Defining Science diving and volunteer opportunities

[DevonDiver]

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.

I think I know the 'advertisement' that you initially mention - basically it was a 'PADI Aware' program, the 'organizers' hadn't even heard of AAUS and had no real clue about scientific or research diving. The data they collect is submitted to an online database, that any diver/dive center is encouraged to contribute to - with no real scientific survey methods used etc. In addition, they do some 'beach clean-ups', speak in local schools and once a week turn some beach trash into 'art'. All at a cost, of course, to any 'volunteer' joining them.

I'm not a scientific diver, so this is a 'laymans' idea of the factors that, to me, would differentiate 'scientific/research' from 'hobbyist/amateur'...tell me if I'm wrong...

1) Utilization of specific scientific diving qualifications (i.e. AAUS, rather than PADI).
2) Formal connection/sponsorship/direction from the project to a credible academic/research body.
3) Quantifiable study rather than broad census.
4) Formal and pre-defined goal to study/work, as a pre-planned project with steps, boundaries and way-points.
5) Some academic product, as a result of work (published paper, research notes, contribution to..)

 

[drbill]

Interesting discussion. Knowing the requirements of the AAUS scientific diver status, I've never been confused by the difference between what AAUS certified divers do and what others divers doing scientific research or monitoring (and that includes myself since although I am a marine ecologist PhD and dive largely to further my research and educational efforts, I am not AAUS certified). When the Catalina Conservancy Divers group became affiliated with the USC Marine Science Center here on Catalina, their divers were required to certify under AAUS.

I would think that the distinction between the AAUS certified divers and other divers doing scientific or conservation work while diving should be an easy one to make (even for a governmental agency). If the divers involved are AAUS certified, then they fall under that aegis... if not, any incidents become statistics attributed to the general population of divers but NOT those who are AAUS certified.

 

[archman]

You can probably add Greenforce to the list of highly reputable marine research volunteering outfits.
Greenforce Conservation Education Programs


These people don't #% around. I have been reliably informed that their reef fish ID programs are about the best there are.

 

[Abdullah]

I agree. The regulators know the difference between the various regulated communities. I work with EPA, OSHA, and their minions professionally. OSHA would not apply accident statistics to increase regulatory constraints on a low hazard community simply from the name of the higher risk regulated entity. Regulations are applied based on what activity can be proved to actually occur, not what activity your name implies is occurring. The regulatory change process isn't so nimble as to respond to an occasional anomaly either. There would have to be a stampede of major failures to inspire a rule change.

Keep in mind, OSHA only applies within the USA and its' territories (which may include some USG owned vessels). Unless the program is under contract to the USG, and the contract specifies the particular OSHA regulations applicable to the contract work, OSHA regulations are pretty much irrelevant outside the USA. OSHA & BLS wouldn't even be collecting data on those activities.

Nobody wants any more scrutiny than they already have (regulatory compliance costs disproportionate amounts of money), but I think it's a distraction to state that volunteers can't assist professional scientists without jeopardizing the nifty exemption that part of the research community has worked to maintain. SB is worldwide and there may be programs outside the jurisdiction of OSHA that volunteers would be willing to connect with. There's no reason to scare those programs off with a "don't pee in my pool" regulatory argument.

To the point of the OP, the reputable programs willing to accept volunteers will know the criteria necessary for the work they do. The diver skills necessary to work in a tropical 1.5 meter lagoon are different than in a 50 meter deep kelp forest: There's no reason to disqualify a program based on someone else's standards. But all this is putting the cart before the horse. The first step is to get the word out to people who are aware of reputable projects that SB is building a project roster for diver volunteers.

 

[Thalassamania]

Let me start by stating that I favor the use of volunteers, where reasonable and practical. I am trying, here, to shed some light on the issues.

I agree. The regulators know the difference between the various regulated communities. I work with EPA, OSHA, and their minions professionally. OSHA would not apply accident statistics to increase regulatory constraints on a low hazard community simply from the name of the higher risk regulated entity. Regulations are applied based on what activity can be proved to actually occur, not what activity your name implies is occurring. The regulatory change process isn't so nimble as to respond to an occasional anomaly either. There would have to be a stampede of major failures to inspire a rule change.

OSHA responds to outside pressures, the entire fuss was begun by the Carpenters and Joiners Union. The Union did not like loosing, it has a long memory and will come back given the right single incident.

Keep in mind, OSHA only applies within the USA and its' territories (which may include some USG owned vessels). Unless the program is under contract to the USG, and the contract specifies the particular OSHA regulations applicable to the contract work, OSHA regulations are pretty much irrelevant outside the USA. OSHA & BLS wouldn't even be collecting data on those activities.

