics. In a recent study by the Lemselson-MIT Invention Index, which gauges
innovation aptitude among young adults, 60 percent of young adults (ages 16 to 25) named at least one factor that prevented them from
pursuing further education or work in the STEM fields. Thirty-four percent said they don't know much about the fields, a third said they were
too challenging, and 28 percent said they were not well-prepared at school to seek further education in these areas. This
is a
problem—for young people and for our country. We need STEM-related talent to compete globally,
and we will need even more in the future. It is not a matter of choice: For the United States to remain
the global innovation leader, we must make the most of all of the potential STEM talent this country has
to offer. Government can play a critical part. President Barack Obama's goal of 100,000 additional science, technology,
engineering, and math teachers is laudable. The president's STEM campaign leverages mostly private-sector funding. Called Educate to
Innovate, it has spawned Change the Equation, whose study was cited above. A nongovernmental organization, Change the Equation was
set up by more than 100 CEOs, with the cooperation of state governments and educational organizations and foundations to align corporate
efforts in STEM education. Meanwhile, from June 27 to 29, U.S. News will draw together, for the first time, hundreds of business executives,
educators, policymakers, government officials, technology experts, philanthropists, community leaders, and association chiefs to develop
solutions to the jobs crisis in the STEM fields. This public-private cooperation is an example of business's recognition of the importance of
STEM to our economic future. Business needs a talent pipeline providing the skilled employees who can routinely use scientific and
technological skills in their jobs. Fortunately, more and more companies and their senior executives recognize this and are putting their
money where their long-term interests are. For
America, improving achievement in science, technology,
engineering, and math will go a long way to ensuring that our country can compete globally, create jobs,
and achieve the levels of economic growth that will buttress Americans' standard of living and social
safety net. High-quality STEM education represents an opportunity that students, workers, educators,
and business must seize if we are to keep the country strong.
US growth and competitiveness preserves leadership and stops world war.
Khalilzad, 11 (Zalmay, Counselor at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, served as the United States ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq,
and the United Nations during the presidency of George W. Bush, served as the director of policy planning at the Defense Department during the Presidency
of George H.W. Bush, holds a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago, “The Economy and National Security,” National Review, February 8th,
http://www.nationalreview.com/node/259024/print)
Today, economic and fiscal trends
pose the most severe long-term threat to the United States’ position as global
leader. While the United States suffers from fiscal imbalances and low economic growth, the economies of rival powers are
developing rapidly. The continuation of these two trends could lead to a shift from American primacy toward a multi-polar
global system, leading in turn to increased geopolitical rivalry and even war among the great powers. The current recession
is the result of a deep financial crisis, not a mere fluctuation in the business cycle. Recovery is likely to be protracted. The crisis was preceded by
the buildup over two decades of enormous amounts of debt throughout the U.S. economy — ultimately totaling almost 350 percent of GDP —
and the development of credit-fueled asset bubbles, particularly in the housing sector. When the bubbles burst, huge amounts of wealth were
destroyed, and unemployment rose to over 10 percent. The decline of tax revenues and massive countercyclical spending put the U.S.
government on an unsustainable fiscal path. Publicly held national debt rose from 38 to over 60 percent of GDP in three years. Without
faster economic growth and actions to reduce deficits, publicly held national debt is projected to reach dangerous proportions. If
interest rates were to rise significantly, annual interest payments — which already are larger than the defense budget — would crowd out
other spending or require substantial tax increases that would undercut economic growth. Even worse, if unanticipated events trigger what
economists call a “sudden stop” in credit markets for U.S. debt, the
United States would be unable to roll over its outstanding obligations,
precipitating a sovereign-debt crisis that would almost certainly compel a radical retrenchment of the United States internationally. Such
scenarios would reshape the international order. It was the economic devastation of Britain and France during World War II,
as well as the rise of other powers, that led both countries to relinquish their empires. In the late 1960s, British leaders concluded that they
lacked the economic capacity to maintain a presence “east of Suez.” Soviet economic weakness, which crystallized under Gorbachev,
contributed to their decisions to withdraw from Afghanistan, abandon Communist regimes in Eastern Europe, and allow the Soviet Union to
fragment. If the U.S. debt problem goes critical, the United States would be compelled to retrench, reducing its military spending and shedding
international commitments. We face this domestic challenge while other major powers are experiencing rapid economic growth. Even though
countries such as China, India, and Brazil have profound political, social, demographic, and economic problems, their economies are growing
faster than ours, and this could alter the global distribution of power. These trends could in the long term produce a multi-polar world. If U.S.
policymakers fail to act and other powers continue to grow, it is not a question of whether but when a new international order will emerge. The
closing of the gap between the United States and its rivals could intensify geopolitical competition among major powers, increase incentives for
local powers to play major powers against one another, and undercut our will to preclude or respond to international crises because of the
higher risk of escalation. The
stakes are high. In modern history, the longest period of peace among the great powers has
been the era of U.S. leadership. By contrast, multi-polar systems have been unstable, with their competitive dynamics
resulting in frequent crises and major wars among the great powers. Failures of multi-polar international systems
produced both world wars. American retrenchment could have devastating consequences. Without an American security blanket, regional
powers could rearm in an attempt to balance against emerging threats. Under this scenario, there would be a heightened
possibility of arms races, miscalculation, or other crises spiraling into all-out conflict. Alternatively, in seeking to
accommodate the stronger powers, weaker powers may shift their geopolitical posture away from the United States. Either way, hostile
states would be emboldened to make aggressive moves in their regions. As rival powers rise, Asia in particular is likely to
emerge as a zone of great-power competition. Beijing’s economic rise has enabled a dramatic military buildup focused on acquisitions of naval,
cruise, and ballistic missiles, long-range stealth aircraft, and anti-satellite capabilities. China’s strategic modernization is aimed, ultimately, at
denying the United States access to the seas around China. Even as cooperative economic ties in the region have grown, China’s expansive
territorial claims — and provocative statements and actions following crises in Korea and incidents at sea — have roiled its relations with South
Korea, Japan, India, and Southeast Asian states. Still, the United States is the most significant barrier facing Chinese hegemony and aggression.
Given the risks, the United States must focus on restoring its economic and fiscal condition while checking and managing the rise of potential
adversarial regional powers such as China. While we face significant challenges, the U.S. economy still accounts for over 20 percent of the
world’s GDP. American institutions — particularly those providing enforceable rule of law — set it apart from all the rising powers. Social
cohesion underwrites political stability. U.S. demographic trends are healthier than those of any other developed country. A culture of
innovation, excellent institutions of higher education, and a vital sector of small and medium-sized enterprises propel
the U.S. economy in ways difficult to quantify. Historically, Americans have responded pragmatically, and sometimes through trial and
error, to work our way through the kind of crisis that we face today. The policy question is how to enhance economic
growth and employment while cutting discretionary spending in the near term and curbing the growth of entitlement spending in the
out years. Republican members of Congress have outlined a plan. Several think tanks and commissions, including President Obama’s debt
commission, have done so as well. Some consensus exists on measures to pare back the recent increases in domestic spending, restrain future
growth in defense spending, and reform the tax code (by reducing tax expenditures while lowering individual and corporate rates). These are
promising options. The key remaining question is whether the president and leaders of both parties on Capitol Hill have the will to act and the
skill to fashion bipartisan solutions. Whether we take the needed actions is a choice, however difficult it might be. It is clearly within our
capacity to put our economy on a better trajectory. In garnering political support for cutbacks, the president and members of Congress should
point not only to the domestic consequences of inaction — but also to the geopolitical implications. As the United States gets its economic and
fiscal house in order, it should take steps to prevent a flare-up in Asia. The United States can do so by signaling that its domestic challenges will
not impede its intentions to check Chinese expansionism. This can be done in cost-efficient ways. While China’s economic rise enables its
military modernization and international assertiveness, it also frightens rival powers. The Obama administration has wisely moved to
strengthen relations with allies and potential partners in the region but more can be done. Some Chinese policies encourage other parties to
join with the United States, and the U.S. should not let these opportunities pass. China’s military assertiveness should enable security
cooperation with countries on China’s periphery — particularly Japan, India, and Vietnam — in ways that complicate Beijing’s strategic calculus.
China’s mercantilist policies and currency manipulation — which harm developing states both in East Asia and elsewhere — should be used to
fashion a coalition in favor of a more balanced trade system. Since Beijing’s over-the-top reaction to the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a
Chinese democracy activist alienated European leaders, highlighting human-rights questions would not only draw supporters from nearby
countries but also embolden reformers within China. Since the end of the Cold War, a
stable economic and financial condition
at home has enabled America to have an expansive role in the world. Today we can no longer take this for
granted. Unless we get our economic house in order, there is a risk that domestic stagnation in combination with the rise of
rival powers will undermine our ability to deal with growing international problems. Regional hegemons in Asia could seize the
moment, leading the world toward a new, dangerous era of multi-polarity.
Plan
Thus the plan: The United States federal government should establish the Ocean
Science and Exploration Agency.
Contention 5 – Solvency
OSEA creation is essential to innovative ocean exploration – it solves the advantages.
Current government and private sector models will fail.
McClain, 12 (Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and
editor @ Deep Sea News, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt. 3,” 10/16/12,
http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-3/)
We are at a time for renewed commitment to ocean exploration and science. As stated by the Joint Ocean Commission,
“Ocean programs continue to be chronically underfunded, highlighting the need for a dedicated ocean investment fund.” Captain Don Walsh,
one of three men to visit the deepest part of the ocean, recently stated it best: “What we need is an Ocean NASA.” We borrow and
modify John F. Kennedy’s famous speech at Rice University on the decision to go to the moon: In short, our leadership in science and in
industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these
mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world’s leading ocean-faring nation…We set sail because there is new
knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. There
is much to be
gained from creating NASA-style Ocean Science and Exploration Agency (OSEA). Every dollar we commit to
science returns $2.21 in goods and services. Meeting the scientific, technological, logistical, and administrative demands of
scientific exploration creates jobs and requires substantial personnel beyond just scientists and engineers. The materials
purchased for this cause support even further employment. As with NASA, meeting these scientific and engineering challenges
will disseminate ideas, knowledge, applications, and technology to rest of society. This knowledge gained from basic
research will form the backbone for applied research and economic gain later. And much like NASA has, OSEA will
inspire the next generation of scientist and engineers, instilling in the young a renewed appreciation for the oceans of which we are all
stewards: our oceans. It will provide a positive focus for society in a time where hope is often lacking and faith in science is low. OSEA will be
the positive message that renews interest in our oceans and their conservation.What Does an OSEA look like? At the core OSEA
would
need a mission dedicated to basic research and exploration of the >;90% of the world’s oceans that remain unexplored.
High risk with the potential for high impact would be the norm. Pioneering knows no other way to achieve those truly novel and impactful
gains. To achieve these goals, OSEA would need substantial infrastructure and fleet including international and regional class
research vessels, a submersible, remotely operated vehicles, and autonomous underwater vehicles. Funding would need to be secure on
decadal cycles to insure both the longevity and permanence of this mission but allow for oversight to ensure OSEA was meeting its mission and
financial responsibilities. An
ocean exploration center would be staffed with a vibrant community of researchers,
engineers, and administrators, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and visiting experts with a strong interacting and supportive
community working toward uncovering the mysteries of the oceans. Research would be funded internally from a broad
OSEA budget, not externally, freeing scientists and engineers to actually do science and engineering as opposed to the only current option,
which is writing grants to other agencies with a less than 10% chance of funding. OSEA would also be a resource both for the research
community and the public by being dedicated to open science, i.e. making scientific research, data and dissemination accessible to
all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional. Publications, data, software, and engineering would be freely available and open
to all. All internal processes would be transparent. The mission of OSEA in the spirit of open science would be equally dedicated to public
outreach. For too long have science and society been disconnected. OSEA
would involve the public as the ultimate funders of our work. A
strategic plan to involve children and adults in the
mission. There would be multiple opportunities for anyone to be involved including the public. Citizen scientists would be
essential components, allowing adults to take a residence and contribute to OSEA and become life long ambassadors long after their
residence. Although parts of OSEA are realized in other government and private organizations, they do not meet the
full mission nor can such a distributed structure be expected to meet the challenges of this pivotal moment. For
novel and cutting edge education and outreach group would develop a
example, NOAA fills a much-needed role but its mission is largely applied. NOAA’s mission statement is “Science, Service, and Stewardship. To
understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To
conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resource”. Contrast that to NASA’s simple mission, “to pioneer the future in space
exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” In an agency with a chiefly applied mission, those programs that are purely
exploratory must eventually invent an applied focus or face the axe. For example, even under NURP, exploration often focused on corals and
fish of considerable economic and conservation importance rather than those species of greatest novelty or knowledge deficit. The current
situation at NOAA also highlights how less applied scientific programs are likely to be lost. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute also
provides another model that comes close to OSEA but is heavily reliant on private
funding that can often be significantly
reduced during recessions as endowments shrink. Moreover, a private foundation is unlikely to meet the
full financial burden to support the full mission of an OSEA or provide a resource to the ocean science community as
whole. This is not meant to criticize either NOAA or MBARI, indeed both supported our own research and have made immense contributions to
ocean science and exploration, but neither do they fully realize our vision for OSEA. As John F. Kennedy stated, “We must be
bold.” It is time for a great national effort of the United States of America, time for us to renew our commitment to uncovering the mysteries of
the blue planet we live on. We
need a NASA-style Ocean Science and Exploration Agency (OSEA). to explore and research the
greatest depths of oceans with a community of scientists, engineers, and citizens.
The agency needs to be independent to avoid bureaucratic tradeoffs.
CES, 3 (Committee on Exploration of the Seas, National Research Council, Exploration of the Seas:
Interim Report, National Academies Press, p. 14-15)
In proposing a strategy for
international ocean exploration, it is prudent to start with a model for a U.S. national
program that may encourage the development of similar national programs elsewhere. Once a number of national programs
are established, nations can then collaborate in specific areas or along themes of mutual interest. The Committee recommends the
creation of a national program for ocean exploration, which will be the principal implementing entity for carrying out
the ocean exploration initiative in the United States. The Committee believes that an organization charged with implementing an
effective international ocean exploration program should not be part of a government agency where it
may be subject to internal budgetary and mission pressures, lack of transparency in budgeting and expenditures, as
well as influences on program review not based on merit. The government would provide funding to the national program, offer
assistance with respect to public affairs, platforms, and data management, engage in budgetary oversight, and administer a
competitive process for the selection of an external national program for ocean exploration project office. The oceanographic community has
had successful experiences contracting with not-for-profit corporations to perform similar functions (e.g., the Joint Oceanographic Institutions,
Inc. which manages ODP). Although an existing institution or for-profit
company could also operate the national program office, these
arrangements are less likely to achieve broad community support.
Ocean exploration is only a matter of political will – the plan solves the harms.
Cousteau, 12 (Philippe, co-founder of EarthEcho International, “Why exploring the ocean is mankind’s
next giant leap,” 3/13/12, http://lightyears.blogs.cnn.com/2012/03/13/why-exploring-the-ocean-ismankinds-next-giant-leap/)
Today a possible answer to that question has been announced. And it does not entail straining our necks to look skyward. Finally, there is a
growing recognition that some of the
most important discoveries and opportunities for innovation may lie beneath what
covers more than 70 percent of our planet – the ocean. You may think I’m doing my grandfather Jacques Yves-Cousteau and my father
Philippe a disservice when I say we’ve only dipped our toes in the water when it comes to ocean exploration.
After all, my grandfather co-invented the modern SCUBA system and "The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau" introduced generations to the
wonders of the ocean. In the decades since, we’ve only
explored about 10 percent of the ocean - an essential resource and
complex environment that literally supports life as we know it, life on earth. We now have a golden opportunity and a pressing need
to recapture that pioneering spirit. A new era of ocean exploration can yield discoveries that will help inform
everything from critical medical advances to sustainable forms of energy. Consider that AZT, an early treatment for HIV, is
derived from a Caribbean reef sponge, or that a great deal of energy - from offshore wind, to OTEC (ocean thermal energy conservation), to
wind and wave energy - is yet untapped in our oceans. Like unopened presents under the tree, the
ocean is a treasure trove of
knowledge. In addition, such discoveries will have a tremendous impact on economic growth by creating jobs
as well as technologies and goods. In addition to new discoveries, we also have the opportunity to course correct when it comes to
stewardship of our oceans. Research and exploration can go hand in glove with resource management and
conservation. Over the last several decades, as the United States has been exploring space, we’ve exploited and polluted our oceans at an
alarming rate without dedicating the needed time or resources to truly understand the critical role they play in the future of the planet. It is not
trite to say that the
oceans are the life support system of this planet, providing us with up to 70 percent of our
oxygen, as well as a primary source of protein for billions of people, not to mention the regulation of our climate. Despite this
life-giving role, the world has fished, mined and trafficked the ocean's resources to a point where we are actually seeing dramatic changes that
is seriously impacting today's generations. And that impact will continue as the world's population approaches 7 billion people, adding strain to
the world’s resources unlike any humanity has ever had to face before. In the long term, destroying our ocean
resources is bad
business with devastating consequences for the global economy, and the health and sustainability of all creatures including humans. Marine spatial planning, marine sanctuaries, species conservation, sustainable fishing strategies, and more must be a part of
any ocean exploration and conservation program to provide hope of restoring health to our oceans. While there is still much to learn and
discover through space exploration, we also need to pay attention to our unexplored world here on earth. Our next big leap
into the unknown can be every bit as exciting and bold as our pioneering work in space. It possesses the same "wow" factor: alien worlds,
dazzling technological feats and the mystery of the unknown. The
United States has the scientific muscle, the diplomatic
know-how and the entrepreneurial spirit to lead the world in exploring and protecting our ocean
frontier. Now we need the public demand and political will and bravery to take the plunge in order to ensure that the
oceans can continue to provide life to future generations.
Inherency
Funding
Funding not happening and is vital.
Haidvogal et. al 13 (Dale, Professor at Rutgers University in Physical oceanography, numerical ocean circulation
modeling, Elizabeth Turner, Oceanographer and Senior Program Manager NOAA Center for Sponsored Coastal Ocean Research
(CSCOR), Enrique N. Curchitser, Associate Professor Physical Oceanography / Modeling at Rutgers University, Eileen Hoffman,
Eileen E. Hofmann Professor of Oceanography at Old Dominion University, Transdisciplinary Modeling, Environmental
Forecasting, and Management, Vol. 26 No. 4, http://www.tos.org/oceanography/archive/26-4_haidvogel.html) jml
Large-scale ocean research programs are difficult to sustain under stable budgets, and are even more so
under declining budgets. A national ocean research initiative has been formulated through the Ocean
Research Priorities Plan (National Science and Technology Council, 2007, 2013), which highlights themes
that were also part of US GLOBEC, such as: Monitoring of living resources (at multiple trophic levels),
Collection of necessary data (observational and experimental) to support robust models , Processoriented research to resolve critical functional relationships encoded into models Development and
validation of ecosystem and species interaction models at appropriate scales that incorporate feedback
mechanisms among trophic levels, Improving ecosystem models to better understand complex
ecosystem dynamics and forecast the effects of resource use, exploration, and development on
ecosystems and individual components These ambitions have yet to be fully implemented due to
financial constraints, but it is clear that approaches such as those used by US GLOBEC continue to be
essential to meeting the nation’s ocean research needs.
Lack of funding prohibits ocean exploration
Conathan 13 | Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike spent
five years staffing the Senate Committee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. He holds a masters in marine affairs from the
University of Rhode Island and a BA in English Literature from Georgetown University. <“Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending,”
6/25/2014. The reference shelf. TG>
“Star Trek” would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might be a tad off base. Though we know little about outer space,
we still have plenty of frontiers to explore here on our home planet. And they’re losing the race of
discovery. Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters such as “Ti- tanic” and “Avatar,” brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the singleseat submersible that he used to become the third human to journey to the deepest point of the world’s oceans—the Marianas Trench. By
contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into space—including Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the committee before which
Cameron testified—and 12 people have actu- ally set foot on the surface of the moon. All it takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
NASA’s annual exploration
budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That same year, total funding for everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and
climate forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs—was about $5 billion, and NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Re- search received just
$23.7 million. Something is wrong with this picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately $8 million,
Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space ex- ploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013
deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and com- pletely inhospitable to human life. Yet space travel
excites Americans’ imaginations in a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space
dominates, with “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Buck Rogers in the 25th Century,” and “2001 A Space Od- yssey.” Then there are B-movies such as “Plan Nine From Outer
Space” and every- thing ever mocked on “Mystery Science Theater 2000.” There are even parodies: “Spaceballs,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “Mars Attacks!” And let’s not forget Cameron’s own
contributions: “Aliens” and “Avatar.” Part of this incongruity comes from access. No matter where we live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about what’s
out there. We’re presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were chil- dren. Only the
lucky few can gaze out at the ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. When it comes to the ocean, we have “20,000 Leagues Under the
Sea,” “Sponge Bob Square Pants,” and Cameron’s somewhat lesser-known film “The Abyss.” And that’s about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative of what plays out in real life. We
rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mo- hawk Guy” for his
audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet
the facts about ocean
exploration are pretty bleak. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we have better maps of the surface of Mars
than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those
intrigued by the quest for alien life, consider this: Scientists estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live
below the surface of the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as my- self. As a result,
in our oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a time of shrinking
budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our in- vestments, we should be taking a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing
our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of
the ocean than up in the heavens. The ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a wealth of mineral re- sources, key ingredients
for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of course space exportation does have benefits beyond the “cool factor” of put- ting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David
Bowie covers in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our lives— cell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and water-filtration systems, just to
name a few—and research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare
metals, the only tangible goods brought back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks.
NASA given more importance and funding
Peterson 13 (Molly, “Long Beach to host first effort to craft a national ocean exploration plan”, SCPR, July 18,
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/environment/2013/07/18/14302/long-beach-to-host-first-effort-to-craft-a-nationa/) KD
Deep space and the deep sea have a few things in common: they’re dark, they’re cold, and they’re fairly inhospitable to human life. But the US
spends a LOT more money exploring space than it does the ocean. About one hundred of the nation’s leading ocean
explorers are meeting Friday and Saturday at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach as part of a high-profile effort to change that.¶ The
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration got just around $24 million in the most recent
fiscal year for ocean exploration. NASA’s budget for space exploration topped out around $3.8 billion: about
150 times more money. And NOAA funding is always on shaky ground. In the last year, Congress again kicked
around the idea of killing off the National Undersea Research Program.¶ The Aquarium of the Pacific is co-sponsoring
this weekend’s meeting with NOAA, several foundations, and Google. The meeting’s executive chair is Marcia McNutt, a marine geophysicist
who until recently ran the US Geological Survey. Government scientists, policymakers, and people from the private sector will discuss
exploration priorities. At the end, they plan to produce the first national ocean exploration plan, which they will present to President Obama.¶
Even though Friday and Saturday sessions are invitation-only, NOAA’s streaming the meeting online. The Aquarium of the Pacific is making
Sunday Explorer’s Day. At the tropical reef habitat, scientists will demonstrate remote operated vehicles. And several ocean explorers will be
presenting their work and chatting with the public. Among them will be Sylvia Earle, who led the first team of women aquanauts during the
Tektite Project.
