WHOI Annual Reports

Below is a excerpt (pages 12-13) from the 1971 Annual Report of the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution by Paul M. Fye, Director, and William D. Lambert.

OCEANOGRAPHY AND THE ENVIRONMENT

Congress heard chilling testimony recently from a number of responsible naturalists and scientists who predict utter catastrophe for the marine environment before the end of this century. The most outspoken of them declare that this impending disaster in the oceans is a certainty, not merely a possibility. They base their predictions on the assumption that during the next 30 years or so man, in his continuing exploitation of the earth's resources, will be unable or unwilling to change his wanton ways.

This is a predication which, we believe, deserves careful consideration before we permit it to become self-fulfilling. Is the ocean environment being disrupted so radically that many forms of marine life will be virtually eliminated? Are oceanographers capable of pointing the way to prevention of marine disaster, and are we making our full contribution?

The alarm which has been sounded in Congress and elsewhere is based on evidence such as declining marine populations and measurably larger amounts of toxic substances in the oceans petroleum, chlorinated hydrocarbons, heavy metals, sewage sludge, radioisotopes and other by-products of modern industrial civilization. And then there is our eternal tinkering with the natural system, the digging of canals and draining of marshes and dredging of bottoms.

We cannot say whether the predictions of eventual marine disaster are justified, or even reasonably so. We have seen no data which point conclusively or even tentatively to the death of the oceans in this century or in the next. But it is true that today's oceanographers have uncovered incontrovertible evidence that man, whose exploitive carelessness in his non-technological past was easily absorbed by the oceans, is now imposing himself in a clearly harmful way. He is doing significant damage, but we do not yet know how significant it is. If the alarmists are right in their most extreme predictions (and let us not forget that they could be right), an attitude of scientific detachment would be disastrous indeed.

Despite all we have learned about the oceans in the last 50 years we really cannot define, with any great accuracy, the present state of the marine environment. We do not even know the magnitude of the dangers. This is not to say that we do not know about some critical and specific problems; we do, and we should get on to solving them as quickly as possible. We do not know the condition of the marine environment as a whole, and particularly in the open ocean. We have identified some 10,000 species of fish that live in the oceans. We have also identified, with considerable accuracy, the main chemical constituents of the oceans and have charted the water's principal motions which determine the destination of these chemicals. But the hazards are very subtle indeed and may come from toxic materials in dilutions as great as one part per trillion. We are beginning to learn about the distribution of many pollutants, but we know little or nothing about how much pollutant material can be tolerated by various species. In the cycle of life in the sea, who can say how delicate the balance is? We cannot make accurate scientific predictions or effective plans for wise use of the oceans until we have a more thorough knowledge and understanding of their complex and interacting parts. The oceanographer is further handicapped in his efforts to describe the changes in the ocean because a suitable base of knowledge was never adequately established by scientists a hundred years or more ago before man began to pollute the oceans.

We do not mean to imply that we are failing to solve problems of the marine environment and then excusing ourselves on the grounds that there is too little fundamental information; but rather that our ignorance is vast compared with the effort to eradicate this ignorance. In fact, work is going forward on several fronts. We believe that this report will serve a useful purpose by identifying and describing some of the most pertinent work being done at the Institution and by cooperating laboratories. This over-view may help provide a needed perspective from which more rational scientific and political planning can be done.

The activities below are not intended as evidence that oceanographers and other scientists are doing enough to identify and solve environmental problems. On the contrary, our scientific activities are pathetically limited when compared with the magnitude and implications of our responsibility to the future. But I do believe that the right steps are being taken in the right direction by the right people. A reasoned and productive approach is underway. We are applying much of what we have learned about the biology, chemistry, geology and physics of the oceans to the solution of immediate local problems. We are also continuing to emphasize all-important "basic" research of the oceans, superimposing on these traditional fundamental studies a new emphasis on priorities and ultimate value. Basic research provides the fundamental understanding upon which meaningful action is based. Without continued efforts to understand the fundamental facts about the marine environment, well-meaning attempts to apply effective solutions to environmental problems will be doomed to failure.

The marine scientist knows full well that the world must have more than scientific commitment alone if the oceans are to be used wisely. A commitment must also be made by the world's political leaders, economists, industrial leaders, and by all mankind. After all, the combined products of civilization during the last hundred years produced the present dangers to our environment; and nothing less than a coalition of all leaders will suffice to solve existing problems and reverse the trend. Perhaps this goal … to use the oceans wisely … will contribute significantly to uniting the nations of the world.