You are rather missing the point. OSHA fines are small and a willingness to turn on a dime and change in order to comply with OSHA usually takes care of OSHA. This is not a question of OSHA rules and OSHA sanctions, this is a question of the use of OSHA rules to define, in the minds of judges and jury members, what the proper procedures for minimizing risks are.

Nobody wants any more scrutiny than they already have (regulatory compliance costs disproportionate amounts of money), but I think it's a distraction to state that volunteers can't assist professional scientists without jeopardizing the nifty exemption that part of the research community has worked to maintain. SB is worldwide and there may be programs outside the jurisdiction of OSHA that volunteers would be willing to connect with. There's no reason to scare those programs off with a "don't pee in my pool" regulatory argument.

Permit me to try to explain the issue to you. It is clear, from the history of the two communities, that research divers who have trained as specified by AAUS have a zero fatality rate and an order of magnitude better DCS incidence than do recreational divers.

So a very real increased likelihood of both would result from permitting recreational divers' to participation in research diving operations. There is the additional problem of how to defend against the suit that would inevitably result. Remember, these "volunteers" are not insured, are not covered by Workman's Comp, but are covered by the unlimited liability Jones Act in many cases. Were there to be an incident, which is a statistical surety, I suspect that the plaintiff would look for a directed judgement on the basis that the OSHA rules were not being followed ... and I think that there is rather a good chance that they would prevail.

To the point of the OP, the reputable programs willing to accept volunteers will know the criteria necessary for the work they do. The diver skills necessary to work in a tropical 1.5 meter lagoon are different than in a 50 meter deep kelp forest: There's no reason to disqualify a program based on someone else's standards. But all this is putting the cart before the horse. The first step is to get the word out to people who are aware of reputable projects that SB is building a project roster for diver volunteers.

No one is being disqualifying based on any standards other than those standards that have created, for sixty years, our excellent safety record and that AAUS is no the custodian for. You are asking for a reduction of those standards down to those of somebody else. The question really is either how to dementedly raise recreational diver volunteers to the requisite level or to relieve the sponsoring institution of liability.

 

[Abdullah]

Thal...
Your statistical citation is a red herring and explains nothing, much less prove "a very real likelihood". You are comparing a small population of "professional" research divers to the global population of all recreational divers everywhere. The differing variances alone would likely exclude comparison of the two populations. What is the incident rate for recreational divers with similar training and experience? More precisely, what is the incident rate for volunteers in research diving for scientific organizations not regulated by AAUS protocols versus volunteer divers in AAUS programs? Can you demonstrate a potential harm to AAUS organizations through a statistically significant difference in incident rates between AAUS controlled volunteers and volunteers under other scientific programs? If not, you entire argument is scatology.

The OSHA exemption the research divers have is analogous to OSHA's VPP in industrial applications. A facility may be exempted from the normal enforcement scrutiny by enlisting in the VPP, then demonstrating an increased safety performance level, and then maintaining the program. It's not a new and wondermous concept that only exists in the underwater realm; industrial facilities all over the US enjoy a similar benefit. OSHA does not apply an accident at facility X to all the other facilities that are similar to X. They're pretty smart folks and can tell a bad apple from a good one. They would use the direct comparison I requested above rather than misleading anecdotal information.

That said, I think you are missing my point. Your overt paranoia about your specific exemption immediately led me to believe that by volunteering I might somehow negatively impact scientific divers, which would harm the research organizations we would be looking to support. I am certain other people got the same impression. This perception that volunteers would irreparably harm the research diving community defeats the whole purpose of the OP seeking opportunities for volunteerism in diving. It's the proverbial wet blanket, and is a disservice to both volunteers and prospective organizations that would benefit from the services of qualified volunteers.

 

[Thalassamania]

Interesting discussion. Knowing the requirements of the AAUS scientific diver status, I've never been confused by the difference between what AAUS certified divers do and what others divers doing scientific research or monitoring (and that includes myself since although I am a marine ecologist PhD and dive largely to further my research and educational efforts, I am not AAUS certified). When the Catalina Conservancy Divers group became affiliated with the USC Marine Science Center here on Catalina, their divers were required to certify under AAUS.

There is not such thing as AAUS Certification, there are only institutional rules. In this case the Catalina Conservancy Divers were brought under the auspices of the USC Marine Science Center, an organization that has, for a long time, maintained rules and regulations that were in compliance with the guidelines of the AAUS.