NOAA Bad
The NOAA is a stagnant agency that is forced into a corner by bureaucracy
Juda 14 [Lawrence, Works at the Department of Marine Affairs, Ocean Development & International Law, Taylor & Francis,
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/00908320390209627]-DaveD.
Institutional change did occur following the issuance of the Stratton Commission Report. President Nixon established a National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),39 but it was not made an independent body as suggested by the Stratton Com- mission. Rather, it was
placed in the Department of Commerce. Further, not all of the governmental units that the Stratton Commission would have transferred into
that agency were so moved.40 Although
the creation of NOAA represented a significant step toward ocean
policy centralization, it did not eliminate the reality that a number of civilian federal government
departments and agencies still maintained important jurisdictional and programmatic responsibilities
relating to ocean/coastal matters. Some saw the establishment of NOAA only as the start of a process of
centraliza- tion of ocean authority and policy.42 Indeed, several bills were introduced in Congress calling
for the establishment of a Department of the Oceans, a Department of the Envi- ronment and Oceans,
or an independent ocean agency,43 but the energy crisis caused by the Arab oil embargo in the 1970s
served to shift reorganization attention toward energy and natural resource concerns. In this context
ocean-related programs and resources were not seen as providing an integrating theme but rather as
elements of what might be encompassed in the creation of a Department of Energy and Natural
Resources.44 As noted by Robert White, a former Administrator of NOAA, “Governments are problemoriented, not place oriented,”45 so in this perspective it is not surprising that oceans were not seen as a
focal point around which to organize government.¶ But the failure to achieve more substantial
organizational change also reflected a continuing problem associated with efforts for governmental
reorganization: bureaucratic bodies will mobilize to protect existing agency jurisdiction (turf) and
prerogatives.46 This characteristic is seen as well in the standing committees of Congress, whose members are vigilant and wary of change
that may weaken committee importance and influence. Reorganization also raises anxieties among many nongovernmental stakeholders. All of
these actors are well aware that reorganization has implications for their influence and the substantive nature of ocean and coastal policy.
Accordingly, suggestions for institu- tional reorganization will be carefully and skeptically scrutinized.¶ In terms of policy recommendations, the
findings of the Stratton Commission with respect to the coastal zone were heeded by Congress and reflected in the passage of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA)47 in 1972. The CZMA marks an important de- parture from past practice in that it represents a spatial and not a
sectoral approach to the management of coastal areas, one in which uses are not to be considered in isolation but in relation to other uses and
with consideration of their impacts on the broader environment. Important incentives in the form of federal funding48 and federal
consistency49 are provided to encourage states to adopt comprehensive coastal zone management..
Funding/US Leadership
American funding and global leadership on oceans is dwindling.
McClain, 12 (Craig, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and
editor @ Deep Sea News, “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt. 1,” 10/16/12,
http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-1/)
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.
Adv – Science
No Env. Leadership
The US has lost its lead as the a green leader.
Knox, 12 (John H. Knox is the Henry C. Lauerman Professor of International Law at Wake Forest
University. Professor Knox has taught courses on environmental law, international environmental law,
human rights, international trade, and property law. His scholarship examines international
environmental law, human rights law, and international economic integration, and has often focused on
areas where those fields overlap or conflict, Reclaiming Global Environmental Leadership, blog, January
20, 2012, http://www.progressivereform.org/CPRBlog.cfm?idBlog=FB9153F2-ABFE-3CF28053EAF1ED929DB8, A.G)
For more than a century, the United States took the lead in organizing responses to international
environmental problems. The long list of environmental agreements spearheaded by the United States extends from early treaties
with Canada and Mexico on boundary waters and migratory birds to global agreements restricting trade in endangered species and protecting
against ozone depletion. In
the last two decades, however, U.S. environmental leadership has faltered. The
best-known example is the lack of an effective response to climate change, underscored by the U.S. decision not to
join the Kyoto Protocol. But the attention climate change receives should not obscure the fact that the United States has also failed
to join a large and growing number of treaties directed at other environmental threats, including marine pollution,
the loss of biological diversity, persistent organic pollutants, and trade in toxic substances
US Should Lead - Brink
The US maintains its edge the scientific leader, but new operations are necessary to
sustain this position.
Akst, 12 (Jef, master’s degree from Indiana University and news editor at The Scientist, “Slipping from the Top?” The Scientist, 3/14/12,
http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articleNo/31845/title/Slipping-from-the-Top-/)
The United States is still a global leader in science and technology research, but the country must act now to
avoid losing its edge. This was the overall consensus among two panels of experts, which included National Institutes of Health Director
Francis Collins, assembled today (March 14) by Research!America, a nonprofit public education and advocacy alliance. “I do think America
continues to be a place where boldness and innovation and creativity are encouraged,” Collins said. But there
are “warning signs,” he added, such as the facts that the country is now ranked 6th in the world with regard to the
proportion of its gross domestic product that is invested in research and development and that young high school students score
relatively poorly in math and science compared to teens in other nations. If efforts are not taken to reverse these trends, Collins warned, “we
might see America lose their commitment to supporting research at the level that it will take to maintain that
competitiveness.” Research!America today released the results of a national poll that suggests the American voting public is
skeptical about the country’s future in scientific research. More than half (58 percent) of those polled do not believe the
United States will be a world leader in science and technology in 2020, and 85 percent said they were worried about decreases
in federal funding for research. “The findings reveal deep concerns among likely voters about our ability to maintain world-class
status,” said Mary Woolley, president and CEO of Research!America—something that the vast majority (91 percent) of those polled said was
important, especially
as other countries are increasingly investing in science.
SciDip Solves War
Science diplomacy builds coalitions, creates multilateral applications for soft power
and diffuses global conflicts.
Espy, 13 (Nicole, PhD student in Biological Sciences of Public Health at Harvard University, “Science
and Diplomacy,” 2/18/13, http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2013/science-and-diplomacy/)
The daily endeavors of a scientist may seem very distinct from those of a political diplomat. The public may imagine that scientific progress is
driven by the work of scientists working methodically and in isolation in laboratories around the world. In contrast, the idea of a political
diplomat likely conjures a different image – one that involves groups of politicians forming alliances and guiding negotiations between multiple
organizations and nations. But, science is a similarly collaborative effort that often requires coordination between different groups to improve
available tools and advance knowledge. Science and
diplomacy can even benefit one another. Science can provide the
data and frameworks necessary to initiate and inform diplomatic talks while at the same time, diplomacy can create
opportunities that improve the way we do science. Science as a topic of Diplomacy Science is at the heart of many
international diplomatic discussions. For example, nuclear research has been a hot topic in international politics for the past 60
years. Nuclear research has enabled us to harness the power of nuclear fission for nuclear energy, but it has also resulted in the creation of
nuclear arms that have led to a great deal of destruction. To ensure nuclear research continues in a safe and responsible manner, nations have
worked together to develop a system of oversight and accountability. These diplomatic efforts have resulted in the establishment of the
International Atomic Energy Agency, whose early slogan was “Atoms for Peace.” This agency provides technical guidelines and assistance to
countries for safe use of tools and techniques involving nuclear and radioactive materials. It also attempts to make public the development of
nuclear arms programs in countries around the world so that other world leaders can take appropriate action. The International Atomic Energy
Agency is a model for how scientists and policy makers can share information and work toward shared interests. Climate change is another
major driver of international diplomatic negotiations. The impact of climate change on people’s lives is largely unpredictable and non-uniform
across different regions. In response, national leaders similarly vary in their willingness to consent to international agreements concerning
means to cut green house gas emissions. While the scientific consensus is that greenhouse-gas emissions are a major cause of global warming,
the debate surrounding climate change at the global diplomatic level concerns the methods that should be employed to slow global warming
and which countries should carry the brunt of the socioeconomic responsibility. The Kyoto Protocol, written in 1997, was an international
agreement that required participating countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The greatest responsibility for these reductions fell on
developed countries, like the United States and those in Europe, who emitted much of the greenhouse gas during the 19th and 20th centuries.
However, in 2001, the United States withdrew its support of the Protocol, in objection to the quality of the Protocol’s goals, recognizing that
rapidly industrializing countries like China and India now emit more greenhouse gases from fossil fuels than high-income countries. Meanwhile,
low-income countries, including many island nations soon to be overcome by rising sea levels, want immediate action that will stop climate
change and help these countries adapt to future changes. Last November, the United Nations held the Doha Climate Change conference, one of
a series of conferences held to devise an internationally supported plan of action to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions. The result was not a
consensus on the means and measurements of reducing emissions per country. Instead, the Kyoto Protocol was extended through 2020 and
participating countries discussed the right of island nations to be compensated for adaptation costs. Since all 196 countries in the world are a
part of this conversation, climate change negotiations are difficult but imperative in the face of the impending effects of climate change.
Ultimately, science can help provide the data – models forecasting future climate changes, predicted outcomes of different strategies – that
help frame climate change discussions, but decisions on what policy to pursue will require frank and democratic deliberations that balance the
needs and interests of all stakeholders. Diplomacy to improve science Sometimes diplomacy
is used to make new scientific
tools available and to facilitate intellectual exchange. After the Second World War, European scientists in the field of
nuclear physics imagined an organization that would increase collaboration across Europe and coordinate cost sharing for the building and
maintenance of the facilities this research required. This idea resulted in the formation of the European Organization for Nuclear Research, or
CERN. The political negotiations to manage the shared operating costs and the use of CERN facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half
of the world’s physicists from many different nations and academic institutions are now carried out within the CERN framework to manage the
shared operating costs and the use of the facilities, like the Large Hadron Collider, by over half of the world’s physicists. This use of diplomacy
has enabled many important discoveries, including the most recent discovery of the Higgs Boson. Other organizations that are the result of
global collaboration include ITER, former known as the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor, for the development of nuclear
fusion for energy production, the Square Kilometre Array for the design of the world’s largest radio telescope, and the International Space
Station for space exploration. All of the above organizations have helped scientists overcome technical (and financial) challenges in their
respective fields that they would not have surmounted on their own. Science to improve Diplomacy Beyond the contentious subjects of nuclear
proliferation and climate change, science
can be a tool to improve diplomatic relations between conflicting
nations. The former Dean of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University Dr. Joseph Nye, Jr., noted that “soft power,” such as
international cultural and intellectual collaborations between international groups, helps maintain a positive
global attitude between participating nations and can result in favorable political alliances. Scientific
collaborations are a powerful example of soft power, since science is internationally respected as an
impartial endeavor.
Science diplomacy is a vital tool in achieving growth and minimizing war.
Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, “Remarks on
Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)
Science diplomacy helps other countries to become more capable in science and technology. One might worry that this
creates more capable competitors, but I believe that it is in the interest of technologically advanced societies like in the
U.S. and Europe to encourage more knowledge-based societies worldwide that rely upon science. The only way to
stay in the forefront of the scientific and technological revolution, which is where I want the U.S. to be, is to run faster and to
work with the best scientists and engineers wherever they reside in the world. That is why I support more global scientific
engagement by the U.S. with leading scientists and engineers around the world. The approach that I favor was captured well in the
title of an article in the October 2012 issue of Scientific American: “A measure of the creativity of a nation is how well it works with those
beyond its borders.” I believe that the world has a special opportunity in this decade since so many countries are focusing on
improving their capabilities in science and technology and are willing to make fundamental changes in investments and policies so they can
build more innovative societies. If we
can minimize wars and conflicts with skillful diplomacy, the potential is
there for more rapid economic growth, faster expansion of the middle class, and increased democratic governance in many
countries as well as increased trade between countries. This is an optimistic scenario. A range of future scenarios, including some that
are quite pessimistic, are laid out in the fascinating report Global Trends 2030, published by the U.S. National Intelligence Council in 2012.(8) I
believe that we
can make the hopeful scenario a reality. Science diplomacy is one of our most important
tools in achieving the desired outcome.
Science diplomacy can prevent conflict and diffuse existing tensions.
Wallin, 10 (Matthew, master’s candidate at in the Public Diplomacy program and Center for Science
Diplomacy intern/conference reporter, referencing the remarks of Ernest J. Wilson III, Dean of the USC
Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism at the proceedings of the USC Center of Public
Diplomacy’s conference on Science Diplomacy and the Prevention of Conflict, 2/4/10,
http://uscpublicdiplomacy.org/sites/uscpublicdiplomacy.org/files/useruploads/u22281/Science%20Dipl
omacy%20Proceedings.pdf)
In his introductory remarks, Dean Ernest Wilson pointed out that although science
diplomacy can be utilized to prevent
conflict, it tends to be neglected as an important aspect of diplomacy. Science diplomacy takes place at the intersection
of events and trends, and so it doesn’t neatly fit into traditional analytic categories, nor does it fit into the standard and
familiar organizational silos. Proposing three areas of analysis for science diplomacy, Wilson outlined the concepts of Context, Curves, and
Caution. Contextually, science
and technology’s ability to play a larger role in the foreign policy of states is an area
that requires careful scrutiny. This field is becoming more pertinent, as can be seen from recent conflicts between Google, Inc. and
the People’s Republic of China over Internet access. This example highlights technology companies’ attempts to gain political influence that
they believe is commensurate with their economic weight, demonstrating the possible emergence of a new political context where science and
technology (S&T) may be augmenting companies’ audiences and constituencies. To demonstrate the concept of Curves, Wilson brought up the
previous night’s question about the disaggregation of science. As
with science, conflict can be subdivided into different
categories, many of which require different tools to achieve lasting and successful resolution. Conflict cannot be
modeled as a steady state, but rather as a bell-shaped curve. On the left side, conflict is either non-existent or in a pre-conflict state.
Accelerators act to raise the level of conflict to a peak or plateau, and on the right side of the curve, conflict declines. It is
subsequently important to understand at which points on the curve science and technology can intervene. On the
left side, S&T can help prevent conflict, whereas at the peak it can help reduce it. On the right side, the question remains
of how exactly S&T can help sustain the reduction in conflict.
Science Race/Impact
The race for scientific leadership is on – innovative science is vital to solving global
impacts.
Colglazier, 13 (E. William, Science and Technology Advisor to the Secretary of State, “Remarks on
Science and Diplomacy in the 21st Century,” 8/20/13, http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/213741.htm)
In 2010 the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development released a strategic blueprint to chart the course of
the next four years. In this first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review, it was stated: “Science,
engineering, technology,
and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant force in globalization and international economic development.” The
significance of this observation has been emphasized repeatedly to me over the past two years in conversations with representatives
of many countries about science and technology. I have been struck by the fact that nearly every country has put at the
very top of its agenda the role of science and technology for supporting innovation and economic development. This
observation has been true for countries at every level of development – not only for countries like Germany, Japan, China, India,
Brazil, South Korea, and Singapore, but also for countries like Mexico, Colombia, Chile, South Africa, Indonesia, Czech Republic,
Malaysia, and Vietnam. They are all seeking insights regarding the right policies and investments to help their societies
to become more innovative and competitive to ensure a more prosperous future for their citizens. Why does nearly every
country now have a “laser-like” focus on improving its capabilities in science, technology, and innovation in order to be more
competitive in this globalized, interconnected world? My guess is that most countries see two trends clearly: (1) science and technology
have a major impact on the economic success of leading companies and countries and (2) the scientific and technological
revolution has been accelerating. If countries do not become more capable in science and technology, they will
be left behind. The upside is great if they can capitalize on the transformative potential of new and emerging technologies. As one
example, the information and communication technology (ICT) revolution has shown the potential for developing countries to use new
technologies to “leapfrog” over the development paths taken by developed countries, such as with mobile phones in Africa. Countries also
recognize that almost every
issue with which they are confronted on the national, regional, and global level has an
important scientific and technological component. This is true whether the issue concerns health, environment, national
security, homeland security, energy, communication, food, water, climate change, disaster preparedness, or
education. Countries know they have smart, creative, entrepreneurial people. They believe their people can compete, even from a distance, if
the right investments are made and the right policies are implemented. And they know that to become more capable in science and technology
and to create innovation and knowledge-based societies, they must collaborate with the world leaders in science and technology. New
and
emerging technologies have also affected the trajectory of fundamental science and engineering research by creating
new capabilities for exploring and understanding the natural world. We are only at the beginning of exploiting the potential
of these new capabilities. This is another reason for the acceleration of the scientific and technological revolution, progressing at such an
incredibly rapid pace that it is hard to imagine, much less predict, what new transformative possibilities will emerge within a decade. Scientists
are not much better at predicting the future than anyone else. I am very envious of young people who will see amazing developments in their
lifetimes. As renowned computer scientist Alan Kay said, “The best way to predict the future is to invent it.”
SciDip => Heg/Relations/Solves Things
Science diplomacy key to relations
Hormats 12 (Robert D., March 3, 2012, Robert D. Hormats has served as the U.S. Under Secretary of State for Economic Growth,
Energy, and the Environment since 2009., “Science Diplomacy and Twenty-First Century Statecraft”, AAAS,
http://www.sciencediplomacy.org/perspective/2012/science-diplomacy-and-twenty-first-century-statecraft) KD
Science diplomacy is a central component of America’s twenty-first century statecraft agenda. The
United States must increasingly recognize the vital role science and technology can play in addressing major
challenges, such as making our economy more competitive, tackling global health issues, and dealing with
climate change. American leadership in global technological advances and scientific research, and the dynamism of our
companies and universities in these areas, is a major source of our economic, foreign policy, and national security
strength. Additionally, it is a hallmark of the success of the American system. While some seek to delegitimize scientific ideas, we believe the United States
should celebrate science and see it—as was the case since the time of Benjamin Franklin—as an opportunity to advance the prosperity,
health, and overall wellbeing of Americans and the global community. Innovation policy is part of our science diplomacy
engagement. More than ever before, modern economies are rooted in science and technology. It is estimated that America’s
knowledge-based industries represent 40 percent of our economic growth and 60 percent of our
exports. Sustaining a vibrant knowledge-based economy, as well as a strong commitment to educational
excellence and advanced research, provides an opportunity for our citizens to prosper and enjoy upward
mobility. America attracts people from all over the world—scientists, engineers, inventors, and entrepreneurs—who want the opportunity to participate in,
and contribute to, our innovation economy. The practice of science is increasingly expanding from individuals to groups, from
single disciplines to interdisciplinary, and from a national to an international scope. The Organisation for Economic
Co-operation and Development reported that from 1985 to 2007, the number of scientific articles published by a single author decreased by 45 percent. During that
same period, the number of scientific articles published with domestic co-authorship increased by 136 percent, and those with international co-authorship
increased by 409 percent. The same trend holds for patents. Science
collaboration is exciting because it takes advantage of expertise
that exists around the country and around the globe. American researchers, innovators, and institutions, as well as their foreign
counterparts, benefit through these international collaborations. Governments that restrict the flow of scientific expertise and data will find themselves isolated,
cut off from the global networks that drive scientific and economic innovation. While the scientific
partnerships that the United States
builds with other nations, and international ties among universities and research labs, are a means to address
shared challenges, they also contribute to broadening and strengthening our diplomatic relationships. Scientific
partnerships are based on disciplines and values that transcend politics, languages, borders, and
cultures. Processes that define the scientific community—such as merit review, critical thinking, diversity of thought, and transparency—are fundamental
values from which the global community can reap benefits. History provides many examples of how scientific cooperation can
bolster diplomatic ties and cultural exchange. American scientists collaborated with Russian and Chinese
counterparts for decades, even as other aspects of our relationship proved more challenging. Similarly, the
science and technology behind the agricultural “Green Revolution” of the 1960s and ‘70s was the product of American, Mexican, and Indian researchers working
toward a common goal. Today, the United States has formal science and technology agreements with over fifty countries. We are committed to finding new ways to
work with other countries in science and technology, to conduct mutually beneficial joint research activities, and to advance the interests of the U.S. science and
technology community. Science diplomacy is not new. It
is, however, broader, deeper, and more visible than ever before and its
importance will continue to grow. The Department of State’s first Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review highlights that
“science, engineering, technology, and innovation are the engines of modern society and a dominant
force in globalization and international economic development.” These interrelated issues are priorities for the United States
and, increasingly, the world.
Adv – Pharmaceuticals
Oceans have Essential Medicines
The ocean is now an incredible source of biomedical resources; over 100 essential drugs
today exist because of ocean exploration.
