Defining Science diving and volunteer opportunities

[boulderjohn]

Years ago I looked for opportunities to spend my diving vacations doing useful volunteer work of some kind. My research into such opportunities turned up a bunch of opportunities that I would characterize as scams. They were essentially standard liveaboard trips that included a tiny amount of ocean conservation work of some kind so that the people participating in the trips could write off the expenses on their taxes. We recently had a dive operation advertise its program on ScubaBoard as scientific volunteerism, and many people questioned the degree to which that was true, since it did not seem to involve a lot of either science or volunteering.

But there are legitimate opportunities out there. (If not, there should be.) Because of this, another SB staff member (Thalassamania) and I are embarking on a project to see if we can identify and categorize legitimate opportunities for divers who want to do something along these lines with their diving. The categories would range from true research projects involving real scientists producing published results to learning opportunities for school age youth. What we most want to do is eliminate the scams.

This project requires the input of knowledgeable people like you. Thal knows a lot about true science diving, but he is not on top of the other projects that do not reach that level. I only know a little about this, but my expertise is in identifying unifying characteristics, creating categories, and writing descriptors. We need a lot of input to do this well. When done, we hope to create a repository of some sort in ScubaBoard so that people can look at the defining characteristics and find recommended opportunities.

The steps in the process are as follows. Please note that although I am writing the steps in linear fashion, the first steps are not necessarily totally linear--there will be some jumbling about. For example, there are already some guidelines for true science diving, so we are ahead of the game there.

1. Identify legitimate opportunities and describe what it is they do.

2. Identify common characteristics among those opportunities.

3. Create categories for those opportunities.

4. Write descriptors for the categories that can be used to evaluate future opportunities.

So, I hope we will get some responses here. If you know of legitimate opportunities, please list them here and describe them as you know them. Be prepared for some discussion. For example, if you list something that someone else thinks is a scam, that will need to be discussed.

 

[fisheater]

Thanks.

I don't have any first hand knowledge of foreign travel opportunities, but I am involved with Reef Check California.

We are "citizen scientists" conducting fish, invert, algae and substrate surveys, following strict protocols along the California rocky reefs. All divers must be Reef Check California certified (two weekend course, including 6 ocean survey dives) and re-certified each year.

There are other Reef Check programs in tropical waters, but I'm not (as of yet) involved in any of those.

Most assuredly NOT a scam. Lots of work, but lots of (non-monetary) rewards.

More information: Reef Check - Saving Reefs Worldwide.

 

[boulderjohn]

Well, we have a start.

Once while preparing to snorkel on the Big Island in Hawai'i, I saw a group of teens who were part of a project for a group called REEF. They were warning snorkelers not to damage the coral.

Here is the organization: Reef Environmental Education Foundation (REEF) | Diving That Counts

As far as I can tell they are legitimate. Does anyone have some information on them?

 

[TXreefer]

REEF is def legitimate. We used to do fish surveys in the caribbean/GOM and send the data back to them. They keep a database. I haven't done them in a long time, but I know they are still conducted. All the info anyone would need is on their website.

My dream is to start a diving/research operation just as you are describing in your first post. I need to get on top of that- it seems there are at least a couple of people interested!!

 

[knotical]

I've been a REEF member almost since its inception. I agree they are legit. Their database is only a population survey, but it is large and apparently useful for some scientific purposes. REEF also runs dive trips during which one of their primary authors conducts fish ID seminars. One has to decide for oneself whether they are worth the cost. I like their books and have never felt they were pressuring me for money.

 

[Thalassamania]

It's not a question of "legit."

Allow me to share the perspective of a scientific diver and scientific diving administrator.

I (we) really don't care if one wants to wear scientific diver patches or borrow some of our communities cachet when discussing your last dives (real or imagined) with the opposite sex at the bar. Nor are we even concerned (directly) with dive shops and operators disguising themselves as scientific operations for the purpose of providing the public with such patches and stories and thus stealing a march on their completion. I (we) also have great respect for the contributions that organizations such as REEF CHECK have made and continue to make.

But ... here's the problem. We, as a community, spent over a decade and more than seven million dollars, obtaining an exemption from OSHA requirements that were, demonstrably, unnecessary and that would have uselessly curtailed operations that were (are) critical to the national undersea research effort. We obtained that exemption on the basis of our outstanding (damn near perfect) safety record. We can no afford to have either the public's or the government's perspective on that record to be tainted by operations that operate outside of our community's standards and procedures. That is way my hackles go up anytime that I see someone (even those doing good, like REEF CHECK) representing themselves as "scientific divers" or "research divers." Those terms should be reserved for those individuals who are diving under the auspices of an institution that meets the standards of the American Academy of Underwater Sciences (or the equivalent standards or another nations' similar body). It doesn't matter if you think you are doing science, or are exploring or are contributing to man's overall knowledge of the sub-aquatic world, if you're not with the program you should not use the title, not because you steal our glory (we don't care about that), but because in doing so you endanger our ability to continue to do our work.

I (we) really don't care if you're Joe Diver, REEF CHECK, WKPP, or even (for that matter) NOAA, if you are not either a scientist, or the student of a scientist, abiding by our medical, equipment, training, experience and administrative requirements, it doesn't mean that what you doing is bad, it doesn't mean that what you are doing is not valuable, but please ... find another moniker so the confusion can end.

 

[TXreefer]

Thal- I don't really know how to respond to your post or if it was directed at me and my role as a scientist/diver.

Currently, I am not participating in a role as a scientific diver, but I have in the past. I have a MS in Biology (emphasis in marine science) and we operated under the auspices of AAUS conducting research on natural and artificial reefs. Right now I am land-locked and looking for an avenue back to the coast. Hopefully someday it will happen!

I look forward to seeing what kind of database you all come up with.

 

[g1138]

Adding my own input onto what Thal said, IMO scientific & research divers are scientists first, divers second. Diving is simply a method, a means of allowing research and data collection.

The American Academy of Underwater Sciences (AAUS) was established to create an exemption from OSHA's standards regarding commercial diving (working dives).
Because of AAUS, there is now a line drawn between what is considered commercial and what is considered scientific.

While groups like Reef Check are helping to inspire conservation, they don't follow the guidelines of the OSHA exemption, or AAUS, or any equivalents. They are a scientific project, but they rely on volunteer divers, not sci divers.

That's not to say AAUS is better. We're all working towards the same goal, which is more knowledge and understanding. But unfortunately mixing together several groups, who operate differently, under the same term can have an undesired outcome. Say should one group start up and make the news of operating in an unsafe manner.

 

[boulderjohn]

Folks, let's remember that the purpose of this project is to define categories in a meaningful way so that one can tell the difference. The point is to be able to categorize something. It will be meaningless if we define two categories: 1) true science and 2) things that are not worthy to spit upon.

 

[Thalassamania]

For me it is not a question of "true" science vs. something pretending to be science, it is strictly a matter of who gets the blame for the accident. When things appear to be "science" we get that blame and have to waste time and energy cleaning up to maintain our reputation and our exemption. If you are not diving under the auspices of an institution with a DSO and an AAUS model manual; if you do not have a diving duty medical exam that meets the specs of the AAUS; if you do not have the requisite training, as per AAUS standards; if you do not have the requisite experience for the depth of the dive; if you are not a scientist or a scientist-in-training; if your gear does not meet AAUS specs; if your gear maintenance does not meet AAUS standards; if any of those items (and some others) are lacking ... I don't want the credit for your body.