I would think that the distinction between the AAUS certified divers and other divers doing scientific or conservation work while diving should be an easy one to make (even for a governmental agency). If the divers involved are AAUS certified, then they fall under that aegis... if not, any incidents become statistics attributed to the general population of divers but NOT those who are AAUS certified.

It is an easy distinction to make, however, a hard one to maintain within the legal system. The example of the Catalina Conservancy Divers is a good example. If the Catalina Conservancy Divers were to have had an accident prior to their establishment of an AAUS relationship the ensuing lawsuit would attempt to use the AAUS standards to point out how the Catalina Conservancy Divers were not operating up to the standard of practice of the community. It is singularly dangerous for any institution or organization to permit their personnel, volunteer or otherwise, to operate outside of the AAUS framework until such time as they are able to clearly establish that they have a standard of practice that is equally or more protective.

Thal...
Your statistical citation is a red herring and explains nothing, much less prove "a very real likelihood". You are comparing a small population of "professional" research divers to the global population of all recreational divers everywhere. The differing variances alone would likely exclude comparison of the two populations. What is the incident rate for recreational divers with similar training and experience? More precisely, what is the incident rate for volunteers in research diving for scientific organizations not regulated by AAUS protocols versus volunteer divers in AAUS programs? Can you demonstrate a potential harm to AAUS organizations through a statistically significant difference in incident rates between AAUS controlled volunteers and volunteers under other scientific programs? If not, you entire argument is scatology.

I am simply making precisely the same comparison that OSHA made in deciding that the research diving community could continue to operate under it's existing consensual standard. Whether that is statistically valid, or good science, or not, is not particularly relevant ... this is politics not science. The fact remains that there are different standards for science divers and for recreational divers and that they have, by a set of OSHA promulgated definitions, been severed into two separate and distinct populations by those definitions. If you feel as strongly about this issue, as you seem to, I suggest that you work to get the OSHA exemption changed. I spent ten years of my life working to get the best result that would could, if you can do better, knock yourself out.

I would point out several items, however:

1. ... OSHA fines are small and a willingness to turn on a dime and change in order to comply with OSHA usually takes care of OSHA. This is not a question of OSHA rules and OSHA sanctions, this is a question of the use of OSHA rules to define, in the minds of judges and jury members, what the proper procedures for minimizing risks are.

2. I am not comparing to the global population of all recreational divers everywhere. I are only concerned with the comparison of American research divers (which includes foreign research divers in US waters to recreational divers in US waters.
3. I am not partitioning either American research divers nor recreational divers into subgroups, that is not my problem. If you have a need to do so, please do so, but it is irrelevant to this discussion unless you can make the case that some such sub-group (such as your "volunteers in research diving for scientific organizations not regulated by AAUS protocols," or perhaps "SSI certified, left handed, brown haired, blue eyed volunteers") is protected by an equally effective or superior set of safety standards. If you are permitted to pare the recreational diving community down to a precious few, then, of course, you can come up with any predetermined level of risk, but that is not real nor rational. The fact is that in over thirty years of involvement in the administration of scientific diving programs I never had an applicant for research diver status, who was formally trained according to what are now AAUS standards, who was not acceptable to me; however, during that same period of time I only had a single diver who credentials were solely recreational in nature, that I could bring aboard without remedial work.

The OSHA exemption the research divers have is analogous to OSHA's VPP in industrial applications. A facility may be exempted from the normal enforcement scrutiny by enlisting in the VPP, then demonstrating an increased safety performance level, and then maintaining the program. It's not a new and wondermous concept that only exists in the underwater realm; industrial facilities all over the US enjoy a similar benefit. OSHA does not apply an accident at facility X to all the other facilities that are similar to X. They're pretty smart folks and can tell a bad apple from a good one. They would use the direct comparison I requested above rather than misleading anecdotal information.

VPP's are fine, but somewhat different, and in any case irrelevant here because, as I pointed out above, the only real importance of the OSHA regulations is that it creates a standard of the community: either AAUS rules or OSHA rules, there is no alternative. If you can create one, more power to you. But until you do, you're just pissin' into the wind.

That said, I think you are missing my point. Your overt paranoia about your specific exemption immediately led me to believe that by volunteering I might somehow negatively impact scientific divers, which would harm the research organizations we would be looking to support. I am certain other people got the same impression. This perception that volunteers would irreparably harm the research diving community defeats the whole purpose of the OP seeking opportunities for volunteerism in diving. It's the proverbial wet blanket, and is a disservice to both volunteers and prospective organizations that would benefit from the services of qualified volunteers.