UCSD 03 (Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California – San Diego, A group of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the
University of California, San Diego, have for the first time shown that sediments in the deep ocean are a significant biomedical resource for microbes that produce
antibiotic molecules; “Scripps Scientists Discover Rich Medical Drug Resource In Deep Ocean Sediments”; January 20, 2003,
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/01/030120100702.htm, RJ)
Although the oceans cover 70 percent of the planet's surface, much of their biomedical potential has
gone largely unexplored. Until now. A group of researchers at Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the
University of California, San Diego, have for the first time shown that sediments in the deep ocean are a
significant biomedical resource for microbes that produce antibiotic molecules. In a series of two
papers, a group led by William Fenical, director of the Center for Marine Biotechnology and Biomedicine
(CMBB) at Scripps Institution, has reported the discovery of a novel group of bacteria found to produce
molecules with potential in the treatment of infectious diseases and cancer. "The average person thinks
of the bottom of the ocean as a dark, cold, and nasty place that is irrelevant, but we've shown that this
environment may be a huge resource for new antibiotics and drugs for the treatment of cancer," said
Fenical. The first paper, published in the October, 2002 issue of Applied and Environmental
Microbiology, highlights the discovery of new bacteria, called actinomycetes, from ocean sediments. For
more than 45 years, terrestrial actinomycetes were the foundation of the pharmaceutical industry
because of their ability to produce natural antibiotics, including important drugs such as streptomycin,
actinomycin, and vancomycin. The data from this paper provide the first conclusive evidence of the
widespread occurrence of indigenous actinomycete populations in marine sediments. The second paper,
published in the Jan. 20, 2003 issue of the international edition of the chemistry journal Angewandte
Chemie, identifies the structure of a new natural product, which Fenical's group has named
Salinosporamide A, from this new bacterial resource. The new compound is a potent inhibitor of cancer
growth, including human colon carcinoma, non-small cell lung cancer, and, most effectively, breast
cancer. January's report cracks the door open for a line of similar discoveries from the recently
discovered Salinospora genus. "The second paper shows the potential for the production of materials
that are highly biologically active and very chemically unique. This is likely to be the tip of the iceberg of
diverse chemical formulas that are out there," said Fenical. Although more than 100 drugs today exist
from terrestrial microorganisms, including penicillin, arguably the most important drug in medicine, the
potential from land-based microbial sources began dwindling nearly 10 years ago. Pharmaceutical
investigators searched high and low around the globe for new terrestrial, drug-producing microbes, but
with diminishing payback. According to Fenical, when considering the ever-increasing resistance of
bacteria to existing antibiotics, the need to make new discoveries becomes essential. Surprisingly, the
oceans, with some of the most diverse ecosystems on the planet, were largely ignored as a potential
source for actinomycete bacteria. Given this omission, it was natural for Fenical's group at the Scripps
CMBB to initiate studies of marine environments for new microorganisms important in pharmaceutical
discovery. His group developed new methods and tools for obtaining a variety of ocean sediments,
including a miniaturized sampling device that efficiently captures samples from the deep ocean. They
derived bottom muds from more than 1,000 meters deep from the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans, the Red
Sea, and the Gulf of California. They also developed new methods for sifting through these samples
(which contain roughly one billion microorganisms per cubic centimeter), culturing the microorganisms,
identifying them by genetic methods, and screening their metabolic products for anticancer and
antibiotic properties. By genetic and culture analysis, Fenical's group discovered the new genus
Salinospora, a type of actinomycete bacteria found in tropical and subtropical oceans, but never seen
before on land. The results from their biomedical studies were extraordinarily positive. Of 100 strains of
these organisms tested, 80 percent produced molecules that inhibit cancer cell growth. Roughly 35
percent revealed the ability to kill pathogenic bacteria and fungi. Based on the worldwide distribution of
Salinospora, Fenical estimates that many thousands of strains will be available. "I would even go as far
as to say that never before has this level of biological activity been observed within a single group of
organisms," said Fenical. These discoveries have been patented by the University of California and
licensed to Nereus Pharmaceuticals Inc. for subsequent development. Nereus is a four-year-old biotech
company in San Diego, Calif. dedicated to the development of new drugs from this new source for drug
discovery. "These extraordinary marine discoveries by Scripps Institution, coupled with their
industrialization by Nereus Pharmaceuticals, could provide the next great source of drug discovery for
the pharmaceutical industry," said Kobi Sethna, president and CEO of Nereus Pharmaceuticals. "These
discoveries speak to the future of antibiotic discovery," said Fenical. "They point to the fact that the
ocean is an incredibly exciting new microbial resource. They indicate how little we know, and they
demonstrate how much we need to invest in further exploration of the oceans." In addition to Fenical,
coauthors on the papers include Tracy Mincer, Paul Jensen, Christopher Kauffman, Robert Feling, and
Greg Buchanan.
Exploring the deep could lead to incredible medical discoveries.
Mckie 2012 (Robin, science and technology editor for the Observer, Marine 'treasure trove' could
bring revolution in medicine and industry, 11/10/2012
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/nov/10/marine-treasure-trove-medicine MB)
Scientists have pinpointed a new treasure trove in our oceans: micro-organisms that contain millions of
previously unknown genes and thousands of new families of proteins. These tiny marine wonders offer a chance to exploit a vast pool of material
that could be used to create innovative medicines, industrial solvents, chemical treatments and other processes, scientists
say. Researchers have already created new enzymes for treating sewage and chemicals for making soaps from material they have found in ocean organisms.¶ "The potential for marine biotechnology is almost infinite," said Curtis
Suttle, professor of earth, ocean and atmospheric sciences at the University of British Columbia. "It has become clear that most of the biological and genetic diversity on Earth is – by far – tied up in marine ecosystems, and in
. By weight, more than 95% of all living organisms found in the oceans are microbial.
This is an incredible resource." However, the discovery of the ocean's biological riches, including hundreds of thousands of new sponges, bacteria and viruses, also raises worries about the
particular in their microbial components
damage that could ensue from the new science of marine biotechnology. In particular, scientists worry that precious sources, including hydrothermal vents where bacteria and simple plants thrive in water above boiling point,
could be damaged or destroyed in a free-for-all rush to exploit these wonders. In addition, major worries focus on developing nations whose waters contain rich sources of marine life that could be targeted and exploited by
western chemical companies. On land, patents can provide protection for products derived from local animals or plants. In the sea, where currents carry fish, sponges and microbes from place to place, such protection could be far
trickier to enforce. The issues are set to top the agenda at a biotechnology forum, The Evolving Promise of the Life Sciences, that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the UK Economic and
Social Research Council (ESRC) genomics forum are holding in Paris on Monday. "We have controls for regulating the exploitation of animals, plants and microbes on land, but regulating them at sea is going to be much more
difficult," said Professor Steve Yearley, head of the ESRC genomics forum and organiser of tomorrow's meeting. "We cannot stop pirates off Somalia, so how is someone supposed to protect rare sponges that they find in their
Sponges turn out to be a particularly promising marine resource. The sponge Tethya crypta,
found in Belize and other parts of the Caribbean, has been found to contain chemicals that have anticancer and anti-viral properties. Similarly, the cancer drug Halaven was derived from sponges of the
Halichondria family. To date, only a handful of drugs derived from marine biotechnology sources have been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. However, more than 1,000 new ones are
coastal waters?"
undergoing pre-clinical tests. These include products derived from molluscs, snails, marine microbes and fish. The science of marine biotechnology was kickstarted five years ago by the entrepreneur Craig Venter. One of the
scientists involved in the sequencing of the human genome, Venter set off in his yacht in a round-the-world cruise intent on demonstrating
the potential of the biological material
that is found in sea water. In the end, he made two journeys, one from 2006-8 and the other from 2009-11. On both expeditions, scientists took 200-400 litre samples of sea water every 200 miles,
put these through progressively smaller filters to capture the organisms in the samples, then froze the captured micro-organisms for shipment back to his laboratory. There scientists sequenced their DNA using techniques
staggering. According to Venter, his team discovered around 20m new genes and thousands of
new families of proteins in the samples they scooped up on their journeys through the world's oceans. As yet, no one knows what these genes
and proteins do, although most researchers believe many of them must have potential as sources of
new drugs. We are struggling to develop the right techniques to isolate and understand the marvels we are finding in the waters around the planet," said Yearley. "Once we have done that, then we will have a much
developed by Venter on sequencing the human genome.¶ The results were
better idea just what we are looking at and just how careful we need to be when it comes to ensuring this resource is protected for the future."
Ocean Is The most promising frontier for sources of new drugs
National Research Council 9 The National Academics Advisors to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and
Medicine, 2009, http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/osb/miscellaneous/Oceans-Human-Health.pdf) jml
In 1945, a young organic chemist named Werner Berg- mann set out to explore the waters off the
coast of south- ern Florida. Among the marine organisms he scooped from the sand that day was a
Caribbean sponge that would later be called Cryptotethya crypta . Back in his lab, Bergmann extracted
a novel compound from this sponge that aroused his curiosity. The chemical Bergmann identified in
this sponge, spongothymidine, eventually led to the development of a whole class of drugs that treat
cancer and viral diseases and are still in use today. For example, Zid- ovudine (AZT) fights the AIDS
virus, HIV, and cytosine arabinoside (Ara-C) is used in the treatment of leuke- mias and lymphomas.
Acyclovir speeds the healing of eczema and some herpes viruses. These are just a few examples of
how the study of marine organisms con- tributes to the health of thousands of men, women, and
children around the world. New antibiotics, in addition to new drugs for fighting cancer, inflammatory
diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases (which often cannot be treated successfully today), are
greatly needed. With drug resistance nibbling away at the once-full toolbox of antibiotics, the limited
effectiveness of currently available drugs has dire conse- quences for public health. Compounds with
medical potential have been found in several species of marine sponges, such as this bright orange
sponge. (Image from Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Florida) _ OCEAN SCIENCE
SERIES exploring the promises of ocean science OCEANS AND HUMAN HEALTH 3 Historically, many
medicines have come from nature —mostly from land-based natural organisms. Because scientists
have nearly exhausted the supply of terrestrial plants, animals, and microorganisms that have
interesting medical properties, new sources of drugs are needed. Occupying more than 70 percent of
the Earth’s surface, the ocean is a virtually unexplored treasure chest of new and unidentified
species—one of the last frontiers for sources of new natural products. These natural products are of
special interest because of the dazzling diversity and uniqueness of the creatures that make the sea
their home. One reason marine organisms are so interesting to sci- entists is because in adapting to
the various ocean environments, they have evolved fascinating repertoires of unique chemicals to help
them survive. For example, anchored to the seafloor, a sponge that protects itself from an animal
trying to take over its space by killing the invader has been compared with the human im- mune
system trying to kill foreign cancer cells. That same sponge, bathed in seawater containing millions of
bacteria, viruses, and fungi, some of which could be pathogens, has developed antibiotics to keep
those pathogens under control. Those same antibiotics could be used to treat infections in humans.
Sponges, in fact, are among the most prolific sources of diverse chemical compounds. An estimated 30
percent of all potential marine-de- rived medications currently in the pipeline—and about 75 per- cent
of recently patented marine-de- rived anticancer compounds—come from marine sponges. Marinebased microorganisms are another particu- larly rich source of new medicines. More than 1_0 drugs
available today derive from land-based microbes. Scien- tists see marine-based microbes as the most
promising source of novel medicines from the sea. In all, more than _ 0,000 biochemical compounds
have been isolated from sea creatures since the 1980s. Because drug discovery in the marine frontier
is a relatively young field, only a few marine-derived drugs are in use today. Many others are in the
pipeline. One ex- ample is Prialt, a drug developed from the venom of a fish-killing cone snail. The
cone snails produce neuro- toxins to paralyze and kill prey; those neurotoxins are being developed as
neuromuscular blocks for individuals with chronic pain, stroke, or epilepsy. Other marine- derived
drugs are being tested against herpes, asthma, and breast cancer. The National Research Council
report Marine Biotechnology that the exploration of unique habitats, such as deep-sea environments,
and the isolation and culture of marine microor- ganisms offer two underexplored opportuni- ties for
discovery of novel chemicals with thera- peutic potential. The successes to date, which are based upon
a very limited investigation of both deep-sea organisms and marine microorganisms, suggest a high
potential for continued discovery of new drugs.
Ocean key to medical breakthroughs
Kay 01 (Sharon, “Scientists Seek New Medicines From the Ocean”, National Geographic, August 7,
2001, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/08/0807_wireseamed1.html) KD
Male toadfish use their bladder muscles to dazzle females with a unique mating call that sounds like a
bullfrog. But, these days, toadfish are also wooing scientists who want to apply lessons of toadfish
anatomy to everything from heart disease to human nerve regeneration. After all, muscles that can
contract and relax as fast as a toadfish bladder could provide clues on how to help failing human
muscles of all kinds. "When you want to develop a new system for a Ford Escort, you use the Formula
One model to see the extreme version of motor performance," explained muscle physiologist Iain
Young, who is spending the summer at the Marine Biological Lab in Woods Hole, Massachusetts, to
study the Formula One muscle of the sea. Once regarded as either dinner or a research novelty,
creatures of the sea are getting increased respect among scientists looking for the medicines and
therapies of the future. From the ancient horseshoe crab, whose blood provides a common test for
bacterial contamination, to the lowly sea urchin, which played a key role in test-tube fertilization of
embryos, marine life is starting to take its place alongside more established lab animals, such as the
mouse, in medical and basic biological research. "I believe marine organisms can be used to eliminate
disease and human suffering," said William Speck, a pediatrician who is now director of the Marine
Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole. "We now have the technology to visit the deep ocean floor, and,
because of DNA technology, to more deeply understand life and ourselves." In addition to covering
three quarters of the planet surface, oceans support the greatest variety of life on Earth, many of them
adapted to extreme environments—fish that can see in pitch blackness, marine mammals that can
accurately find the source of sound underwater, creatures that thrive at pressure levels that would kill a
human. Understanding how these animals function enables scientists to experiment with more complex
mammal systems in order to understand and cure diseases.
Reefs K/T Pharm
Further studying of Coral reefs could lead to medical breakthroughs
Levins No Date (Nicole Levins, Nicole Levins is an online media manager at The Nature
Conservancy, Oceans and Coasts Coral Reefs: Nature's Medicine Cabinet, No Date,
http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives/habitats/oceanscoasts/explore/coral-reefs-and-medicine.xml)
, coral reefs hold the cures to some of our most common medical ailments.¶ Climate change is affecting the health of coral
. By protecting marine environments across the world, The Nature
Conservancy is safeguarding marine biodiversity and ensuring coral reefs will be around for future medicinal discoveries. “A DEVASTATING
LOSS OF BIODIVERSITY COULD MEAN THAT FEWER SPECIES WILL BE AROUND FOR FUTURE MEDICINAL
RESEARCH AND BIOMEDICAL STUDIES.” Stephanie Wear, Nature Conservancy marine scientist. What are some of the things you think about when you hear the words “coral reef”?
Surprisingly
ecosystems — and that puts a strain on the medicinal benefits derived from our oceans
Maybe the threats faced by these fragile ecosystems cross your mind: climate change, ocean acidification and unsustainable fishing practices. Or maybe, if you’re more of a “glass-half-full” type, you visualize the happy images:
starfish and sea urchins, clownfish and parrotfish, sea turtles and giant clams. But you probably don’t think about medicine. It’s true — these colorful and sometimes crazy-looking underwater structures host a lot more than just
Coral reefs could hold the cures for some of the human race’s most common — and most
serious — ailments. By protecting these “rainforests of the sea,” The Nature Conservancy is ensuring that coral reefs will be around — and healthy enough — to facilitate future medicinal discoveries. Find
cool sea creatures.
out how you can help by adopting a coral reef today AN UNDERWATER PHARMACY Scientists have already developed many medical treatments from resources found in the world’s oceans, For instance:¶ Secosteroids, an enzyme
used by corals to protect themselves from disease, is used to treat asthma, arthritis and other inflammatory disorders. Bryozoan Bugula neritina, a common fouling organism (similar to barnacles) that’s found in both temperate
The U.S. National Cancer Institute recently collected more than
26,000 pounds of the organism from docks and pilings with little impact on the population. Blue-green algae, commonly
found in Caribbean mangroves, are used to treat small-cell lung cancer. The National Cancer Institute also endorsed blue-green algae for the treatment of melanoma and some tumors.Two drugs
currently on the market for cancer and pain come from marine sources. Twenty-five more marine-derived medicines are being evaluated in
human trials right now. Yondelis®, the first new treatment in 30 years for soft-tissue sarcoma, is extracted from the sea
squirt, a sac-like filter feeder. And with just a few more years of research, it seems likely that scientists will uncover even more therapeutic secrets in the sea:¶ A series of organic chemicals
isolated from a soft coral called the Caribbean sea whip seem to have an impressive anti-inflammatory effect on human skin. Bioactive molecules produced by marine
invertebrates such as sea sponges, tunicates and sea hares have displayed potent anti-viral, anti-tumor
and antibacterial activity. Researchers are studying bivalves, a class of mollusks, to learn more about aging processes, including metabolic activity and environmental stressors.¶ In fact, one coral reef
and tropical climates, is a source for the anti-cancer compound bryostatin 1.
ecologist says that we’re 300 to 400 times more likely to find new drugs in the oceans than on land.¶ PROTECTING REEFS FOR HUMAN AND MARINE HEALTH Climate change is already affecting the health of coral ecosystems.
Microbial communities — where many new drugs could likely be found — are especially susceptible to these changes, and some are already beginning to decline or migrate. “An estimated 95 percent of the world’s oceans remain
unexplored, so it’s possible that we might lose significant marine organisms without ever knowing they existed in the first place,” explains Stephanie Wear, a marine scientist on the Conservancy’s Global Marine Team. “A
devastating loss of biodiversity could mean that fewer species will be around for future medicinal research and biomedical studies.” By protecting marine environments through the creation of marine protected areas and the
People and nature are already benefitting in so many ways
from these marine protected areas. Just imagine what medical benefits may still lay undiscovered
beneath the sea.
development of adaptation strategies, the Conservancy is safeguarding marine biodiversity.
Mountain Ranges K/T Pharm
Exploring Underwater Mountains Could Drive New Medical Discoveries
D'oliveira 98 (Steve, Editor / Education Law Newsletter at LRP Publications Editor & Publisher at
Florida Underwater Magazine Reporter at Fort Lauderdale News & Sun-Sentinel Heed The Call Of The
Oceans, Urges Explorer Who Discovered The `Titanic', http://articles.sun-sentinel.com/1998-0409/news/9804080462_1_oceans-robert-ballard-earth, April 9, 1998)
The United States has sent men to the moon and robots to traverse the terrain on Mars. Yet it has not
sponsored an exploration of the mid-ocean range, a huge underwater mountain ridge in the Southern Hemisphere. The heavens may
beckon, but so do the oceans right here on Earth. That was the message Robert Ballard, the pioneer oceanographer who discovered the Titanic, delivered to 500 people
on Wednesday in Dania and Boca Raton at speeches sponsored by Nova Southeastern University's Breakfast and Luncheon Forums. ¶ The mid-ocean ridge, a chain of active
volcanoes, stretches for 42,000 miles under several oceans as it encircles the Earth like the raised seams
on a baseball. ``It covers 23 percent of the Earth's total surface area, yet it wasn't until after Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walked on the moon that humans entered the largest feature on Earth, which I find
quite amazing,'' Ballard said. ``In fact, we have only explored one-tenth of 1 percent of this great mountain.¶
``That's pretty staggering, to realize how poorly explored Earth is,'' he said.¶ There are many practical reasons for exploring the seas, he said. Not
only do the oceans drive the Earth's weather system, but marine organisms are vital to medicine and finding new drugs. Deep-ocean
bacteria also may have industrial applications, because of their ability to withstand extreme heat and
pressure. As an example of just how little is known about the seas, Ballard cited the long-held assumption that the deep oceans _ where light cannot penetrate _ harbored little life.¶ That was proved wrong, Ballard said,
when scientists discovered 9-foot tube worms and large white clams living on top of fresh volcanic lava.
They can survive, he said, because the organisms learned how to duplicate photosynthesis in the dark.
Ballard, who said life may have originated deep in the Earth's oceans, said life also may exist on ice-covered Europa, one of Jupiter's moons. Scientists think Europa harbors a 60-mile ocean, perhaps kept warm by active underwater
volcanoes.¶ ``The question is, `How smart are the clams on Europa?' '' Ballard said.¶ He made his remarks Wednesday afternoon at the Boca Raton Marriott, where he showed slides from the Titanic.¶ He found the wreck in 1985
using cameras mounted on a remotely operated vehicle, a technology he helped pioneer in the late 1970s. Discovering the Titanic not only brought attention to the new technology used to find it, but Ballard said it also ``created a
tremendous sensitivity about the ocean.''¶ The so-called ``unsinkable'' ocean liner sank in the North Atlantic after striking an iceberg on its maiden voyage on April 15, 1912. Ballard's last public visit to South Florida was in 1996,
when he helped produce Jason Project VII, Adapting to a Changing Sea, an educational and interactive-television program designed to excite students about science.Ballard, a tenured senior scientist at the Woods Hole
Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts, most recently discovered the largest concentration of ancient shipwrecks in the Mediterranean Sea, 70 miles west of Sicily.
Empirics Prove
Empirical Examples Of Cures From The Oceans
Hagan, 13 (Pat, health journalist working mainly for national newspapers like the Daily
Mail, Daily Express and The Sun Specialised in case study-led features and researchbased news stories, Deep sea cures, June 4, 2013, http://www.express.co.uk/lifestyle/health/404738/Deep-sea-cures, -MB)
Now scientists are increasingly turning their attention to the sea with ocean plants and creatures providing the
key to a variety of drugs that can treat everything from cancer to sinus trouble. Experts hope the
multitude of largely unexplored life forms lurking in the depths will lead to many more medical
breakthroughs in years to come. Here is our guide to the treatments that originate deep in the ocean. SEAWEED
Used for: Blocked sinuses A nasal spray made from an organism found on seaweed could be a radical new treatment for blocked sinuses, which affect up to three million people in the UK. British
scientists are developing the spray after discovering that the marine organism can break down the cells, which act like a glue to hold mucus together inside the nasal cavity.They came up with the idea of targeting blocked sinuses
after originally researching the seaweed bug as a means of cleaning the hulls of ships, which can become covered in a layer of biofilm similar to mucus. Now laboratory tests at Newcastle University show the seaweed enzyme can
help to clear blocked sinuses by “dissolving” the glue that binds bacteria together and acts as a shield against existing sprays or antibiotics.
BARNACLES Used for: Surgical glue Barnacles
have an amazing capacity to stick to wet surfaces such as rocks or the hull of a boat even in the roughest conditions. Now scientists have taken the substance that helps them do this and turned it into a medical superglue. Called
Medhesive, it can help wounds repair in under a minute and like the barnacle substance, works in either wet or dry conditions. This means that surgeons could potentially use it on major organs with a rich blood supply such as the
heart, kidneys and liver. The glue is known as one of nature’s most powerful adhesives. It cannot be dissolved by strong acids, resists temperatures up to 440F and is completely resistant to bacteria
. MARINE
SNAILS Used for: Pain relief A drug that harnesses the power of deadly sea snail venom is being used to treat chronic pain in patients who cannot tolerate treatments such as morphine. Given the
name Prialt (ziconotide), it is based on a toxin released by a sea snail called the magician’s cone, which is usually found in tropical waters such as the Great Barrier Reef and the South Pacific. The snail uses venom to paralyse
passing fish. However nearly 30 years ago scientists found one of the chemical components in the poison could also block pain signals in the human brain. A synthetic version of the chemical was developed which forms the basis of
the drug in use today
. CORAL Used for: Osteoarthritis of the knee Around eight million people in Britain have some degree of osteoarthritis where cartilage that allows joints to
move easily is gradually worn down. Cartilage soaks up the impact from walking, running or lifting so that bones do not rub together and disintegrate. Once it breaks down, the bones come into contact with each other, which
causes severe swelling and pain. Around 60,000 people a year end up needing a knee replacement because their joints are too badly eroded. Now a tiny implant made from coral could be the solution. It helps to stimulate the
growth of new cartilage from stem cells, the body’s own immature cells that can turn into any type of tissue. Scientists chose coral because its structure resembles human bone so closely that it provides the perfect scaffold for new
cartilage and blood vessels to form inside the knee.
Called Agili-C, the implant has been cleared for sale in the UK and Europe and could be launched later this year. One of the first patients in the world to have it fitted, a 47-year-old man from Slovenia, was reportedly skiing and
. SEA SHRUB Used for: Dry eyes Sea buckthorn is a thorny deciduous shrub that grows along some of Britain’s coastal areas. A recent study found that the oil
cycling again within six months
extracted from the plant provides considerable relief for dry eye syndrome, reducing the rate at which tears evaporate, easing soreness and redness.
Dry eye syndrome is a common condition that develops when the eyes do not make enough tears or the tears they do produce evaporate too rapidly. Around one in 13 people in their 50s is affected but for those in their 60s this
rises to one in three. Volunteers who took a capsule containing two grams of sea buckthorn oil every day for three months during autumn and winter suffered significantly milder symptoms than those who took a placebo capsule.
The oil is thought to work due to its relatively high content of linolenic acid, a type of fatty acid often found in plant oils and rich in beneficial omega 6. Researchers think the anti-inflammatory effects of linolenic acid may help to
combat swelling and irritation in the eye.
MARINE SPONGES Used for: Breast cancer In the mid-Eighties Japanese scientists investigating the properties of a marine sponge called
halichondria okadai discovered something remarkable. It contained a compound that seemed to stop cancer cells in their tracks. The compound was fast-tracked for development as a new drug and finally in 2010 was licensed as a
new drug called eribulin, a type of chemotherapy medicine used specifically for advanced breast cancer. It works by stopping virulent cancer cells from dividing into two, halting or slowing its spread.
SHARK LIVER
Used for: Treating vision loss An antibiotic found in shark liver could soon be used in eye drops designed to prevent a leading cause of blindness known as wet age-related macular degeneration.
The drug, called squalamine, is a compound found in the liver of dog sharks.
New research suggests it halts the abnormal growth of tiny blood vessels in the eye which leads to blindness. The drops are being trialled and could be a popular alternative to current drugs that have to be injected into the eye
.
San Diego-based Pharmaceuticals have already found deep ocean fungus that can cure
cancer, and their research has lead to massive breakthroughs like penicillin.
Timmerman 09 (Luke Timmerman is an award-winning journalist specializing in life sciences. He has served as national biotechnology
editor for Xconomy and national biotechnology reporter for Bloomberg News; “Having Scoured the Ocean for Cancer Drugs, Nereus Aims to
Prove Its Concept Works”, February 26, 2009; http://www.xconomy.com/san-diego/2009/02/26/having-scoured-the-ocean-for-cancer-drugsnereus-aims-to-prove-its-concept-works/, RJ)
Off the coast of the Bahamas, in sea grass more than a half-mile deep, San Diego-based Nereus
Pharmaceuticals found a fungus that may be the key ingredient for an innovative new cancer drug. This
will be a key year for gathering evidence that will either support or debunk the idea. I got the download
on Nereus last week in a conversation with co-founder and CEO Kobi Sethna and Charles White, the
company’s chief business officer. Nereus has raised a whopping $125 million in venture capital in almost
a decade of business, from big name investors like Roche Venture Fund, Alta Partners, and San Diegobased Forward Ventures, among others, so I figured it was worth taking a look. The company is built on
the idea that many of the biggest pharmaceutical breakthroughs, like penicillin, come from natural
microbes. The bulk of these fungi and bacteria that led to drugs come from land, but, of course, Mother
Nature has plenty of more biodiversity in the ocean. After years of sailing expeditions that trawled up
potential drug candidates in hot and cold water, shallow and deep, from the Pacific and the Atlantic,
Nereus has looked at hundreds of candidates for treating autoimmune disease and cancer—and now
has settled on two lead horses against cancer that it thinks have a real shot. So the sailing expeditions
are over, and now it’s time to push through the hard, unpredictable slog of clinical trials to see if these
drugs really work in people. “In this business, you’ve got to be focused. It’s the name of the game,”
Sethna says. “We’ve morphed into an oncology company.” So what does Nereus have to show for all
that investment? The lead candidate (the one found off the coast of the Bahamas) is called NPI-2358. It’s
a small-molecule drug synthesized in the lab to be similar in structure to a unique fungus it found in the
ocean. This drug is designed to be a “vascular disrupting agent” to tumors. It’s made to attack existing
blood vessels in tumors, unlike big-name cancer drugs like Genentech’s bevacizumab (Avastin) or
Pfizer’s sunitinib (Sutent) that are meant to block the formation of new blood vessels to tumors, White
says. The reason the Nereus drug is still alive in the clinic is that it showed a long-lasting, potent ability
to disrupt tumor blood flow, without causing the heart damage that has plagued other vasculardisrupting drugs in the class, White says. The first clinical trials supported further testing, confirming the
drug wasn’t harming the heart while shrinking tumors at least partially for about three-fourths of
patients when given in combination with Sanofi-Aventis’ docetaxel (Taxotere). This molecule is in
competition with Waltham, MA-based Oxigene’s OXi4503, which is in early clinical trials, and about “five
or six others” still in animal testing, White says. The advantage he sees with the Nereus drug is that it
appears to enhance the effectiveness of chemotherapy, without adding on any new layers of toxic side
effects, as often happens with chemo cocktails. The drug is currently being tested against lung cancer,
the leading cancer killer in the U.S.
Sponges Could Hold Cancer Cures More Exploration Needed
Penfold 12 (Curtis, College of Physical and Mathematical Sciences, Rare Sponges May
Carry a New Cure for Cancer, October 30, 2012, http://cpms.byu.edu/castle-cancerresearch/)
Cancer-killing chemicals in sea sponges? Sounds too good to be true. But it’s not. Two years ago,
Japanese scientists found a chemical compound inside of deep-sea sponges that helps destroy certain
cancer cells.The compound yaku’amide A is likely produced by bacteria that only grow in a certain type
of deep-sea sponge. But it grows in such low quantities that it’s rather impractical to try to harvest. The
more practical solution is to synthesize the chemical compound in a lab, although the research to do so
has proved difficult. This is where chemistry professor Steven Castle steps in. For the past few months,
he and his research team have been trying to recreate yaku’amide A. Yaku’amide A is toxic to cells of
lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer, gastrointestinal cancer, and leukemia. But it’s not toxic to all
cancers.“Usually you want a compound that is selective rather than a nonselective compound that kills
many types of cancer cells,” Castle says, “because nonselective compounds are usually too toxic to be
used as drugs.” Castle’s research has led him to Japan, where he stayed for four and a half months this
summer, studying with a fellow synthetic chemist, Professor Masayuki Inoue. Together, they did some
research (soon to be published) on the immediate difficulties of synthesizing yaku’amide A.
The biggest obstacle the team faces in trying to synthesize yaku’amide A is creating the chemical
compound without creating a mirror image of it at the same time. Mirror images are reversed replicas of
a chemical compound, and thus cannot perform the same function inside cells and organisms as their
counterparts. “It’d be like taking your right hand and your left hand, and having a right-handed baseball
mitt,” Castle said. “Your right hand will fit the baseball mitt, while your left hand will not.” Despite the
daunting task ahead of him and his research team, he remains enthusiastic. “I’m pretty optimistic, pretty
positive that at some point, we’ll figure it out,” Castle said. Optimism in cancer research. That’s what we
like to hear.
Adv – STEM
US STEM Low Now
STEM is Good and US falling behind
Eberle 10 (Francis Eberle, Ph.D., is the executive director for the National Science Teachers Association. “Why STEM
education is important”. The International Society of Automation. September/October, 2010. https://www.isa.org/standardsand-publications/isa-publications/intech-magazine/2010/september/why-stem-education-is-important/ nyy)
Thirty five years ago, I entered the classroom as a young eighth-grade science teacher because science fascinates me. Letting students explore ideas in
science and watching them learn is truly a passion that most science teachers share. It is inspiring to watch a student work through a science investigation
and get to the "aha" moment of understanding, seeing their eyes light up, the smile broaden across their face, and the explosion of energy as they rush to
explain to someone what they have just discovered. Good science teachers capitalize on the "aha" moments and work hard to help students not only
understand science, but also foster a lifelong learning in science. Why is this so important? Because science
is the one subject that
encompasses everything in life and helps students be curious, ask questions, and make connections as to why the
world exists as it does. It is the backdrop for understanding our world, and helps us to explain and appreciate it in
new ways. Science is the "S' in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education. We define STEM education as the
preparation of students in competencies and skills in the four disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and
math). A successful STEM education provides students with science, math, and engineering/technology in
sequences that build upon each other and can be used with real-world applications. STEM education creates
critical thinkers, increases science literacy, and enables the next generation of innovators. Innovation leads to
new products and processes that sustain our economy. This innovation and science literacy depends on a solid knowledge base in the
STEM areas. It is clear that most jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of math and science-10-year
employment projections by the U.S. Department of Labor show that of the 20 fastest growing occupations
projected for 2014, 15 of them require significant mathematics or science preparation. It is imperative that as a
nation, we make STEM education a top priority. We have a lot of work to do. Consider this: U.S. student achievement in
mathematics and science is lagging behind students in much of Asia and Europe. International test scores tell us
that in science U.S. eighth-graders were outperformed by eighth-grade students in Singapore, Chinese Taipei,
Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, Estonia, Japan, Hungary, and Netherlands. In math, U.S. eighth-graders were
outperformed by their peers in 14 countries: Singapore, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, Chinese Taipei, Japan,
Belgium, Netherlands, Estonia, Hungary, Malaysia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, and Australia. The
2010 ACT College and Career Readiness report found only 29% of the tested 2010 graduates are considered
college-ready in science and 43% are considered college-ready in math. President Barack Obama has declared we need to
increase student achievement in mathematics and science and expand STEM education and career opportunities to underrepresented groups, including
women. In a speech at the National Academies of Science last April, Obama said, "Reaffirming
and strengthening America's role as the
world's engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation is essential to meeting the challenges of this
century. That's why I am committed to making the improvement of STEM education over the next decade a national priority." Obama's Educate to
Innovate campaign is designed to lift American students to the top of the pack in science and math achievement over the next decade. The campaign
involves public-private partnerships involving major companies, universities, foundations, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. One of the
main goals of this campaign is to increase STEM literacy so all students have the opportunity to learn deeply and think critically in science, math,
engineering, and technology. Funding will come from the many corporate, private, and foundation sponsors who are interested in taking part in the
campaign efforts by serving students with their own initiatives. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) fully supports Educate to Innovate and is a
proud sponsor of National Lab Day (NLD), a cornerstone of Obama's initiative. NLD is a teacher-driven nationwide effort to build local communities of
support between STEM professionals and STEM teachers that will foster ongoing collaborations to strengthen the education we provide to our students.. To
further support businesses and other stakeholders in efforts to establish a STEM pipeline, the STEM Education Coalition, advocates from over 1,000 diverse
groups, works to raise awareness in Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and other agencies that offer STEM
related programs. This coalition, co-chaired by NSTA, keeps the dialogue going between and among stakeholders and supports initiatives that strengthen K12 STEM education. Increased commitment from businesses and other stakeholders that support STEM education is critical, now more than ever. STEM
education creates the pipeline of future innovators that will move this country forward. Making STEM education
a priority is important, for our nation's short and long-term future.
AT: “Educate to Innovate” Solves
Obama’s Current “Educate to Innovate” policy falls short
Burke and McNeill 11 (Lindsey M. Burke is a Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies Department and Jena
Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a
division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. ““Educate to
Innovate”: How the Obama Plan for STEM Education Falls Short”. The Heritage Foundation. January 5, 2011.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/educate-to-innovate-how-the-obama-plan-for-stem-education-falls-short
nyy)
President Obama’s Educate to Innovate initiative has provided billions in additional federal funding for
science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education programs across the country. The
Administration’s recognition of the importance of STEM education— for global competitiveness as well
as for national security—is good and important. But the past 50 years suggest that federal initiatives are
unlikely to solve the fundamental problem of American underperformance in STEM education. Heritage
Foundation education and national security analysts explain that, though Educate to Innovate is
intended to raise the U.S. “from the middle to the top of the pack in science and math,” the federal
program’s one-size-fits-all approach fails to remedy the underlying problems of academic performance
and does not plug the leaky pipeline in the American education system.
Specifically the “One-Size-Fits-All” approach fails
Burke and McNeill 11 (Lindsey M. Burke is a Policy Analyst in the Domestic Policy Studies Department and Jena
Baker McNeill is Policy Analyst for Homeland Security in the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies, a
division of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies, at The Heritage Foundation. ““Educate to
Innovate”: How the Obama Plan for STEM Education Falls Short”. The Heritage Foundation. January 5, 2011.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/01/educate-to-innovate-how-the-obama-plan-for-stem-education-falls-short
nyy)
Despite increasing federal control over the American education system over the past 50 years,
educational achievement across the country has continued to deteriorate.[12] A large part of the problem
is that the federal focus centers on a one-size-fits-all approach. Most recently, this approach is part of the
Obama Administration’s efforts to impose national education standards and tests on states. This is a
significant federal overreach into states’ educational decision-making authority, and will likely result in the standardization of
mediocrity, rather than a minimum benchmark for competency in math and English.[13] Applying a blanket
approach to education reform undermines innovation in STEM education, increasing conformity at the expense of
meeting the diverse needs of students and parents.
Econ Low Now - Brink
Economy declining now, but can be turned around- action is key NOW.
Lambro 14 [Donald, chief political correspondent for The Washington Times, U.S. Economy Slides Deeper Into Decline, Townhall, May
02, 2014, http://townhall.com/columnists/donaldlambro/2014/05/02/can-obamas-nogrowth-jobless-economy-get-much-worse-it-can-andit-will-if-we-do-nothing-to-change-his-policies-n1832247/page/full]-DaveD.
WASHINGTON - The Obama
economy nearly stopped breathing in the first quarter, giving the Republicans
new political ammunition for a full takeover of Congress in the November elections.No sooner did the
Commerce Department announce that the economy barely grew by one-tenth of one percent in the first three months of this year, than the
news media was searching for the toughest words to describe the U.S. economy's demise under
President Obama's anti- growth, anti-job policies."U.S. Economic Growth Slows to a Crawl," was the way
the Reuters news agency put it Wednesday, and even that was being generous. Some said the economy "stalled,"
or "barely grew" or "hit a wall." Others called the 0.1 percent growth rate "anemic," a word that doesn't do justice to an economy that has all
but ground to a halt.¶ But after one excuse after another for the president's economic failures, some in the news media weren't pulling their
punches. Here's the way the Wall Street Journal put it: "U.S growth nearly stalled in the first three months of the year, fresh evidence that the
economic expansion that began almost five years ago remains the weakest in modern history."¶ "U.S. economic growth stalled to near zero,"
the Journal said on its website, minutes after the government announced its shocking number. Even
the liberal New York Times,
one of the Democrats' biggest apologists, pointed out that the economy's failing grade was actually a
continuation of what Americans have been experiencing ever since Obama's first year in office, without
any sustained improvement. "For all the attention devoted to the quarterly fluctuations, the current underlying rate of expansion is
not much different from the frustratingly slow trajectory in place ever since the economy began to recover from the Great Recession," the
Times said.¶ "The average quarterly rate of growth since the summer of 2009 stands at 2.2 percent," the newspaper noted, a pathetic, sub-par
rate of growth for the largest and once strongest economy on the planet.¶ The
White House was still peddling their belief
that the economy would soon pick up in the second quarter and that the slowdown was the result of a
harsh winter.¶ But wiser economists aren't buying the administration's excuses.¶ Dan North, the chief economist
at Euler Hermes North America, a large insurer, told the Times that even if the growth rate picks up in the second quarter, "the annual growth
rate in 2014 will most likely still be below the post-World War II average of just over 3 percent."¶ "We've been living in a sub 3-percent land,
and people have gotten used to that as the new normal," North said. "But it's not.¶ It's anemic."¶ Yes, a bitter winter took its toll on growth, but
it was not the driving force behind a snails-pace economy.¶ Its
precipitous plunge into recession-leaning territory -defined by two back to back quarters of near minus growth -- was driven by multiple weaknesses across
the nation's economic landscape.¶ U.S. exports plunged 7.6 percent, a victim of Obama's failure to negotiate new trade
deals. Business investment fell as many companies cut back on their inventories in the face of a weak economy.¶ The real estate markets were
in decline as higher interest rates and rising prices pushed homeownership beyond the reach homebuyers.¶ "The housing market has cooled
recently as buyers have struggled to afford homes," the Los Angeles Times reported this week.¶ The Federal Reserve said Wednesday that the
"recovery in the housing sector remained slow."¶ And remember all that inventory businesses bought in the second half of 2013, believing the
economy was going to take off? Well, their shelves were still full throughout the first quarter, resulting "in manufacturers receiving fewer
orders" in the past three months, Reuters reported.¶ But the biggest factors behind the economy's decline is the shrinking labor market, high,
long-term jobless rates, and stagnant or declining incomes.¶ "A separate report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics on Wednesday on the
employment cost index showed that private sector wages and salaries in the first quarter of 2014 increased at the slowest rate since the bureau
began tracking the data in March 1980,"¶ the Times reported.¶ Little wonder, then, that the Conference Board reported Wednesday that U.S.
consumer confidence fell in April as a result of growing concerns about job cuts and business pullbacks in investment.¶ There
are lots of
ways that this economy can be turned around, but Obama and the Democrats are opposed to all of them.¶ We need revenue
neutral, job friendly tax reform that scrubs corporate welfare out of the tax code, broadens the tax base, and lowers income tax rates across
the board for businesses and individuals.¶ The Republicans in the House have a plan ready to go, but Senate Democrats want no part of it. And
Obama's too busy trying to raise the minimum wage, even though the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says it will kill 500,000 jobs.¶
We need tax incentives to unlock trillions of dollars in capital investment to expand existing businesses, create new ones and boost
employment. In his second term, Bill Clinton signed a GOP-passed capital gains tax cut and his economy took off. Obama and the Harry Reid
Democrats flatly oppose this.¶ We need to enact fast track trade authorization to open up world markets to American goods and services, but
the Democrats won't even discuss it for fear of angering their party's union bosses. Sad
to say, but the American economy is on
a slippery slope to further decline and it's not going to get any better until we have tough, new leadership in the Senate and the
Oval Office.
STEM = Comp/Econ
STEM is vital to economic growth and competitiveness to cement leadership.
Gillibrand and Kennedy 14 (Kristen, U.S. Senator representing New York, Joe, III, U.S. Representative
representing Massachusetts a member of the House Committee on Science & Technology and serves as honorary chair of the
Governor's STEM Advisory Council, “STEM Jobs Key to Better Economy”, USA Today, January 10, 2014,
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/01/10/engineering-mathematics-stem-gillibrand-kennedy-column/4361837/,
nyy)
From Taunton, Massachusetts to Buffalo, New York, the innovation economy is redefining our nation's story of recovery and growth. Middleclass industrial towns and working-class urban epicenters alike are experiencing transformative shifts toward advanced manufacturing, life
sciences, information technology and big data. We see this trend amplified across our national job market. Over the past decade, jobs
science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM)
in
have grown at a rate three times faster than non-STEM
jobs. According to the Department of Commerce, that momentum will continue over the next decade as STEM jobs will grow at a staggering
rate of 17% – compared with a projected 9.8% growth in other occupations. But if we want to capitalize on this economic
bright spot, it's time to expand the conversation we are having about STEM. Too often pigeonholed as the vehicle by which upper
middle class students pursue PhD programs at MIT, STEM is also the tool a first-generation vocational student from Fall River, Massachusetts
uses to get a $50,000/year advanced manufacturing job right after graduation or a student from Rensselaer, New York uses to secure a goodpaying job in upstate New York's fast growing nanotechnology industry. In a time of slow recovery, decreased mobility and pervasive income
inequality, STEM
is not just the fuel our high-tech workforce requires. It is the best hope we have of creating
what our fragile economy needs most: a sustainable supply of well-paid, middle-class jobs. But before we can
reap the benefits of a skilled workforce we must improve and invest in our efforts to reach populations historically underrepresented in this
country's STEM pipeline: women, minorities and students from economically distressed communities. In 2011, 26% of STEM workers were
women and 74% were men. According to a 2011 report by the Department of Commerce, underrepresented minorities account for only 3 out
of 10 professionals in STEM fields. Half of all STEM jobs are available to workers without a 4-year college degree, but the vast majority of
federal funding is channeled into higher education institutions that students from economically distressed communities are priced out of from
the start. These statistics underscore a
disconnect in our STEM efforts that – left unchecked – will throw a wrench in
our economic future. By excluding critical segments of the American workforce from the STEM pipeline, we don't just hurt those
individuals, their families and their communities – we leave a staggering amount of economic potential on the table.
Global leadership in the 21st century requires all hands on deck. If we want to preserve this country's competitive edge,
we need to increase points of access to STEM for underrepresented populations. With that in mind, we were proud to
introduce the STEM Gateways Act in Congress at the end of the year. The Gateways Act will create a grant program for elementary and
secondary schools, community colleges, and partner organizations that support students from historically underrepresented and economically
disadvantaged backgrounds. Grant funds can be used for classroom learning, career preparation, mentoring, internships, informal learning, and
other relevant activities designed to encourage the interest and develop the skills that young women, underrepresented minorities, and
students of all economic backgrounds will need to succeed in our country's STEM workforce. Broadening our STEM efforts isn't just about jobs
today and tomorrow. It's about leveraging the collective capacity of the American workforce to tackle our most pressing modern challenges,
from renewable energy to medical research to cybersecurity. If we don't keep the doors of opportunity wide open to students of all genders,
ethnicities and backgrounds then we will collectively forfeit a huge portion of the talent that these next generation challenges demand. At a
time when our global
leadership is being challenged on multiple fronts; when American students lag behind
other developed nations in the skills required to support innovation industries – we cannot afford to leave
that much potential untapped.
STEM is essential to economic growth, innovation, and job creation.