It is hardly paranoia, and I'm hardly missing the point. I understand your point, which is not germane, as I have pointed out repeatedly. That is an easy accusation for you to make, since you have no skin in the game. It doesn't really effect you. You think that I should stand idly by whilst you can any risks that you want with my community's future and if it does go bad, well ... it doesn't even cost you a "oops, sorry 'bout that." Well ... sorry 'bout that, 'aint gonna happen.

Until you bring about the changes that you desire in the OSHA regulations, or establish an accepted VPP, you're just out spending someone else's money ... and that's not right.

 

[Abdullah]

Back to the topic...

There are a number of terrestrial organizations that use volunteers to collect data. For example, the State of Illinois used minimally trained volunteers to collect weight, gender, and age data from harvested deer to characterize herds in the various regions of the state. The State of Nebraska used rural letter carriers to collect data on migratory Pronghorn Antelope populations to characterize those herds. With minimal training, volunteers collected useful data that state scientists used to manage these resources.

Similarly, an organization seeking to characterize a particular marine population would use volunteer divers to expand the reach of their project. These types of population survey projects would give a volunteer diver the opportunity to contribute, with minimal front end training required to be provided by the researcher. The researcher could be government, university, or privately funded, but probably wouldn't be selling something to volunteers in conjunction with their work. The researcher doesn't need to have diving credentials or criteria, rather he should need diver collectable data (the dive service would burden the liabilities, not the researcher). They would also need a bonafide background in their subject by education, peer reviewed publications, or job (e.g. state biologist).

A recreational dive service might provide an opportunity for volunteers to join a project, but would need to provide the credentials of the researcher seeking the data to validate their claim that they're offering a legitimate volunteer research opportunity. The dive service should be able to connect the prospective volunteer divers to the researcher if they are advertising volunteerism as part of their service.

 

[g1138]

Abdullah, notice how you keep referring to them as volunteer divers. That's Thal's point, they're volunteer divers for a scientific project. Not sci divers.

That's the classification that should be kept defined and separate, at least in the US area where AAUS has a standing. The reason for just narrowing focus of the term in this national region is because of the hard work that's been put into the OSHA exemption, the foundation of AAUS in the first place. Keep in mind the OSHA exemption specifies that the exemption is for "scientific diving" they use the term exactly. So it's natural to have the term scientific diver for those who perform scientific diving.

If a project wants to use volunteer divers as a means of data collection that's fine. Training is on them, but they shouldn't be referring to those volunteers as sci. divers. Simply put, because AAUS has a system that been rigorously tested with a near flawless dive safety success in turning out safe and competent divers doing scientific diving; they refer to those divers as scientific divers.

To have a project train it's own volunteer divers and classify them under the same name would mean there's now two parties with highly different sets of training under the same name (considering I have yet to see a volunteer program with the same scope and length as an AAUS scientific training program). That's where problems can occur. Those volunteer divers don't meet AAUS standards and therefore aren't meeting up to be covered under OSHA's exemption. They are legally not meeting up to the AAUS diver requirements and therefore aren't an AAUS diver, a scientific diver.

I don't think it's been posted, but here are the requirements of an institution to be under the OSHA exemption:

1. The Diving Control Board has absolute authority over all scientific diving operations.
2. The purpose must be for the advancement of science and be non-proprietary.
3. Scientific divers are only observers and data gatherers – not construction or troubleshooters.
4. Participants in science diving must be scientists or scientists-in-training.

Now a volunteer diver can meet requirements 2-4, but the hitter is #1. You'll find a Diving Control Board at each AAUS dive program of an institution, aquarium, or university. You will not find it in a principal investigator utilizing volunteer divers. So legally speaking, in the US these volunteer divers aren't doing scientific diving as defined by the OSHA exemption. So they aren't scientific divers, they're volunteer divers for a scientific project.

Exemption - American Academy of Underwater Sciences

 

[Abdullah]

G,
I think that was my original point. Regulators are not going to confuse recreational divers, volunteering on behalf of a project, with a scientific diver covered by the exemption. Using the name "scientific diver" alone doesn't qualify a volunteer to be included in the exempted group, the diver has to be a scientist employed as a scientific diver.

I do apologize for the distraction...

The OP is looking for categories of research that a recreational diver might volunteer. You guys seem to be tuned in to the research community. What types of opportunities are out there for erstwhile volunteers? How would a volunteer know that he is supporting real research and not just faffing about on a fantasy cruise?