Eberle 10 (Francis Eberle, Ph.D., is the executive director for the National Science Teachers Association. “Why STEM
education is important”. The International Society of Automation. September/October, 2010. https://www.isa.org/standardsand-publications/isa-publications/intech-magazine/2010/september/why-stem-education-is-important/ nyy)
Thirty five years ago, I entered the classroom as a young eighth-grade science teacher because science fascinates me. Letting students explore ideas in
science and watching them learn is truly a passion that most science teachers share. It is inspiring to watch a student work through a science investigation
and get to the "aha" moment of understanding, seeing their eyes light up, the smile broaden across their face, and the explosion of energy as they rush to
explain to someone what they have just discovered. Good science teachers capitalize on the "aha" moments and work hard to help students not only
understand science, but also foster a lifelong learning in science. Why is this so important? Because science
is the one subject that
encompasses everything in life and helps students be curious, ask questions, and make connections as to why the
world exists as it does. It is the backdrop for understanding our world, and helps us to explain and appreciate it in
new ways. Science is the "S' in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics) education. We define STEM education as the
preparation of students in competencies and skills in the four disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and
math). A successful STEM education provides students with science, math, and engineering/technology in
sequences that build upon each other and can be used with real-world applications. STEM education creates
critical thinkers, increases science literacy, and enables the next generation of innovators. Innovation leads to
new products and processes that sustain our economy. This innovation and science literacy depends on a solid knowledge base in the
STEM areas. It is clear that most jobs of the future will require a basic understanding of math and science-10-year
employment projections by the U.S. Department of Labor show that of the 20 fastest growing occupations
projected for 2014, 15 of them require significant mathematics or science preparation. It is imperative that as a
nation, we make STEM education a top priority. We have a lot of work to do. Consider this: U.S. student achievement in
mathematics and science is lagging behind students in much of Asia and Europe. International test scores tell us
that in science U.S. eighth-graders were outperformed by eighth-grade students in Singapore, Chinese Taipei,
Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, Estonia, Japan, Hungary, and Netherlands. In math, U.S. eighth-graders were
outperformed by their peers in 14 countries: Singapore, Republic of Korea, Hong Kong SAR, Chinese Taipei, Japan,
Belgium, Netherlands, Estonia, Hungary, Malaysia, Latvia, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, and Australia. The
2010 ACT College and Career Readiness report found only 29% of the tested 2010 graduates are considered
college-ready in science and 43% are considered college-ready in math. President Barack Obama has declared we need to
increase student achievement in mathematics and science and expand STEM education and career opportunities to underrepresented groups, including
women. In a speech at the National Academies of Science last April, Obama said, "Reaffirming
and strengthening America's role as the
world's engine of scientific discovery and technological innovation is essential to meeting the challenges of this
century. That's why I am committed to making the improvement of STEM education over the next decade a national priority." Obama's Educate to
Innovate campaign is designed to lift American students to the top of the pack in science and math achievement over the next decade. The campaign
involves public-private partnerships involving major companies, universities, foundations, non-profit organizations, and government agencies. One of the
main goals of this campaign is to increase STEM literacy so all students have the opportunity to learn deeply and think critically in science, math,
engineering, and technology. Funding will come from the many corporate, private, and foundation sponsors who are interested in taking part in the
campaign efforts by serving students with their own initiatives. The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) fully supports Educate to Innovate and is a
proud sponsor of National Lab Day (NLD), a cornerstone of Obama's initiative. NLD is a teacher-driven nationwide effort to build local communities of
support between STEM professionals and STEM teachers that will foster ongoing collaborations to strengthen the education we provide to our students.. To
further support businesses and other stakeholders in efforts to establish a STEM pipeline, the STEM Education Coalition, advocates from over 1,000 diverse
groups, works to raise awareness in Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, the National Science Foundation, and other agencies that offer STEM
related programs. This coalition, co-chaired by NSTA, keeps the dialogue going between and among stakeholders and supports initiatives that strengthen K12 STEM education. Increased commitment from businesses and other stakeholders that support STEM education is critical, now more than ever. STEM
education creates the pipeline of future innovators that will move this country forward. Making STEM education
a priority is important, for our nation's short and long-term future.
STEM jobs are key to US competitiveness- filling the job gap is key.
NMS 2011(National Math and Science Initiative, mission to improve student performance in STEM, Why m
Education Matters”, NMS, 2011, http://www.nms.org/Portals/0/Docs/Why20Stem20Education20Matters.pdf)
STEM) are where the jobs are.¶ STEM job creation over the next 10 years will outpace
non-STEM jobs significantly, growing 17 percent, as compared to 9.8 percent for non-stem positions.1 Jobs in computer systems design and related services – a
field dependent on high-level math and problem-solving skills – are projected to grow 45 percent between 2008 and 2018. The occupations with the
fastest growth in the coming years – such as biomedical engineers, network systems and data communications analysts,
and medical scientists – all call for degrees in STEM fields.2¶ STEM workers can expect higher salaries.¶ College graduates overall
make 84 percent more over a lifetime than those with only high school diplomas. But further analysis of 171 majors shows that STEM majors¶ can earn
Science, technology, engineering and math (
higher wages. For example, petroleum engineering majors make about $120,000 a year, compared with $29,000 annually for counseling psychology majors. Math and computer science majors earn
$98,000 in salary, while early childhood education majors get paid about $36,000.3 According to the Commerce Department, people in STEM fields can expect to earn 26 percent more money on average and¶
And yet the
United States is failing to produce enough skilled STEM workers.¶ Sixty percent of the new jobs that will open in
the 21st century will require skills possessed by only 20 percent of the current workforce.5 The U.S. may be short
as many as three million high-skills workers by 2018. Two-thirds of those jobs will require at least some post-secondary education. American universities, however, only award about
a third of the bachelor’s degrees in science and engineering as Asian universities. Worldwide, the United States ranks 17th in the number of science degrees it awards.
6The United States is fast losing its competitive edge.¶ The competitive edge of the US economy has eroded
sharply over the last decade, according to a new study by a non-partisan research group. The report found that the U.S. ranked sixth among 40 countries and regions,
based on 16 indicators of innovation and competitiveness. They included venture capital investment, scientific research, spending on research, and educational achievement.7 The prestigious World
Economic Forum ranks the U.S. as No. 48 in quality of math and science education. 8¶ American students aren’t keeping up with
students in other countries in math and science.¶ International results released in 2010 showed once again that U.S. students rank¶ well
below many foreign competitors in the crucial areas of math and science. The rankings from the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)
showed American students scored 17th in science achievement and 25th in math ability out of 65 countries. According to the 2009 National Assessment
be less likely to experience job loss. The STEM degree holders also tend to enjoy higher earnings overall, regardless of whether they work in STEM or non-STEM occupations. 4¶
of Education Progress (NAEP), the “Nation’s Report Card,” only one percent of U.S. fourth grade and 12th grade students and two percent of eighth grade students scored in the highest level of proficiency in
science. In fact, the NAEP science results showed students’ performance worsened the longer they were in school, with 72 percent of the fourth graders, 63 percent of the eight graders, and just 60 percent of
the only countries that the U.S. ranked
ahead of were Portugal, Greece, Turkey and Mexico.9¶ The decline in STEM knowledge capital is reducing the basic scientific research
that leads to growth.¶ The U.S. is no longer the “Colossus of Science,” dominating the research landscape¶ in the production
the 12th graders scoring at or above the “basic” level. In an analysis comparing the NAEP math scores of “advanced” 8th graders with their counterparts overseas,
of scientific papers, that it was 30 years ago. In 1981, U.S. scientists fielded nearly 40 percent of research papers in the most influential journals. By 2009, that figure had shrunk to 29 percent. During the same
European¶ nations increased their share of research papers from 33 percent to 36 percent, while research contributed by nations
in the Asia-Pacific region increased from 13 percent to 31 percent. China is now the second-largest producer of scientific papers, after the U.S. with
nearly 11 percent of the world’s total.10¶ ¶ 
American STEM shortcomings mean crucial research and development that pushes
the frontiers of innovation is waning.¶ According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), almost 83 percent of research and
period,
development was carried out in developed countries in 2002, but dropped to 76 percent by 2007. China was leading the pack of emerging nations with 1.4 million researchers. By 2009, for the first time, over
Other nations are racing to establish dominance in math and science.¶ Russia
is building an “innovation city” outside of Moscow. Saudi Arabia has a new university for science and engineering with a $10 billion endowment. China
is creating new technology universities by the dozens and has replaced the U.S. as the world’s top high technology exporter. Singapore has
invested more than a billion dollars to make that country a medical science hub and attract the world’s best talent. These nations and many others have rightly concluded that the
way to win in the world economy is by doing a better job of educating and innovating.12¶ The STEM gap is costing Americans jobs and money.¶ U.S. students fall
half of U.S. patents were awarded to non-U.S. companies.11¶
behind 31 countries in math proficiency, according to a 2011 Harvard study that concluded the U.S. could increase GDP growth per capita by enhancing its students’ math skills. Over an 80-year period,
economic gains¶ from increasing the percentage of math proficient students to Canadian or Korean levels would increase the annual U.S. growth rate by 0.9 percentage points and 1.3 percentage points,
respectively. That increase could yield $75 trillion.13
STEM is key to global competitiveness
Gordon 14 [Bart, Chairman of the Committee on Science & Technology from 2007-2011, USA Science and Engineering Festival: The
Blog, Science blogs, April 19, 2014, http://scienceblogs.com/usasciencefestival/2014/04/19/stem-education-key-to-americas-globalcompetitiveness/]-DaveD.
Our nation has a long and proud history as a global leader in the development of technological breakthroughs and the development of
revolutionary products that change and save lives around the world. In
recent years, however, fewer young Americans are
entering fields of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) and as a result, our global
competitiveness is in jeopardy. For the past six years, the majority of patents issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have
been awarded to international owners, and fewer American students are pursuing advanced science degrees and the World Economic Forum
ranks the United States 52nd in quality of math and science education. We
can and must do better.¶ At the same time,
STEM occupations are poised to grow more quickly in the future than the economy as a whole. More
than half of our nation’s economic growth since World War II can be attributed to development and
adoption of new technologies and this area holds the path toward sustainable economic growth and
prosperity for the next 50 years. A report from the Georgetown University Center on Education and the workforce projected 2.4
million job openings in STEM fields by 2018. Only by developing a generation of workers prepared for those
opportunities can America secure its continued global competitiveness.¶ A critical component of solving this crisis is
recognition on the part of government leaders and the business community that public and private resources must be brought to bear. During
my time in Congress, we worked to create policies that made STEM education a national priority and President Obama has continued that focus
throughout his Administration. Training
teachers, reaching traditionally underrepresented populations and
ensuring funding is available for the groundbreaking research that goes on daily at America’s national
labs and other facilities are all investments that will pay tremendous dividends in the future.¶ Perhaps
the most important element, however, is making science more and more appealing to America’s youth.
To that end, I am proud to be a part of the USA Science & Engineering Festival, the nation’s largest such effort, which will take place at the
Walter E. Washington Convention Center in Washington DC on April 26th and 27th. The Festival was founded on a simple premise: society gets
what it celebrates. Now occurring for the third time in our nation’s capital, this Festival is poised to be the best yet. The Festival’s creator, Larry
Bock, a highly successful serial entrepreneur, has assembled a tremendously diverse cast of participants that will make the last week of April in
Washington DC truly the “Superbowl of STEM”.¶ The Festival will present thousands of hands on, interactive, engaging programs for people of
all ages and from science enthusiasts to novices. Hundreds of thousands of participants will meet science celebrities and inventors, learn about
new technologies, and see for themselves the amazing feats of innovation. The unique assortment of the country’s leading technology
companies, colleges and universities, community groups, federal agencies and professional societies is tremendous. The commitment on behalf
of such varied participants underscores the importance of this effort to our future. ¶ Earlier this year, the U.S. Senate unanimously approved a
resolution supporting the goals and ideals of the Festival and designating the days it will take place as “National Science Week”. Such
recognition of and commitment to solving this crisis of competitiveness is heartening. Years from now, historians will look back to these years
as those that changed the tide and created a generation of inventors and explorers who will solve the challenges of the future and keep
America the innovation center of the world.
Educational Innovation K/T Heg
Innovative education is vital for preserving global leadership.
Barber et al., 12 (Michael, chief education advisor at Pearson, and Katelyn Donnelly, managing
director of Pearson Affordable Learning Fund, and Saad Rizvi, SVP Efficacy @ Pearson, “Oceans of
Innovation,” Institute for Public Policy Research, August,
http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/policy_library/data/01645)
There is much debate in academic and intellectual circles about whether we will see an Asian or a Pacific century ahead, or
whether the United States will emerge from the doldrums and lead in the next century as it did in the past one. This paper takes a
different perspective. We take as a point of departure the fact that, after 350 years of Atlantic leadership of the global economy,
we will see the Pacific rise. At the very least, the Pacific will share that leadership. The questions we focus on and the debates we
believe necessary are: What kind of leadership will the twenty-first century require? To what extent is the Pacific region
ready to provide this leadership? And what are the implications of the answers to these questions for public policy in the region and
for education systems in particular? Our answers to these questions emphasize the importance of innovation. Innovation
drives economic influence; economic influence underpins global leadership; and global leadership requires
innovation to solve the many problems facing humanity in the next half century. If this is correct, and innovation is
the key, then even the best education systems in the world, many of them clustered around the Pacific, need to radically
rethink what they offer every student.
Plan => STEM
OSEA would engage students in STEM topics
Bidwell 13 (Allie, Education reporter for US News & World Report, “Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean
Exploration Program”, US News & World Report, September 25, 2013.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientists-release-first-plan-for-national-ocean-exploration-program. Nyy)
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 highresolution 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."
AT: STEM = Patriarchy
White House STEM efforts to make STEM as inclusive of Womyn as possible
White House 13 [The official United States Federal Government website, “Women and Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Math (STEM)”, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_factsheet_2013_07232013.pdf, ] NN
In 2009, President
Obama set an ambitious goal: to move U.S. students from the middle to the top of
the pack in math and science achievement over the next decade. The key to accomplishing this vision
rests not only in raising the number and performance of students currently excelling in STEM subjects, but also engaging girls and
other students who are historically underrepresented in these areas. That’s why the Administration’s
$4.35 billion Race to the Top 2009 competition focused not only on encouraging states to develop comprehensive
strategies to improve achievement and provide rigorous curricula in STEM subjects, but also to broaden the participation of
women and girls. To achieve this, states applying for these funds received competitive preference if they demonstrated
efforts to address any barriers to STEM careers for women, girls, and other underrepresented groups.
Launched in November 2009, the President’s Educate to Innovate campaign features among its three core
pillars a commitment to “expand STEM education and career opportunities for underrepresented
groups, including women.” Working with teachers, businesses, philanthropists, foundations, non-profits, scientists, and engineers,
the campaign has attracted more than $700 million in financial and in-kind support and partnerships that will
help prepare more than 10,000 new math and science teachers.
Obama’s using womyn role models to expand STEM to the unrepresented—plan
provides more jobs for these womyn
White House 13 [The official United States Federal Government website, “Women and Girls in Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Math (STEM)”, http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/stem_factsheet_2013_07232013.pdf, ] NN
The President recognizes the need for more women champions and role models in STEM fields as is
evidenced by his appointment of many talented women in senior STEM leadership positions. This
includes Department of the Interior Secretary Sally Jewel (an engineer), Director of the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency Arati Prabhakar, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Acting
Administrator Kathy Sullivan (a former astronaut), and Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Margaret
Hamburg (a medical doctor). Launched in the summer of 2011, the Obama Administration’s Women in STEM
Speakers Bureau brings role models like these top officials one step closer to their future successors,
capitalizing on existing travel schedules to send these women into communities across the country to meet and inspire girls in grades 6-12. In
March 2013, the Office of Personnel Management in partnership with NSF and Techbridge hosted a training session open to
these and other Federal STEM employees on how best to engage girls in STEM to ensure that Federal staff responding to the
President’s call to volunteer in their communities would have the tools needed to serve as role models to this particular population.
Solvency
Advocate/1AC Card
OSEA needs to be started.
Gonzalez 12 (Robert T. Gonzalez-Prolific writer for io9, The world's oceans need their own NASA-style
agency, blog, 10/17/12 6:35am,, http://io9.com/5952450/the-worlds-oceans-need-their-own-nasastyle-agency, A.G)
The oceans of Earth remain largely unexplored, but not for lack of technological innovation — and
certainly not for lack of interest. Biologists, geologists, physicists, chemists, meteorologists — nearly
every conceivable scientific field benefits from ocean research. But marine science, and deep sea
science especially, is dying, due in large part to ever-dwindling financial resources. In NOAA's FY2013
budget, the Office of Ocean Exploration suffered a 16.5% percent cut, while education programs lost
over half their funding. Over at Deep Sea News, marine biologists Craig McClain and Al Dove observe
that the U.S. has been veering toward a course where ocean exploration (and science in general) are
becoming less and less of a priority to our society. This is a sentiment shared by the vast majority of
Americans. "How did we get here?" ask Dove and McClain. And, more critically, how do we fix it? Dove
and McClain address both these questions in their thoroughly researched, thoroughly interesting threepart post — and the solution they offer up for saving ocean science is a compelling one: ocean science
needs its own independent agency with a dedicated mission. An Ocean NASA, if you will. We've included
an excerpt of the post below, but you'll want to read the rest of it in its entirety over at Deep Sea News.
US should take the lead on ocean exploration.
Pages and Kearney 4 | At the time of publication, Patrice Pages was a media relations officer for the national academies. He holds
an MS in Science and Tech Journalism from Texas A&M, a BS in Physics from the Université de Bourgogne, an MS in nuclear and particle physics
from Université Louis Pasteur and a Ph.D. in particle physics from the same. < “Exploration of the Deep Blue Sea: Unveiling the Ocean's
Mysteries,” Winter/Spring 2004. InFocus Vol 4 No 1. TG>
Already a world leader in ocean research, the United States should lead a new exploration endeavor by example.
"Given the limited resources in many other countries, it would be prudent to begin with a U.S. exploration program that would
include foreign representatives and serve as a model for other countries," said John Orcutt, the committee chair for one of the
reports and deputy director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego. "Once programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could
then collaborate on research and pool their resources under international agreements." Using new and existing facilities, technologies, and vehicles, proposed
efforts to understand the oceans would follow two different approaches. One component dedicated to exploration would utilize ships,
submersibles, and satellites in new ways to uncover the ocean's biodiversity, such as the ecosystems associated with deep-sea hydrothermal vents, coral
reefs, and volcanic, underwater mountains. A second component -- a network of ocean "observatories" composed of moored buoys and a system of
telecommunication cables and nodes on the seafloor -- would complement the existing fleet of research ships and satellites . The
buoys would provide information on weather and climate as well as ocean biology, and the cables would be used to transmit
information from sensors on fixed nodes about volcanic and tectonic activity of the seafloor, earthquakes, and life on or below the seafloor. Also, a fleet of new manned and unmanned deepdiving vehicles would round out this research infrastructure. Education and outreach should be an integral part of new ocean science efforts by bringing discoveries to the public, informing
government officials, and fostering collaborations between educators and the program's scientists, the reports say.
A centralized organization is key to better and more efficient ocean co’op
Barnes and McFadden, 07 (Cassandra, Program Analyst at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) with a Ph.D., and Katherine W., Assistant Professor, Department of Ecology, Evolution and Environmental Biology at
Columbia University, “Marine ecosystem approaches to management: challenges and lessons in the United States”. Science
Direct. 1 November 2007. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308597X07000954
Nyy)
An institutional feeling of “protectiveness” or overlapping jurisdictions within a geographic area has
been a traditional problem for resource management. In addition, the dynamic nature of ecosystems makes it difficult for
rigid guidelines on either ecosystem classification or boundary delineation. While scientists may define boundaries based on ecological criteria,
the geopolitical or management boundaries must also be taken into account in EAM [14]. An
important component in solving the
problem of integrating social and natural science includes promoting collaborations between internal
and external partners. Survey respondents noted that collaboration has been difficult to implement in an
atmosphere of limited funding and time, and within an organizational structure of employees spanning
the United States. Adding to this problem is the fact that multiple divisions within NOAA overlap(s) on
research projects without full exchange or dialogue. For example, harmful algal blooms (HABs) may be studied by external
researchers who are granted research funding from NOAA, while there is currently no formal structure for communicating these results directly
to NOAA's own internal HAB research. Internal
cooperation might be improved with greater level of centralized
coordination amongst management. Additionally, a better application of matrix management may help streamline some of the
barriers to organizational challenges. Strategic planning and matrix management cross traditional organizational
boundaries by the assembly of teams to look at complex crosscutting issues for a more integrated
organization.
US Tech Key
US has the best tech for ocean exploration
Manley 4 | At the time of publication, Justin Manley worked on the NOAA’s Ocean Explorer program. He is currently a senior member at
the IEEE and is a member of the US IOOS Advisory Committee. <“Technology Development for Ocean Exploration,” November 2004. MTTS/IEEE
TECHNO-OCEAN Vol 3, No. 9-12. TG.>
A. OE Technology Program Principles Some early examples of
OE's technology program included the use of laser line scan imaging for habitat assessment, [4]
and supporting the development of the Global Explorer ROV for arctic deployment from an ice-breaker. [5] As OE has matured and refined its programs and vision a set of principles have
Technical excellence is a core value in the OE program. Strong ties to
technology development labs keep OE's technology program at the cutting edge of ocean engineering. OE works
with engineers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI), Institute for Exploration (IFE), the Naval Undersea Warfare
Center (NUWC) and many other leading institutions. Defining a role for industry is an important opportunity for NOM. Ongoing significant commercial
investments in marine technology must be leveraged for ocean exploration. In its science programs, OE works to apply the latest industrial technology
to exploration. One example is the deployment of a commercially provided ROV, Sonsubs INNOVATOR, on the NOAA Ship Ronald H. Brown during the 2003 field season, Fig 1. [6]
evolved which guide the technology development program.
During 2004, OE contracted with C&C Technology to use their AUV, Hugin, for exploratory geophysical surveys in the Gulf of Mexico and Straits of Florida. This project, planned for late 2004,
will provide scientists with the same high quality data used by offshore industry.
The OE technology program works to keep industry's best
tools in the hands of ocean explorers.
Note: OE refers to the NOAA’s Ocean Explorer program.
Plan => Intl Coop
A revamped US ocean exploration program spills over to international coop
Committee on Exploration of the Seas, 03 (National Research Council, “Major Ocean Exploration Effort
Would Reveal Secrets of the Deep”. The National Academies Press. Nov. 4 2003
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=10844. Nyy)
A new large-scale, multidisciplinary ocean exploration program would increase the pace of discovery of new
species, ecosystems, energy sources, seafloor features, pharmaceutical products, and artifacts, as well as improve understanding of the
role oceans play in climate change, says a new congressionally mandated report from the National Academies' National Research Council. Such a program should
be run by a nonfederal organization and should encourage international participation, added the committee that wrote the report. Congress, interested in the possibility of an international
ocean exploration program, asked the Research Council to examine the feasibility of such an effort. The committee concluded, however, that given the limited resources in many other
it would be prudent to begin with a U.S. program that would include foreign representatives and serve as a model for
other countries. Once programs are established elsewhere, groups of nations could then collaborate on research and pool their resources under
countries,
international agreements. "The United States should lead by example," said committee chair John Orcutt, professor of geophysics and deputy director, Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
Vast portions of the ocean remain unexplored. In fact, while a dozen men have walked on the moon, just two have
traveled to the farthest reaches of the ocean, and only for about 30 minutes each time, the report notes. " The bottom of the ocean is the Earth's least explored
frontier, and currently available submersibles -- whether manned, remotely operated, or autonomous -- cannot reach the deepest parts of the sea," said committee vice chair Shirley A.
University of California, San Diego.
Pomponi, vice president and director of research at Harbor Branch Oceanographic Institution, Fort Pierce, Fla. Nonetheless, recent discoveries of previously unknown species and deep-sea
biological and chemical processes have heightened interest in ocean exploration. For example, researchers working off the coast of California revealed how some organisms consume methane
seeping through the sea floor, converting it to energy for themselves and leaving hydrogen and carbon dioxide as byproducts. The hydrogen could perhaps someday be harnessed for fuel cells,
leaving the carbon dioxide – which contributes to global warming in the atmosphere – in the sea. Likewise, a recent one-month expedition off Australia and New Zealand that explored deepsea volcanic mountains and abyssal plains collected 100 previously unidentified fish species and up to 300 new species of invertebrates.
Most current U.S. funding for
ocean research, however, goes to projects that plan to revisit earlier sites or for improving understanding of known processes, rather than to
support truly exploratory oceanography, the report says. And because the funding bureaucracy is discipline-based, grants are usually allocated to chemists, biologists, or physical scientists,
rather than to teams of researchers representing a variety of scientific fields.
Concentrated Effort Key
A well organized, funded, and professional organization has been proven to allow quantum
leaps in ocean development.
NRC 03 (National Research Council, The National Research Council is a private, nonprofit institution that provides expert advice on some of
the most pressing challenges facing the nation and the world. Their work helps shape sound policies, inform public opinion, and advance the
pursuit of science, engineering, and medicine.; “Exploration of the Seas: Interim Report”; The National Academies Press, 2003,
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10630&page=20, p. 20; RJ)
To develop and foster collaborations among explorers and educators in ocean exploration, it is critical
that educators be an integral part of the planning and conduct of exploration activities, whether ship- or shorebased. Development of these partnerships should be a crucial responsibility of each nation’s ocean
exploration program, and could be accomplished through national scientific and educational
professional organizations. Examples in the United States include the National Science Teachers Association, the National Marine
Educators Association, the American Geophysical Union, the Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence, and others. CONCLUSION: The
global ocean is teeming with undiscovered species and resources in vast under-explored areas. Yet even
as our dependence on healthy, functioning marine ecosystems grows, our knowledge about the ocean
and its role in keeping Earth’s systems in balance remains constrained. Given the importance of the
global ocean in guaranteeing food security, providing resources, enabling worldwide commerce, and
reminding us of our history, it is shocking that we still know so little about the ocean and the life it
supports. While steady progress in understanding of the ocean has been made possible by traditional
hypothesis-driven research, a new program of exploration will permit us to make quantum leaps in new
discoveries. A well-organized, adequately funded program in ocean exploration will allow us to plumb
the depths of Earth’s last frontier and provide the foundation for better understanding, and better
stewardship, of Earth’s ocean.
Collaboration key to a strong ocean exploration program
NOAA 13 | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association. < “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020,” September 2013. TG>
a national program of ocean exploration imply a network of universities, nongovernmental organizations, the private
sector, and government agencies working together in pursuit of shared goals. Federal—and in particular, NOAA—
leadership is essential to help design and maintain what might be called an “architecture for collaboration” that convenes national and
These characteristics of
international ocean exploration stakeholders regularly to review and set priorities, to match potential expedition partners, to facilitate sharing of assets, and to help test and evaluate new
technologies. The program should facilitate the review and analysis of new and historical data and the synthesis and transformation of data into a variety of informa- tional products.
In
this leadership role, NOAA would promote public engagement, and guide and strengthen the national ocean exploration
enterprise. A conventional federal government approach won’t work. In describing character- istics of the national ocean exploration
program in 2020, participants used words including: nimble, flexible, creative, innovative, and responsive. A program with these qualities just might
ignite the ocean exploration movement envisioned by the participants in the first gathering of the community of ocean explorers.
Ocean Exploration solves Lots
It is time for the US to explore the Ocean, has potential to revitalize industries
Diamandis 13 (Peter, Chairman, XPRIZE / Exec. Chairman & Co-Founder, Singularity University / Co-Founder & Co-Chairman, Planetary
Resources, “A New Age of Ocean Exploration May Just Save Us”, LinkedIn Influencer, October 23,
http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20131023220148-994365-a-new-age-of-ocean-exploration-may-just-save-us) NN
A renewed golden age of exploration in the 21 century might just be the key to a healthy and valued
planet. Although we have already ignited unprecedented advances into space, there is still so much of our planet left unexplored. For
starters, we know remarkably little about the ocean covering the majority of our planet’s surface: almost 95% of our ocean remains
undiscovered. The time is right to reignite the discovery of new places and new knowledge here on Earth, as
individuals are now empowered more than ever to do what was once only possible for governments and large corporations.¶ The history of
ocean exploration reminds us that we have always longed to explore the unknown, and that innovative and ambitious explorers will push those
horizons no matter what. Yet with reduced government spending, especially in comparison to space exploration, and the fact that the ocean is
not owned by one specific entity, there is a void. What will catalyze ocean exploration? Who will steward the ocean and dive to
its depths to uncover its mysteries?¶ There was a long-held notion that audacious exploration needed primary support from the government.
When we launched the Ansari XPRIZE in 1996, many scoffed at the idea that private citizens, using private financing, could build innovative
spacecraft that successfully launch into space. Their response to what we were attempting to achieve often makes me think of a quote, “Some
men see things as they are and ask why. Others dream things that never were and ask why not.” ― George Bernard Shaw. Our proof is the new
market that developed with the Ansari XPRIZE; private space transport is now a $1.5 billion industry. It’s clear that exploration in the 21 century
is not just for government-supported programs anymore.¶ With the challenges we currently face, environmentally and economically, we
cannot leave exploration of our blue planet up to governments alone. Instead, quite the opposite: We need to crowdsource innovators from
around the globe to take up the charge of discovering the secrets our ocean holds, while working to preserve it.¶ Consider
the
challenges facing the ocean: carbon dioxide absorbed from the atmosphere has made the ocean 30%
more acidic than it was just 200 years ago, with devastating consequences for corals, mollusks, fish,
and entire ecosystems. Pollution from plastics to fertilizers creates massive “dead zones” and swirling
gyres of garbage that further sicken the seas upon which the health of the planet depends. Unabated
overfishing has shown that 90% of the big fish in the sea are now gone.¶ How can we turn back this tide of
challenges affecting the health of our ocean unless we first value the ocean? And valuing it means not just taking a personal interest, but taking
the time to understand the challenges and creating real incentives, particularly financial incentives, behind the sustainable use of our ocean.¶
By building industries that have a vested interest in the ocean, we stand a much better chance of
protecting the health of the planet. This is the model of XPRIZE: to catalyze industries that not only build economies based on
new frontiers, but industries that become the leaders in serving humanity’s needs now and in the future.¶ There is a very real
opportunity with our ocean to build these industries. Because they remain unexplored, there is tremendous value still
ready to be discovered. Indeed, the opportunities for things like pharmaceuticals from deep-sea creatures
bring us new biochemical discoveries from nearly every deep-sea mission. And with an estimated 91% of sea life
still unknown, this gives us a literal ocean of opportunity to discover more.¶ By properly measuring and documenting the
chemical and physical characteristics of our seas, we can initiate whole new industries in ocean services – the type of datadriven information and forecasting that can be used by every company dependent on the ocean, from tourism to trade to weather services.¶ I
believe now is the critical time to ignite a new age of ocean exploration. At XPRIZE we recently launched our second
ocean prize, the Wendy Schmidt Ocean Health XPRIZE, to spur development of breakthroughs in pH measuring tools that explore the chemistry
of our seas. And we are, for the first time, committing to launch three additional ocean prizes by 2020. Because we trust that by harnessing the
power of innovation, and the dreams of explorers around the world, valuable new discoveries can help us achieve a healthy ocean.
AT: Nations Say No
Countries open to S&T coop ─ China proves
Colglazier 13 | William Colgazier is the Science and Tech advisor to the secretary of state. He holds a PhD in theoretical physics from
CalTech. < “The Imperatives of Innovation and Cooperation,” October 23, 2013. http://www.state.gov/e/stas/2013/218703.htm?goMobile=0.
TG>
U.S. and China regarding innovation. Our governments participate
in multiple discussions and support concrete collaborations in innovation. A government to government dialogue -- the annual
high-level session of the U.S.-China Innovation Dialogue -- is a strategic science and technology and economic policy conversation between the
world’s two largest economies. The Dialogue was established in 2010, and has served as an important mechanism for our continued discussions about the proper role
of government in the innovation process. We had productive discussions in July 2013 on the role of government in financing innovation, and we hope to continue to use
this mechanism to make tangible progress on areas of mutual concern in the future. In addition, our governments engage with
representatives from think tanks, universities, companies at events like the Dialogue on Comparing U.S. and Chinese Approaches to Science, Technology, and
Innovation Policy Decision-Making, which the University of California, San Diego hosted in August. Speakers from the Chinese Academy of Sciences and the Chinese
Ministry of Science and Technology (MOST) joined U.S. government officials and experts from outside government for discussions of how innovation policy is
formulated in our two countries, the roles of the major players in that formulation, and the similarities and differences in our approaches to the role of government in encouraging
innovation.
Lastly, I would like to briefly review current collaborations between the governments of the
Intl Coop Solve Oceans
International ocean cooperation vital to preserve ocean ecosystems.
Howard 14 (Brian, Writer, Editor, and Producer of National Geographic, Managing Editor of the Environmental Magazine,
"Global Ocean Commission Calls for Sweeping International Reforms", National Geographic, June 24, 2014,
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140624-global-ocean-commission-report-high-seas-fishing-environment/)
jml
An international panel of former heads of state, government ministers, and prominent business leaders
is calling for world leaders to protect the ocean by adopting a sweeping "five-year rescue package."The
report released Tuesday by the Global Ocean Commission recommends that the United Nations and
national governments restrict fishing in international waters, eliminate fishing subsidies, step up the
fight against illegal fishing, reduce pollution, and establish greater international cooperation on marine
issues. Nations must "intervene to reduce degradation of the ocean, and it must be forceful,"
commission co-chair Trevor Manuel tells National Geographic. The independent, 17-member
commission—launched in February 2013 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, the University of Oxford,
Adessium Foundation, and Oceans 5—spent 18 months researching and drafting the report. The
commission's conclusions have been widely anticipated by policymakers at the UN and in many nations,
in part due to the political clout of the commissioners. Members include Carol Browner, the former
head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; David Miliband, the former foreign secretary of the
United Kingdom; and Paul Martin, a former prime minister of Canada. Without swift action to combat
overfishing, pollution, and other problems, the commission argues, the world's food supply and
biodiversity are at great risk. The ocean, the commission notes, provides half of the planet's oxygen,
absorbs half of man-made carbon emissions, and is the beginning of the food chain. "It's clearly
important that nations raise the bar on international cooperation around the ocean," says Manuel, a
veteran politician from South Africa who served as the country's minister of finance for 13 years.
Exploration K/T Development
Exploration is vital to development policy.
McNutt 13 (Marcia, Ocean Exploration 2020 Executive Chair and editor-in-chief of Science, “Accelerating Ocean
Exploration”. Science. August 30, 2013. http://people.stfx.ca/rscrosat/trs14.pdf. Nyy)
Last month, a distinguished group of ocean researchers and explorers convened in Long Beach,
California, at the Aquarium of the Pacific to assess progress and future prospects in ocean exploration.
Thirteen years ago, U.S. President Clinton challenged a similar group to provide a blueprint for ocean exploration and discovery. Since then, the
fundamental rationale has not changed: to
collect high-quality data on the physics, chemistry biology, and geology
of the oceans that can be used to answer known questions as well as those we do not yet know enough
to pose, to develop new instruments and systems to explore the ocean in new dimensions, and to
engage a new generation of youth in science and technology. Recently, however, exploration has taken
on a more urgent imperative: to record the substantial changes occurring in largely undocumented
regions of the ocean. With half of the ocean more than 10 kilometers from the nearest depth
surrounding, ecosystem function in the deep sea still a mystery an no first-order baseline for many
globally important ocean processes, the current pace of exploration is woefully inadequate to address
this daunting task, especially as the planet responds to changes in climate. To meet this challenge,
future ocean exploration must depart dramatically from the classical ship-based expeditions of the past
devoted to mapping and sampling. As a first step, future exploration should make better use of
autonomous platforms that are equipped with a broader array of in situ sensors, for lower-cost data
gathering. Fortunately, new, more nimble, and easily deployed platforms are available, ranging from $200 kits for build-your-own remotely
operated vehicles to long-range autonomous underwater vehicles (AUVs), solar-powered autonomous platforms, autonomous boats, AUVs that
operate cooperatively in swarming behavior through the use of artificial intelligence, and gliders that can cross entire oceans. New in situ
chemical and biological sensors allow the probing of ocean processes in real time in ways not possible if samples are processed later in
laboratories. Exploration
also would greatly benefit from improvements in telepresence. For expeditions
that require ships (very distant from shore and requiring the return of complex samples), experts on
shore can now "join" through satellite links, enlarging the pool of talent available to comment on the
importance of discoveries as they happen and to participate in real-time decisions that affect expedition
planning. This type of communication can enrich the critical human interactions that guide the discovery
process on such expeditions. Words such as "crowd sourcing," "crowd funded," and "citizen scientist" are nowhere to be found in the
President's Ocean Exploration Panel report of 2000, but at the Long Beach meeting, intense excitement revolved around
growing public engagement in many aspects of ocean exploration through mechanisms that did not
exist 13 years ago. However, there is not yet a body of experience on how to take advantage of this new
paradigm on the scale of a problem as large as ocean exploration. For example, what tasks are most suitable for citizen
scientists, and how can they be trained efficiently? Can the quality control of their work be automated? Can crowd-sources tasks be scheduled
to avoid duplication and gaps? Should any region of the ocean receive priority? Although the southern
oceans are still largely
unexplored, and coral reef hot spots for biodiversity are gravely imperiled by ocean warming and
acidification, there was much support by Long Beach participants for prioritizing the Arctic, a region likely to experience some of the
most extreme climate change impacts. An ice-free ocean could affect weather patterns, sea conditions, and
ecosystem dynamics and invite increases in shipping, tourism, energy extraction, and mining. Good
decisions by Arctic nations on Arctic stewardship, emergency preparedness, economic development, and climate change adaptation will
need to be informed by good science. Exploration of this frontier needs to provide a useful
informational baseline for future decisions.
AT: OFF CASE
Topicality
AT: “Non Military”
We Meet – Civilian
Extend McClain 12 from the 1AC – the plan is staffed with civilians.
McClain 12 (Craig, Dr. Craig McClain is the Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center, created to
facilitate broadly synthetic research to address fundamental questions in evolutionary science. He has conducted deep-sea research for 11
years and published over 30 papers in the area; “We Need an Ocean NASA Now Pt. 3”; October 16, 2012,
http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-3/; RJ)
What Does an OSEA look like? At the core OSEA
would need a mission dedicated to basic research and exploration
of the >;90% of the world’s oceans that remain unexplored. High risk with the potential for high impact
would be the norm. Pioneering knows no other way to achieve those truly novel and impactful gains. To
achieve these goals, OSEA would need substantial infrastructure and fleet including international and
regional class research vessels, a submersible, remotely operated vehicles, and autonomous underwater
vehicles. Funding would need to be secure on decadal cycles to insure both the longevity and
permanence of this mission but allow for oversight to ensure OSEA was meeting its mission and financial
responsibilities. An ocean exploration center would be staffed with a vibrant community of researchers,
engineers, and administrators, postdoctoral fellows, graduate students, and visiting experts with a
strong interacting and supportive community working toward uncovering the mysteries of the oceans.
Research would be funded internally from a broad OSEA budget, not externally, freeing scientists and
engineers to actually do science and engineering as opposed to the only current option, which is writing
grants to other agencies with a less than 10% chance of funding. OSEA would also be a resource both for
the research community and the public by being dedicated to open science, i.e. making scientific
research, data and dissemination accessible to all levels of an inquiring society, amateur or professional.
Publications, data, software, and engineering would be freely available and open to all. All internal processes
would be transparent. The mission of OSEA in the spirit of open science would be equally dedicated to public outreach. For too long have
science and society been disconnected. OSEA would involve the public as the ultimate funders of our
work. A novel and cutting edge education and outreach group would develop a strategic plan to involve children and adults in the mission.
There would be multiple opportunities for anyone to be involved including the public. Citizen scientists would be essential
components, allowing adults to take a residence and contribute to OSEA and become life long
ambassadors long after their residence. Although parts of OSEA are realized in other government and private organizations, they
do not meet the full mission nor can such a distributed structure be expected to meet the challenges of this pivotal moment. For example,
NOAA fills a much-needed role but its mission is largely applied. NOAA’s mission statement is “Science, Service, and Stewardship. To
understand and predict changes in climate, weather, oceans, and coasts, To share that knowledge and information with others, and To
conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resource”. Contrast that to NASA’s simple mission, “to pioneer the future in space
exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research.” In an agency with a chiefly applied mission, those programs that are purely
exploratory must eventually invent an applied focus or face the axe. For example, even under NURP, exploration often focused on corals and
fish of considerable economic and conservation importance rather than those species of greatest novelty or knowledge deficit. The current
situation at NOAA also highlights how less applied scientific programs are likely to be lost. Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute also
provides another model that comes close to OSEA but is heavily reliant on private funding that can often be significantly reduced during
recessions as endowments shrink. Moreover, a private foundation is unlikely to meet the full financial burden to support the full mission of an
OSEA or provide a resource to the ocean science community as whole. This is not meant to criticize either NOAA or MBARI, indeed both
supported our own research and have made immense contributions to ocean science and exploration, but neither do they fully realize our
vision for OSEA. As John F. Kennedy stated, “We must be bold.” It is time for a great national effort of the United States of America, time for us
to renew our commitment to uncovering the mysteries of the blue planet we live on. We
need a NASA-style Ocean Science and
Exploration Agency (OSEA). to explore and research the greatest depths of oceans with a community of
scientists, engineers, and citizens.
That proves we are nonmilitary.
Oxford Dictionaries 14 (Oxford Dictionaries, “Nonmilitary”, 2014;
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/nonmilitary, RJ)
Nonmilitary Syllabification: non·mil·i·tar·y Pronunciation: /ˌnänˈmiləˌterē
involving the armed forces; civilian:
/ ADJECTIVE Not belonging to, characteristic of,
or
Disadvantages
Politics
GOP Supports STEM
The GOP supports education, especially STEM education
GOP 12 [The Official GOP Website, The GOP’s views, “RENEWING AMERICAN VALUES”, http://www.gop.com/2012-republicanplatform_renewing/#] NN
More money alone does not necessarily equal better performance. After years of trial and error, we know what does work, what has
actually made a difference in student advancement, and what is powering education reform at the local level all across America: accountability on the part of administrators, parents and teachers;
higher academic standards; programs that support the development of character and financial literacy; periodic rigorous assessments on the fundamentals, especially math, science, reading,
history, and geography; renewed focus on the Constitution and the writings of the Founding Fathers, and an accurate account of American history that celebrates the birth of this great nation;
transparency, so parents and the public can discover which schools best serve their pupils; flexibility and freedom to innovate, so schools can adapt to the special needs of their students and hold
We support the innovations in education reform occurring at the State level based
upon proven results. Republican Governors have led in the effort to reform our country’s underperforming
education system, and we applaud these advancements. We advocate the policies and methods that have proven
effective: building on the basics, especially STEM subjects (science, technology, engineering, and math) and phonics; ending social promotions; merit
teachers and administrators responsible for student performance.
pay for good teachers; classroom discipline; parental involvement; and strong leadership by principals, superintendents, and locally elected school boards. Because technology has become an
essential tool of learning, proper implementation of technology is a key factor in providing every child equal access and opportunity.
Midterms
Latinos Support Plan
Latino voters care about the environment – they’d back the plan.
Schaller 14 [Thomas, Professor of Political Science at University of Maryland, “Latino Support for Environmental Protection and Climate
Change Action”, Latino Decisions, March 29, http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2014/03/29/latino-support-for-environmental-protectionand-climate-change-action/] NN
Latinos care about immigration politics, of course. As an aspirational community, they also care about jobs and schools. But
what may come as a surprise to those unfamiliar with the attitudes of American Latinos is how deeply concerned they
are about protecting the environment. In conjunction with the National Resources Defense Council, Latino Decisions came to
Washington this week to discuss a new poll revealing how concerned Latinos are about environmental protection and climate change. At a
Monday, March 24 press event held in the Cannon Office Building on Capitol Hill, NRDC senior attorney and Latino Outreach Director
Latino
Americans exhibit very strong support for environmental protection and, more specifically, that
Latinos want government to be active in addressing environmental issues. The survey of 800 Latino registered
voters reveals that more than half of Latinos want government are concerned about the challenges posed
by climate change, and fully three-quarters said they believe it is “very” or “extremely” important
for the government to address climate change. “These are remarkably high levels of support,” said Barreto. His comments
Adrianna Quintero and Latino Decisions co-founder Matt Barreto discussed the LD poll results. Both trumpeted the fact that
echoed sentiments Quintero recently expressed on her NRDC blog. “We’ve seen it before and this poll again dramatically emphasizes the point,”
writes Quintero. “In fact, 9 out 10 Latinos want action against climate change. That’s a compelling margin of
support.” Support for climate change action is not only strong but relatively uniform: among young and old, among foreign or U.S-born, across
ethnicities or countries of origin, among those with high school or college degrees. Indeed, as Barreto explained only immigration reform ranks
with climate change in its level of support among Latino for government action, eclipsing issues including tax policy, gun buyer background
(78 percent) of Latinos would view
members of Congress either “somewhat” or “much more” favorably were they to support a carbon
tax. By similar margins, Latino registered voters favor the president taking action to curb carbon
production. Perhaps most interesting—but hardly surprising—is the key motivation behind Latino attitudes: el futuro. Latino support
is rooted in their desire to protect of natural resources and environmental quality for their children
and future generations.
checks and abortion policy. In term of specific preferences, more than three-quarters
GOP Needs Minorities
GOP needs minority support
Witcover 14 (Jules, veteran american journalist, author, and columnist of Politics Today, Baltimore Star, Washington Star,
Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post, winner of the Sigma Delta Chi Award for Washington Correspondence from Society of
Professional Journalists, "GOP still needs to fix its minority voter deficit", June 26, 2014,
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/tms-politics-witcover-columnist,0,2181696.columnist) jml
The alleged "raid" on the Republican senatorial primary in Mississippi, wherein black Democratic voters
were said to have crossed over to vote for longtime incumbent Thad Cochran, has outraged his tea-party
challengers. It sounds like a version of the old Dixie lament that "those people" should stay with their
own kind. The real culprit is the Magnolia State itself, for holding an open primary law that allows voters
to participate in a runoff regardless of party. And it's another reminder of the basic Republican problem
of being branded as hostile or just unaccommodating to minority voters and their interests. The Cochran
strategists are being credited with having beaten the bushes in heavy African-American precincts to
boost turnout. But the power of minority participation was already demonstrated in the 2012
presidential election, wherein Mitt Romney was buried by black, Hispanic and other minority votes.
Establishment Republicans of Cochran's ilk are rejoicing over what they see as another stake in the heart of the tea party, somewhat countering its shocking success
in ousting House Minority Leader Eric Cantor in his Virginia primary. Yet the intramural GOP fight will go on in November's midterm congressional elections and the
2016 battle for the presidency. In all this, the Grand Old Party takes considerable solace in the current distress of President Obama, whose popularity has fallen to
41 percent in latest polls, despite the fact that Republicans in Congress are rated even lower. But as they bask in Obama's slippage, they have a glaring dilemma of
their own. Two years from the next presidential election, they have no obvious nominee in sight. The political cupboard is so bare that Texas Gov. Rick "Oops" Perry
appears to be suiting up for another bid, as does another also-ran, Rick Santorum. This is happening in a party that traditionally has had its next nominee waiting in
the wings for "my turn." In the past, patient party leaders have gone at least once around the presidential track or have bided their time, recognizing that loyalty
can be rewarded. Losers Richard Nixon, George Bush Sr., Bob Dole and John McCain all eventually won the GOP presidential nomination, their boosters arguing it
was owed to them. Looking at the current potential roster for 2016, no likely heir apparent jumps out other than former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who would be a firsttime presidential aspirant, or perhaps Rep. Paul Ryan, the 2012 losing vice-presidential nominee. Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky has the look, in racetrack terminology,
of an early pacesetter but is still generally regarded a libertarian outsider. The current crop of Republican governors offers more ambition than public recognition,
with the exception of New Jersey's Chris Christie, whose initial high profile has been tarnished by that bridge backup fiasco that smacks of both incompetence and
stupidity. Neither quality has been known as a recommendation for national office. In light of the internal split between the tea-party insurgents and old
establishment party figures like Cochran, McCain, House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, what's lacking, alas, is a political star
of the magnetism of Ronald Reagan. Casting about among the other potential stars, only former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg would be appear to have the
stature right now to generate the needed national support for a presidential campaign. But Bloomberg is a one-time Democrat who ran as a Republican to get on
the ballot in New York and then declared himself an Independent. Generally regarded as a liberal in his conspicuous leadership of a national campaign against gun
Whichever White House aspirant manages to emerge
from the current fog will need more of that same minority voter support that was Romney's undoing -and appears to have been Cochran's salvation in Mississippi -- to reach the Oval Office in 2017. And so,
for all of the GOP's high expectations for taking control of Congress this fall and the presidency beyond,
breaking the minority-vote barrier remains a critical challenge.
violence, he would be a fish out of water as the GOP presidential nominee.
China DA
US/China Coop Resilient
Too many areas of cooperation prevent a relations collapse. China wants to work with
us on science.
U.S. Department of State 12 (United States Department of State: Office of the Spokesperson, “U.S.-China Cooperation in the
Asia-Pacific Region”; July 12, 2012; http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2012/07/194891.htm, RJ)
On the occasion of the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF), the United States and China underscored the
benefits to the United States and China, the Asia-Pacific region, and the international community of
building a U.S.-China cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit and fostering
a new type of relationship between major countries. Toward this end, through regular and substantive dialogue and consultation, the
United States and China are developing cooperative activities throughout the Asia-Pacific region. At this year’s
ARF, the two countries pledged to enhance and initiate collaborative efforts in the region, including in the areas of science and technology, climate change, disaster warning and response,
Recent accomplishments in U.S.China cooperation in the Asia-Pacific include: Disaster relief: The United States and China co-hosted the
ASEAN Regional Forum Seminar on the Laws and Regulations on Participation in International Disaster
Relief by Armed Forces in Beijing, June 10-12, 2012. Disaster response: The United States and China
jointly funded and participated in an urban search and rescue (USAR) training exercise aimed at
improving USAR capacity of Indonesia and other Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)
member states. The International Search and Rescue Advisory Group (INSARAG) Asia Pacific Regional Earthquake Response Exercise, jointly funded by USAID and the China
energy policy, forest management, fisheries management, disease detection and control, and wildlife protection and conservation.
Earthquake Administration, was hosted by the Government of Indonesia National Search and Rescue Agency and held in Padang, West Sumatra, Indonesia, May 29-June 1, 2012. Disaster
The United States and China decided to sign a Letter of Intent for a Collaborative Oceanographic
Scientific Research Pilot Project for the Development of South Sea Real-Time Tsunami Forecasting
Capabilities between the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and China’s
National Marine Environmental Forecasting Center in the State Oceanic Administration (SOA). Science
and technology: The United States and China signed the Framework Plan for Ocean and Fishery Science
and Technology Cooperation between NOAA and SOA. Climate change: The United States and China are
developing the Indian Ocean Southern Climate Observation, Reanalysis, and Prediction (ISOCORE)
Program. Energy policy: The United States and China are participating as partners in the Asia-Pacific
Energy Regulatory Forum (APERF) to facilitate sharing of information on energy regulatory and policy
practice and experience in the Asia-Pacific Region, with China to attend the U.S.-hosted APERF meeting
in Washington, D.C., in August 2012. Wildlife protection: The United States and China participated in a
Special Investigations Group meeting led by the ASEAN Wildlife Enforcement Network (ASEAN-WEN) in
Nanning, China, in June 2012. Forest management: The United States and China are strengthening
cooperation and exchange through the Asia-Pacific Network for Sustainable Forest Management and
Rehabilitation (APFnet). Wildlife conservation: The United States and China are collaborating on wild
tiger conservation, including in the Asia-Pacific. Disease detection and control: The United States and
China intend to expand collaboration between the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) and China’s CDC to strengthen disease detection and control capabilities and networks in the AsiaPacific. Fisheries management: The United States and China reaffirmed their commitment to expand
cooperation on fisheries management and jointly support the creation of the North Pacific Fisheries
Commission.
warning:
NASA Tradeoff DA
Turn – Mission
Turn – NASA is wasteful spending. Prioritizing OSEA solves space benefits more
efficiently.
Conathan 13 (Michael Conathan is the Director of Ocean Policy at American Progress. Prior to joining American Progress, Mike spent
five years staffing the Senate Committee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard. He holds a master in marine affairs from the
University of Rhode Island and a BA in English Literature from Georgetown University. “Space Exploration Dollars Dwarf Ocean Spending,”
6/25/2014. The Reference Shelf. http://people.stfx.ca/rscrosat/trs14.pdf Nyy)
“Star Trek” would have us believe that space is the final frontier, but with apologies to the armies of Trekkies, their oracle might be a tad off
base. Though
we know little about outer space, we still have plenty of frontiers to explore here on our
home planet. And they’re losing the race of discovery. Hollywood giant James Cameron, director of mega-blockbusters
such as “Titanic” and “Avatar,” brought this message to Capitol Hill last week, along with the single-seat submersible that he used to become
the third human to journey to the deepest point of the world’s oceans—the Marianas Trench. By
contrast, more than 500 people have journeyed into space—including Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL), who sits on the
committee before which Cameron testified—and 12 people have actually set foot on the surface of the moon. All it
takes is a quick comparison of the budgets for NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, or NOAA, to understand why space exploration is outpacing its ocean counterpart by
such a wide margin. In fiscal year 2013 NASA’s annual exploration budget was roughly $3.8 billion. That
same year, total funding for everything NOAA does—fishery management, weather and climate
forecasting, ocean research and management, among many other programs—was about $5 billion, and
NOAA’s Office of Exploration and Research received just $23.7 million. Something is wrong with this
picture. Space travel is certainly expensive. But as Cameron proved with his dive that cost approximately
$8 million, deep-sea exploration is pricey as well. And that’s not the only similarity between space and
ocean travel: Both are dark, cold, and completely inhospitable to human life. Yet space travel excites
Americans’ imaginations in a way ocean exploration never has. To put this in terms Cameron may be familiar with, just
think of how stories are told on screens both big and small: Space dominates, with “Star Trek,” “Star Wars,” “Battlestar Galactica,” “Buck Rogers
in the 25th Century,” and “2001 A Space Odyssey.” Then there are B-movies such as “Plan Nine From Outer Space” and every- thing ever
mocked on “Mystery Science Theater 2000.” There are even parodies: “Spaceballs,” “Galaxy Quest,” and “Mars Attacks!” And let’s not forget
Cameron’s own contributions: “Aliens” and “Avatar.” Part of this
incongruity comes from access. No matter where we
live, we can go outside on a clear night, look up into the sky, and wonder about what’s out there. We’re
presented with a spectacular vista of stars, planets, meteorites, and even the occasional comet or
aurora. We have all been wishing on stars since we were children. Only the lucky few can gaze out at the
ocean from their doorstep, and even those who do cannot see all that lies beneath the waves. When it
comes to the ocean, we have “20,000 Leagues Under the Sea,” “Sponge Bob Square Pants,” and
Cameron’s somewhat lesser-known film “The Abyss.” And that’s about it. This imbalance in pop culture is illustrative
of what plays out in real life. We rejoiced along with the NASA mission-control room when the Mars rover landed on the red planet late last
year. One particularly exuberant scientist, known as “Mohawk Guy” for his audacious hairdo, became a minor celebrity and even fielded his
share of spontaneous marriage proposals. But when Cameron bottomed out in the Challenger Deep more than 36,000 feet below the surface of
the sea, it was met with resounding indifference from all but the dorkiest of ocean nerds such as myself. As
a result, the facts about
ocean exploration are pretty bleak. Humans have laid eyes on less than 5 percent of the ocean, and we
have better maps of the surface of Mars than we do of America’s exclusive economic zone—the undersea
territory reaching out 200 miles from our shores. Sure, space is sexy. But the oceans are too. To those intrigued by the quest for alien life,
consider this: Scientists
estimate that we still have not discovered 91 percent of the species that live in our
oceans. And some of them look pretty outlandish. Go ahead and Google the deepsea hatchetfish, frill shark, or Bathynomus giganteus. In a
time of shrinking budgets and increased scrutiny on the return for our investments, we should be taking
a long, hard look at how we are prioritizing our exploration dollars. If the goal of government spending is to spur
growth in the private sector, entrepreneurs are far more likely to find inspiration down in the depths of the ocean than up in the heavens. The
ocean already provides us with about half the oxygen we breathe, our single largest source of protein, a
wealth of mineral re- sources, key ingredients for pharmaceuticals, and marine biotechnology. Of course
space exportation does have benefits beyond the “cool factor” of putting people on the moon and astronaut-bards playing David Bowie covers
in space. Inventions created to facilitate space travel have become ubiquitous in our lives— cell-phone cameras, scratch-resistant lenses, and
water-filtration systems, just to name a few—and research conducted in outer space has led to breakthroughs here on earth in the
technological and medical fields. Yet despite far-fetched plans to mine asteroids for rare metals, the
only tangible goods brought
back from space to date remain a few piles of moon rocks. The deep seabed is much more likely source
of so-called rare-earth metals than distant asteroids. Earlier this year the United Nations published its first plan for
management of mineral resources beneath the high seas that are outside the jurisdiction of any individual country. The United States has not
been able to participate in negotiations around this policy because we are not among the I85 nations that have ratified the U.N. Convention on
the Law of the Sea, which governs such activity. With or without the United States on board, the potential for economic development in the
most remote places on the planet is vast and about to leap to the next level. Earlier this year Japan announced that it has discovered a massive
supply of rare earth both within its exclusive economic zone and in international waters. This follows reports in 2011 that China sent at least
one exploratory mission to the seabed beneath international waters in the Pacific Ocean.
There is a real opportunity for our
nation to lead in this area, but we must invest and join the rest of the world in creating the governance
structure for these activities. Toward the end of last week's hearing, Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK), who
chairs the Subcommittee on Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, hypothetically asked
where we would be today if we had spent half as much money exploring the oceans as we have spent
exploring space. Given the current financial climate in Congress, we won't find the answer to his
question on Capitol Hill. But there may be another way. Cameron is currently in preproduction on the second and third "Avatar" films.
He says the former will be set on an ocean planet. No one except he and his fellow producers at 20th Century Fox really know how much the
first installment of the ' movie series cost, but estimates peg it at approximately
$250 million-or I0 times NOAA’s Ocean
Exploration program. Since the original "Avatar” grossed $2 billion at the box office worldwide, if NASA isn't willing to hand
over a bit of its riches to help their oceanic co-explorers, maybe Cameron and his studio partners can
chip a percent or two off the gross from "Avatar 2" to help fill the gap. Come to think of it, if the key to
exploring the oceans hinges either on Hollywood giving up profits or Congress increasing spending,
maybe we are more likely to mine asteroids after all.
Ocean Exploration is more beneficial than Space Exploration
Nnamani 11 (Sally Nnamani is Research Assistant at Ewald & Wasserman Research Consultants, LLC, previously
International Development grad student at The New School. “Government Should Fund NOAA and Marine Research, Not NASA
Space Research”. Policy.mic, October 31, 2011, http://mic.com/articles/2218/government-should-fund-noaa-and-marineresearch-not-nasa-space-research, nyy)
In the midst of the ongoing debt and budget crises, politicians and voters continue to engage in the
contentious debate regarding the faulty prioritization of U.S. government spending. Most Americans
remain concerned with the recklessness of large government spending in what they consider lesser
priority areas. Operating on a $3.7 trillion budget for fiscal year 2012, Congress awarded $18.7 billion to
NASA, encouraging the administration to reinvigorate its traditional role of innovation, technological
development, and scientific discovery. On the other hand, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) received $4.5 billion, $1 billion less than their requested amount. This large
discrepancy between the dollars allocated to these agencies is a clear-cut example of the growing
concern among Americans regarding profuse government spending. Given that 95% of the underwater
world remains unexplored and the space program has experienced little to no progress in recent years,
should the space program remain a priority? The last half of the 20th century was marked by the
ideological and technological warfare between the U.S. and the Soviet bloc. The Cold War morphed
itself in several arenas from proxy wars to political conflict to economic and technological competition
such as the Space Race. The Space Race is synonymous with the arms race, where one of the main
frontiers where the Cold War was waged. As a result, accomplishments and developments made in
these areas not only enhanced American power, but were also received with a strong sense of national
pride. However, the backbone of the Information Age lies in developing innovative science and
technology that will enable us to explore new worlds and increase our understanding of the earth. Space
exploration has contributed largely to this effort as a result of relentless government support and a
strong lobbyist backing. Lawmakers from Alabama, Maryland, and Utah, where NASA and the
corporations typically awarded its contracts operate, invest heavily in lobbyists and PACs to push their
agendas forward in Washington. On the contrary, although oceans are exploited for economic activities
such as mineral extraction, dumping, commercial transportation, fisheries, and aquaculture, oceanic
exploration has lagged behind due to insufficient support from the U.S. government. According to
NOAA, "one of every six jobs in the United States is marine-related and over one-third of the U.S. GNP
originates in coastal areas, the ocean is key to transportation, recreation, and its resources may hold the
cures to many diseases." Since its potential contribution to human sustainability stands at equal footing
with space research, government should apportion the necessary capital needed to explore the deepsea frontier. Moreover, since its establishment in 1957, NASA has always faced attack from social
activists accusing the agency of wasting resources that could be used here on earth. Given the daunting
issues in the country today such as poverty, unemployment, lack of access to health care, a broken
education system, and many others, many believe that the large amount of money poured into space
research could be used to tackle these issues. Moreover, due to our limited understanding of oceanic
activities and processes, we continue to remain subject to the implications of natural disasters
stemming from the ocean. Investing in oceanic research may help discover preventive mechanisms
against catastrophic earthquakes, tsunamis, and oil spills. The historical link between the American
military complex and the space program may be the reason behind continued government support to
the space agency. Arguably, the War on Terror has recreated tension similar to the Cold War era, forcing
government to pour investment towards maintaining military supremacy in its fight against terrorism.
The pronounced favoritism towards space research could therefore be attributed to the U.S.
government’s traditional preference for hard power politics over soft power politics. While there is no
doubt about the contributions of the space program to technological developments in numerous areas,
one cannot help but question its relevance in a post-Cold War world. Possessing jurisdiction over 3.4
million square miles of ocean, there lies enormous potential to realize the benefits of the ocean while
ensuring its sustainability for future generations.
AT: Space Colonization Impact/Private Sector
*NOTE* - Don’t read this card if there is a Private Sector CP in the debate.
Tag 1 – No tradeoff. The private sector will fill in the gap for space exploration.
Tag 2 – Turn: Ocean exploration solves extinction better than space colonization.
Mangu-Ward 13 (Katherine Mangu-Ward is managing editor of Reason magazine and a Future Tense fellow at the New
America Foundation, “Is the Ocean the Real Final Frontier?”. Future Tense, 9/2013,
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/future_tense/2013/09/sea_vs_space_which_is_the_real_final_frontier.html nyy)
“We shall not cease from exploration and the end of our exploring shall be to return where we started and know the place for the first time”
That tidbit of T.S. Eliot is stolen from Graham Hawkes, a submarine designer who really, really loves the ocean. Hawkes is famous for hollering,
“Your rockets are pointed in the
wrong goddamn direction!” at anyone who suggests that space is the Final Frontier. The deep
sea, he contends, is where we should be headed: The unexplored oceans hold mysteries more compelling, environments more
challenging, and life-forms more bizarre than anything the vacuum of space has to offer. Plus, it’s cheaper to go down than up. (You
can watch his appealingly arrogant TED talk on the subject here. Is Hawkes right? Should we all be crawling back into the seas from which we
came? Ocean exploration is certainly the underdog, so to speak, in the sea vs. space face-off. There’s no doubt that the general public considers
space the sexier realm. The occasional James Cameron joint aside, there’s much more cultural celebration of space travel, exploration, and
colonization than there is of equivalent underwater adventures. In a celebrity death match between Captain Kirk and Jacques Cousteau, Kirk is
going to kick butt every time. In fact, the rivalry can feel a bit lopsided—the chess club may consider the football program a competitor for
funds and attention, but the jocks aren’t losing much sleep over the price of pawns and cheerleaders rarely turn out for chess tournaments. But
somehow the debate rages on in dorm rooms, congressional committee rooms, and Internet chat rooms. Damp ocean boosters often aim to
borrow from the rocket-fueled glamour of space. Submersible entrepreneur Marin Beck talks a big game when he says, “We can go to Mars,
but the deep ocean really is our final frontier,” but he giggles when a reporter calls him the “Elon Musk of the deep sea,” an
allusion to the founder of the for-profit company Space X who is rumored to be the real-life model for Iron Man’s Tony Stark. Even Hawkes
admits that he “grew up dreaming of aircraft”—though he means planes, not spaceships—but “then I got to look at this subsea stuff and I saw
this is where aviation was all those years ago. The whole field was completely backwards, and that’s why I jumped in.” 35,802 ft (10,912 m) At
the deepest point of the trench (and the deepest point on earth) the pressure is over 8 tons per square inch, or the equivalent of an averagesized woman holding up 48 jumbo jets. At 35,802 feet, the deepest point of the trench (and the deepest point on earth), the pressure is more
than 8 tons per square inch, or the equivalent of an average-sized woman holding up 48 jumbo jets. While many of the technologies for space
and sky are the similar, right down to the goofy suits with bubble heads—the main difference is that in space, you’re looking to keep pressure
inside your vehicle and underwater you’re looking to keep pressure out—there’s often a sense that that sea and space are competitors rather
than compadres. They needn’t be, says Guillermo Söhnlein, a man who straddles both realms. Söhnlein is a serial space entrepreneur and the
founder of the Space Angels Network. (Disclosure: My husband’s a member.) The network funds startups aimed for the stars, but his most
recent venture is Blue Marble Exploration, which organizes expeditions in manned submersibles to exotic underwater locales. (Further
disclosure: I have made a very small investment in Blue Marble, but am fiscally neutral in the sea vs. space fight, since I have a similar amount
riding on a space company, Planetary Resources.) As usual, the fight probably comes down to money. The
typical American believes
that NASA is eating up a significant portion of the federal budget (one 2007 poll found that respondents pinned that
figure at one-quarter of the federal budget), but the space agency is actually nibbling at a Jenny Craig–sized portion of the pie. At about $17
billion, government-funded space exploration accounts for about 0.5 percent of the federal budget. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration—NASA’s soggy counterpart—gets much less, a bit more than $5 billion for a portfolio that, as the name suggests, is more
diverse. But the way Söhnlein tells the story, this zero sum mind-set is the result of a relatively recent historical quirk: For
most of the history of human exploration, private funding was the order of the day. Even some of the most famous examples of state-backed
exploration—Christopher Columbus’ long petitioning of Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain, for instance, or Sir Edmund Hillary’s quest to climb to
the top of Everest—were actually funded primarily by private investors or nonprofits. But that changed with the Cold War, when the race to the
moon was fueled by government money and gushers of defense spending wound up channeled into submarine development and other
oceangoing tech. “That does lead to an either/or mentality. That federal money is taxpayer money which has to be accounted for, and it is a
finite pool that you have to draw from against competing needs, against health care, science, welfare,” says Söhnlein. “In
years, we
the last 10 to 15
are seeing a renaissance of private finding of exploration ventures. On the space side we call it New Space, on
the ocean side we have similar ventures.” And the austerity of the current moment doesn’t hurt. “The private sector is stepping up
as public falls down. We’re really returning to the way it always was.” And when it’s private dough, the whole thing
stops being a competition. Instead, it depends on what individuals with deep pockets are pumped about—or what makes for a good
sell on a crowdfunding site like Kickstarter. Looking for alien life forms? You probably think you’re a natural space nerd, but you’re wrong. If the
eternal popularity of “Is There Life on Mars?” stories is any indication, an awful lot of people are just hoping for some company. We really
have no idea what’s hanging out at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, but there are solid reasons to think the
prospects for biological novelty (and perhaps even companionship for humanity) are better down there than they are in
Mars’ Valles Marineris. Want a fallback plan for when that final environmental catastrophe occurs? Underwater or
floating habitats may offer fewer challenges than space colonies if you’re looking to quickly build a self-sustaining
place to live when things cool down, warm up, dry out, or otherwise return to fitness for human habitation. If you’re just looking for wide
open spaces, the vastness of space may ultimately prove your final frontier, but Söhnlein has a very human take on the question: “For myself,”
he says, “I’d probably go with the oceans. Humanity has millennia to explore the cosmos. But I have only decades
or—depending on who you believe—centuries. And there’s plenty to discover down there to fill my lifetime.”
No Link: Exp vs Test
NASA only uses the Ocean to test their space equipment – not exploration.
Wall 6/11 (Michael D. Wall is a Senior Writer for Space.com, “NASA 'Aquanauts' to Test Space Exploration Tech on Ocean
Floor”, Space.com, 6/11/14, http://www.space.com/26201-nasa-aquanauts-neemo-space-tech-missions.html” nyy)
NASA is heading back to the ocean floor twice in the next three months to test out techniques and
technologies that could improve astronauts' lives in orbit and help them explore an asteroid down the
road. Teams of "aquanauts" will live and work at a research facility 62 feet (19 meters) beneath the
waves off the coast of Florida in two missions staged by the NASA Extreme Environment Mission
Operations program, or NEEMO. The first of the two stints, known as NEEMO 18, starts on July 21 and
lasts for nine days. The seven-day NEEMO 19 mission begins on Sept. 7. "It is both challenging and
exciting for our astronaut crews to participate in these undersea missions in preparation for
spaceflight," Bill Todd, NEEMO project manager at NASA's Johnson Space Center in Houston, said in a
statement. "It is critical that we perform science applicable to NASA’s exploration goals in a high-fidelity
space operational context," he added. "The extreme environment of life undersea is as close to being in
space as possible." NEEMO 18 will primarily investigate astronaut health issues and behavioral health and performance, while NEEMO
19 is designed to evaluate "telementoring" operations for the European Space Agency (ESA), NASA officials said. (In telementoring, an astronaut
is given instructions via voice or video by an offsite expert.) Both
missions will also include extravehicular activities
(EVAs), simulated spacewalks that send the aquanauts out into the ocean for a variety of purposes.
"These EVAs will focus on evaluating man-machine work systems and EVA tools and techniques for
exploration tasks in varying levels of gravity ranging from that of asteroids to the gravity of Martian
moons and Mars itself," NASA officials wrote in a description of the upcoming missions. Both NEEMO 18 and
NEEMO 19 will be based at Florida International University’s Aquarius Reef Base, which lies 6.2 miles (10 kilometers) off the coast of Key Largo,
Florida. Japanese astronaut Akihiko Hoshide will command NEEMO 18, which also includes NASA astronauts Jeanette Epps and Mark Vande Hei
and ESA astronaut Thomas Pesquet. NEEMO 19 will be led by NASA astronaut Randy Bresnik. Other crewmembers are Canadian Space Agency
astronaut Jeremy Hansen, ESA astronaut Andreas Mogensen and Herve Stevenin, ESA’s head of extravehicular activity training at the European
Astronaut Center in Cologne, Germany.
Counter Plans
Private Sector
Perm Solvency
Perm do both – match private money with government programming.
Ocean Exploration 2020 Forum 13 (A national forum of more than 110 ocean explorers cohosted by NOAA and
Aquarium of the Pacific. “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum”. NOAA and Aquarium of the Pacific. July 1921 2013. http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf. Nyy)
PLATFORMS In 2020, a greater number of ships, submersibles, and other platforms are dedicated to ocean exploration. There is a critical need
for new ships and other platforms. The need for autonomous underwater vehicles and remotely operated vehicles is greater than for human
occupied vehicles. A
national program requires a mix of dedicated and shared ocean exploration assets.
Participants agreed that ocean exploration should take advantage of all sources of available and relevant data. For example, cabled
observatories, recoverable observatories, the various ocean observation networks, and satellites are all
important in a national program of ocean exploration. TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT By 2020, private sector
investments in exploration specifically for the dedicated national program of exploration exceed the
federal investment, but federal partners play a key role in testing and refining new technologies.
Forum participants agreed that a top priority for a national ocean exploration program of distinction is
the development of mechanisms to fund emerging and creatively disruptive technologies to enhance
and expand exploration capabilities. In addition to the significant federal government investment in
ocean exploration technology development-whether by the U.S. Navy, NASA, NOAA, or other civilian
agencies-many felt strongly that increased investment would come from the private sector to achieve the kind of program they envisioned.
Participants also felt that national program partners should continue to play a key role in fitting and refining these technologies as well as
working to adapt existing and proven technologies for exploration.
Perm/USFG Key
USFG enacting the plan first is key for private sector funding
Gaffney II 13 (Paul G. Gaffney II, Vice Admiral of the US Navy (Ret.), President Emeritus, Monmouth University, U.S.
Commission on Ocean Policy. “First Principles for a Maritime Nation”. NOAA. July 19-21 2013.
http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf nyy)
The U.S. Ex Ex," a creation of Congress (PL 24-24), a voyage of discovery 175 years ago, was a deliberate step by a tentative nation with an eye
on becoming a world power. A six Navy ship flotilla, manned by 346 military and civilian scientists was charged by government to explore the
vast Pacific, top to bottom. Called "The U.S. Exploring Expedition," it sought to discover the natural characteristics of the great Pacific, extend
U.S. presence by connecting to new peoples and collect data useful to U.S. seaborne commerce and naval operations. Fast forward to 2 1st
century America,
no longer a tentative nation, now the greatest maritime nation in world history. Its place
in the middle of the great ocean system enables prosperous trade and a unique security situation. Yet,
that ocean system is still largely unexplored. A world power unavoidably dependent on the ocean still
does not understand the oceans full range of opportunities and dangers. A world maritime power-The
World Power, The United States-cannot afford to be surprised by the very natural features that
characterize her as a maritime nation. Exploration projects in the high Arctic have found unexpected (previously undiscovered)
ocean bottom variability and changes in water temperature structure. Now that is important to defense, especially safe U.S.
submarine operations. It also gives a hint about past climate fluctuations so we can get a better idea of
the ocean's and Arctic's role in climate excursions. Arctic exploration discoveries will also help America
argue for rights to minerals of its northern coast. There are a few, scattered ocean exploration efforts
within our nation. Federal agencies do make new discoveries incidental to their separate missions. And,
privately funded citizen explorers are getting excited about the ocean. While this collection of small
efforts survives, each for its own purpose, the Congress expected more. The nation needs more to ensure maritime
strength. A broad, coordinated national program envisioned by Congress in PL 111-11 could help prioritize
cross-agency oceanographic campaigns, strain from mission and research-driven expeditions and private
excursions those bits of information that are of new-discovery-quality and guarantee that it will be
archived within government and shared with an increasingly excited group of American citizen
explorers. It is government's role to set the nation's priorities, create and maintain the information backbone, and carry
out comprehensively over the long term a program to understand the opportunity and dangers in an ocean system in whose middle America
sits. Only
after it has demonstrated this commitment to leadership can it fully leverage investments
from the private sector.
Solvency Deficit
Federal leadership is key – need centralized collaboration.
Ocean Exploration 2020 Forum 13 (A national forum of more than 110 ocean explorers cohosted by NOAA and
Aquarium of the Pacific. “The Report of Ocean Exploration 2020: A National Forum”. NOAA and Aquarium of the Pacific. July 1921 2013. http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/oceanexploration2020/oe2020_report.pdf. Nyy)
These characteristics
of a national program of ocean exploration imply a network of universities, nongovernmental
organizations, the private sector, and government agencies working together in pursuit of shared goals. Federal-and
in particular, NOAA-leadership is essential to help design and maintain what might be called an 'architecture
for collaboration' that convenes national and international ocean exploration stakeholders regularly to
review and set priorities, to match potential expedition partners, to facilitate sharing of assets, and to
help test and evaluate new technologies. The program should facilitate the review and analysis of new
and historical data and the synthesis and transformation of data into a variety of informational products.
In this leadership role, NOAA would promote public engagement, and guide and strengthen the national ocean exploration enterprise. A
conventional federal government approach won’t work. In
describing characteristics of the national ocean exploration
program in 2020, participants used words including: nimble, flexible, creative, innovative, and
responsive. A program with these qualities just might ignite the ocean exploration movement
envisioned by the participants in the first gathering of the community of ocean explorers.
Kritiks
Anthropocentrism
Bio-Medical Use Turn
Framing biodiversity in terms of medicine is key- any other framing results in
continued violence against animals- this turns the criticism.
McNeely ‘9 [Jeffrey, Scientist, Life Support: Human Health and the Environment, World Conservation, 4-?-2009,
http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/wc_issue1_2009_en.pdf]-DaveD.
The actions that we take today will affect our health tomorrow and in the future. Environmental
degradation from habitat loss, over-exploitation and climate change all have implications for human
health, particularly through the loss of medicinal biodiversity— the subset of biodiversity that supports
human health and well-being. This loss will affect us all—rich and poor, young and old and everyone in
between. Looking at biodiversity through a human health lens can provide new perspectives on
conservation. It can take biodiversity out of the unique realm of ministries of environment and put its
conservation at the heart of efforts to tackle poverty, food security, climate change and many other
global challenges. A broad suite of measures are needed to safeguard medicinal biodiversity at all levels
(local to global) and by all stakeholders. Support is needed for the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) provisions on sustainable use of
medicinal biodiversity and for the other international conventions that deal with biodiversity conservation, notably the Convention on
International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) which addresses medicinal species of animals (such as rhinos and tigers) and plants (such as
Hoodia or devil’s claw). Climate change has far-reaching implications for both human health and biodiversity and these must be addressed
together under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. To date, health issues have received inadequate attention by
the Parties to the climate convention. And actions taken in one Convention should complement and build on those taken in others.
Medicinal species Reps spur pragmatic green agenda.
McNeely ‘6 (et al; Jeffrey A McNeely Chief Scientist IUCN. Gland. Switzerland – from the chapter “The Future of Medicinal
Biodiversity” – a section from the book: Conserving Medicinal Species Securing a Healthy Future – available at:
https://portals.iucn.org/library/efiles/edocs/2006-022.pdf)
Looking at biodiversity through the lens of human health can help provide new perspectives on policy and practice of biodiversity conservation
with a view to supporting human health. Demonstrating
biodiversity's links to human health takes biodiversity out
of the unique realm of ministries of environment and instead, puts conservation at the very centre of
humanitarian concerns. Such links can help to influence public opinion in support of efforts to conserve
genes, species and ecosystems.
Advantages in the making?
Adv- Warming
Oceans K/T Solve
Ocean key to understanding climate change
ScienceDaily 13 (National University of Ireland, Galway, "Exploring the saltiness of the ocean to study
climate change." April 30, 2013, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130430131343.htm )
jml
Details are emerging from a recent research expedition to the Sub-Tropical North Atlantic. The objective of the expedition was to study the salt
concentration (salinity) of the upper ocean. Scientists aboard the Spanish research vessel Sarmiento de Gamboa, including National University
of Ireland Galway’s Dr Brian Ward with two of his PhD students, Graig Sutherland and Anneke ten Doeschate, explored the essential role
of
the ocean in the global water cycle. This oceanographic research campaign is aimed at understanding the salinity of the upper
ocean, which is a much more reliable indicator of the water cycle than any land-based measurement. How the
water cycle evolves in response to global warming is one of the most important climate change issues. The
experiment was located in the North Atlantic Salinity Maximum, which has the highest salt concentration of any of the world’s oceans. Dr Ward
explains: “It is not the depths of the ocean which is its most important aspect, but its surface. Everything that gets exchanged between the
ocean and atmosphere, such as water, must cross the air-sea interface. We are trying to better understand how small scale turbulence is
responsible for the air-sea exchange of freshwater. What is surprising is that these small-scale processes can affect large-scale patterns over the
North Atlantic, and we are trying to connect the dots.” The initial part of this ocean field campaign was to conduct a survey of the area to map
out horizontal and vertical distribution of salinity using an instrument that was towed behind the ship. “We found quite a lot of fresher water
intermingled with the background salty water, but it is moving around quite a bit due to ocean currents, and when we returned to the fresh
patch, it had moved. We were currently hunting for this freshwater, as one of the objectives is to understand the spatial inhomogeneity of the
upper ocean salinity”, explains Dr Ward. Studying the processes at the ocean surface requires specialized instrumentation, as most
measurements ‘miss’ the upper few meters. The National University of Ireland Galway’s AirSea Group are measuring the salinity, temperature,
and turbulence of the upper 10 meters of the ocean with very fine detail using their Air-Sea Interaction Profiler (ASIP). The torpedo-shaped
device, which is deployed into the water to gather data autonomously, is unique and the only one of its kind. Dr Ward explains: “The ocean
surface has been the focus of my research for several years, but there was no easy way to measure what is going on here as there were no
instruments available, so we built our own.” The ability to make these unique measurements has resulted in international recognition for the
research being conducted at National University of Ireland Galway. Dr Ward’s Research Group is the AirSea Laboratory, which is affiliated with
the Ryan Institute and resides in the School of Physics at the National University of Ireland Galway. The main objective of the AirSea Laboratory
is to study the upper ocean and lower atmosphere processes which are responsible for atmosphere-ocean exchange. This experiment is
concerned with air-sea exchange of water, but other studies that the AirSea Laboratory have been involved with were looking at how carbon
dioxide, a major greenhouse gas, is transported between the air and sea. Dr Ward explains: “The
ocean and atmosphere are a
coupled system and therefore need to be studied in unison. A major part of our research is to determine how
this system affects and is affected by climate and environmental change.” This Irish and Spanish collaboration is part of a
bigger international effort called SPURS - Salinity Processes in the Upper Ocean Regional Study. There was also an American research ship in the
area participating in the SPURS study, and the Spanish ship was visited by Dr Ray Schmitt from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution
(WHOI).Dr Ward collaborates extensively with the WHOI scientists: “The WHOI scientists have autonomous gliders with microsensors attached,
similar to our ASIP. During our measurements, they directed their gliders to the same area as ASIP, and we provided them with data to groundtruth their measurements. This was an excellent opportunity to enhance our links with WHOI, who are the largest oceanographic research
institution in the USA.” One of the biggest motivators for SPURS was the recent launch of two satellites for measuring ocean salinity: the
European Space Agency’s Soil Moisture Ocean Salinity (SMOS), and NASA’s Aquarius mission. Dr Ward explains: “It is envisioned that with
the combination of the in-situ measurements, satellites, and computer models, we can improve our
estimates of global climate change and the water cycle. These data will also be used to improve weather
forecasting, and we worked with the European Centre for Medium Range Weather Forecasting during this field experiment.”
Intl Coop K/T Solve
International scientific cooperation key to solving warming
Fürstenau 14 [Marcel, Writer and news analyst at Deutsche Welle, “Climate experts sound the alarm”, Deutsche Welle, April 13, 2014,
http://www.dw.de/climate-experts-sound-the-alarm/a-17564117] NN
the global community has not been successful in reducing its climate-damaging carbon
dioxide emissions. Quite the opposite: emissions of greenhouse gases between the years 2000 and 2010 grew more
In spite of all efforts,
than in any decade since 1970. The findings are part of the newest report from the United Nations' expert Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC), which has been released in Berlin. In spite of the dire outlook, the authors have named their report "Mitigation of Climate
Change". With that, the authors, including German scientist Ottmar Edenhofer, wanted to emphasize that it was still possible to turn the
situation around. The analysis and recommendations for action, which have now been submitted to politicians, are the third part of a
comprehensive account on climate change. The first part was made public in Stockholm last year, the second report a few weeks ago in
According to the international team of authors, a mix of political and technical measures is
needed to limit the increase in global warming to a maximum of two degrees Celsius. In the view of the
Yokohama.
climate experts, more severe natural disasters like floods and droughts, which are already being noticed today, could be confined only if the
threshold level of two degrees is not overstepped. "The scientific message is clear:
to avoid dangerous disturbances to the
climate system, we can’t go on as we have done before," climate researcher Edenhofer said. A minimum 40-percent
reduction in CO2 by 2050. The goal of keeping the rise in global temperatures to no more than two degrees Celsius will only be reachable if
greenhouse gases emissions can be reduced by 40 to 70 percent in comparison with 2010 by the middle of this century, according to the
experts of the IPCC. They've said that for a livable future to remain possible for people and the environment, there should be almost no further
greenhouse gases emissions by the end of the 21st century. Climate scientist Ottmar Edenhofer says action must be taken quickly to mitigate
climate change. To achieve such an ambitious mitigation of climate change, the experts recognize that it has to involve more than the sheer
reduction of CO2 output. Ottmar Edenhofer, along with Cuban Ramon Pichs-Madruga and Youba Sokona from Mali also see a carbon dioxide
the world community must quickly take action on a
wide range of measures if it wants to restrict dramatic global warming to a maximum of two degrees Celsius. The
free atmosphere as essential. The three authors leave no doubt that
process begins with the modest goal of stabilizing the concentration of greenhouse gases, so as not to let them increase any more. In the
opinion of the climate experts, to succeed in that would mean the concurrent reduction of emissions in all areas of economic and personal life,
foremost the production and the use of energy, the manufacture of consumer goods and food, transport and living.
The key to success:
international cooperation The scientists see much potential in the areas of energy efficiency and re-forestation. Low-carbon
technologies could work out beneficially in terms of costs, which must be spent to reduce climate change, explained Pichs-Madruga. The
economical and considerate exploitation of land areas is a further key component. Reducing deforestation and at the same time planting new
trees could, according to the scientists, stop the rise of CO2 emissions or even reverse them. Even more, through well-directed re-forestation,
the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere could be reduced. The scientists pledge the same effect from a combination of biomass and the
storing of carbon dioxide underground. However, they also advise of the hazards of such procedures. Malian climate expert Sokona summed up
the core challenge as "to disconnect the output of greenhouse gases from economic and population growth". His German colleague Edenhofer
added that
"international cooperation is the key to mitigate global warming."
CO2 K/T Warming
CO2 is the primary driver of climate change – outweighs all alt causes
Vertessy and Clark 12[Rob, Acting Director of Australian Bureau of Meteorology, and Megan, Chief Executive Officer at the
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, 3-13-2012, “State of the Climate 2012”, http://theconversation.edu.au/stateof-the-climate-2012-5831]-DaveD.
Carbon dioxide (CO2)
emissions account for about 60% of the effect from anthropogenic greenhouse gases on
the earth’s energy balance over the past 250 years. These global CO2 emissions are mostly from fossil fuels (more than 85%), land
use change, mainly associated with tropical deforestation (less than 10%), and cement production and other industrial processes (about 4%).
Australia contributes about 1.3% of the global CO2 emissions. Energy generation continues to climb and is dominated by fossil fuels –
suggesting emissions will grow for some time yet. CO2 levels are rising in the atmosphere and ocean. About 50% of the amount of CO2 emitted
from fossil fuels, industry, and changes in land-use, stays in the atmosphere. The remainder is taken up by the ocean and land vegetation, in
roughly equal parts. The extra carbon dioxide absorbed by the oceans is estimated to have caused about a 30% increase in the level of ocean
acidity since pre-industrial times. The
sources of the CO2 increase in the atmosphere can be identified from
studies of the isotopic composition of atmospheric CO2 and from oxygen (O2) concentration trends in the
atmosphere. The observed trends in the isotopic (13C, 14C) composition of CO2 in the atmosphere and the
decrease in the concentration of atmospheric O2 confirm that the dominant cause of the observed CO2 increase
is the combustion of fossil fuels.
Adv - Fishing
Ocean Pollution Kills Fishing Industry
Multiple threats to ocean sustainability will cause a ban on industrial fishing.
Sneed, 14 (Annie, science journalist and editorial intern @ Scientific American, “Oceans likened to
world’s biggest failed state,” Scientific American, 6/25/14,
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2014/06/25/oceans-are-equivalent-to-the-worldsbiggest-failed-state/)
Overfishing and pollution have pushed life in the high seas to the brink of collapse, according to a new
report from the Global Ocean Commission. “The oceans are a failed state,” David Miliband, co-chair of
the commission, told Reuters. The commission has implored governments to set a five-year deadline to
deal with threats to the health of the high seas, which are marine waters outside national coastal zones;
these seas cover almost half the globe. Fishermen catch around ten million tons of fish from the high
seas every year, with a value of $16 billion dollars. It’s a vast ocean of resources only recently made
accessible by advances in fishing technology. The report warns that a combination of technology and big
fuel subsidies have enabled industrial fishing fleets to heavily exploit 87% of the fish species there.
Eighteen countries hand out billions of dollars in subsidies; the United States bestows fleets with $137
million for a catch worth $368 million. Pollution, largely from plastics, also endangers ocean health. The
abundance of plastics in the marine environment has risen tenfold every decade in some locations, and
poses a hazard to sea life when they eat it or get entangled in it. Habitat destruction, climate change,
ocean acidification, and biodiversity loss also pose a danger to ocean ecosystems. The commission has
said that if governments can’t clamp down on these threats soon then it may be necessary to ban
industrial fishing in parts of the ocean. Many countries have already established marine reserves and
imposed off-limits zones to industrial fishing, although these areas are not always well protected.
Adv – Deep Sea Mining
DSM Inevitable
Deep sea mining is inevitable.
Yeats, 12 (Chris, research program leader at Australia’s CSIRO and an ore deposit geologist with more
than 20 years experience in base and precious metal exploration and research, “Deep sea mining:
exploration is inevitable,” 7/11/12, http://www.scidev.net/global/earth-science/opinion/deep-seamining-exploration-is-inevitable.html)
Global demand for metals continues to grow, fuelled largely by increasing populations and the
industrialisation and urbanisation of China and India. To meet this demand, the international minerals
industry has had to search new areas of the globe for additional resources. As Africa — the last
underexplored continent — becomes more developed, it is inevitable that the oceans, which cover
three-quarters of our planet, will be explored and exploited for their mineral wealth. It is a question of
when and how, not if.