Scientific drilling and climate change

[Wookie]

More to my point though, just because the divers failed to maintain neutral buoyancy doesn't mean the core samples they collected were compromised.

So castigating the science because the divers had less than optimal in-water skills is analogous to claiming that a charter operation is inherently unsafe, because you saw the captain bump a piling while docking the boat.

More like because I saw the captain drinking offshore. And yes, that makes the entire operation's mindset questionable, and therefore unsafe. Perhaps I shouldn't hold scientists to a high standard, but after over 25,000 NOAA scientific dives with no injuries and only one reportable incident, I think I have a pretty good handle on what is expected of scientific diving, and this is outside the pale.

 

[RyanT]

Perhaps I shouldn't hold scientists to a high standard, but after over 25,000 NOAA scientific dives with no injuries and only one reportable incident, I think I have a pretty good handle on what is expected of scientific diving, and this is outside the pale.

And again we're talking about two different things, how does this relate to the quality of science produced?

As for my own experience and qualifications, I'm both a diver and a biologist, with 25 years of experience in the field. Likewise, I have a pretty good handle on the role of field sampling in science.

 

[Jack Hammer]

It does give rise to questioning the overall integrity of their scientific work. If they are that sloppy in taking a sample and show little if any care for the area around it why should I assume they will handle the sample or their lab any differently?

 

[Wookie]

And again we're talking about two different things, how does this relate to the quality of science produced?

As for my own experience and qualifications, I'm both a diver and a biologist, with 25 years of experience in the field. Likewise, I have a pretty good handle on the role of field sampling in science.

No need to beat a dead horse. Science starts with data collection. Or dreaming up ways to spend grant money if you prefer. Crappy data collection is indicative of a crappy systemic problem. Perhaps nothing is wrong with the sample, perhaps nothing is wrong with any of the samples they took, perhaps their collection methods didn't spill over to storage, cross contamination, analysis, maybe all they did was count rings and look for environmental changes over time in the layers. All we know about the project is that they took coral cores. So all we know about the project at all is that their sample techniques appear to be sloppy. That's all we know.

This wouldn't be an example of the first time I imposed the clients own rules on them and pissed off the field team. In fact, I make NOAA divers wear their RASSes for any dive in excess of 100 feet. Just like their rules say to. I don't work for a certain NOAA lab any more, because I make them follow their own dive manual. I've had DSO's fail to follow their own diving safety manual, and reported them to their university. It doesn't make me popular. What it makes is my butt covered in case the divers screw up.

 

[RyanT]

All we know about the project is that they took coral cores. So all we know about the project at all is that their sample techniques appear to be sloppy. That's all we know.

Exactly, so how do you know that the science is "piss poor?" If the cores were extracted in a useable manner, then there is nothing to undermine the quality of the science.

And so, yes, beating a dead horse, we're talking about two different things. Diver skills versus conducting science (of which field sampling is only a very small part). And your comment about a captain drinking is a straw man argument, I'd be willing to bet the scientific divers in the photos were not drinking while doing this work.

t does give rise to questioning the overall integrity of their scientific work. If they are that sloppy in taking a sample and show little if any care for the area around it why should I assume they will handle the sample or their lab any differently?

Jack, have you ever sectioned tissues? Have you ever pipetted volumes of liquid less than 1 microliter? Have you ever run an HPLC? Have you prepped DNA for next-gen sequencing? Have you ever calibrated an acoustic playback system? And I could go on and on. All of these things I mention are skills that require varying degrees of development. I've watched a lot of scientists who were savants at one, but not the other. I've watched parts of samples get ruined by poor technique, and those samples were correctly discarded. Some of the most brilliant scientists I know, have never been able to develop the motor skills for a technique as well as others. My point is that skills in diving are a very different thing than skills in other arenas of science. Some people are inherently better at some skills than others. Having been in the water with lots of scientists, I can say that some are terrible divers, they just don't dive enough or actually understand the value of developing those skills. But no matter the technique, there are always controls in place to ensure the quality of the data. Does that mean that all science is perfect? No, but just watching some scientists with poor diving skills collect a sample doesn't automatically entail that they don't care about what they are doing or are sloppy scientists in general.

 

[Jack Hammer]

No, but just watching some scientists with poor diving skills collect a sample doesn't automatically entail that they don't care about what they are doing or are sloppy scientists in general.

You don't need good diving skills to understand and apply the simple concept of, "Try to minimize damage to the coral while taking your samples".

 

[RyanT]

"Try to minimize damage to the coral while taking your samples".

We don't disagree about this. My point is that the quality of the science cannot be castigated from a couple of photos of poor technique.

 

[kelemvor]

I thought that I would post 2 photographs that document drilling porites corals A large coral can provide sub-seasonal record of SST, salinity, and rainfall records. Photos from Micronesia and taken by WHOI staff photographer.

View media item 203676
View media item 203675

Holy cow! I guess this is an example of "what not to do".

 

[Bob DBF]

My point is that the quality of the science cannot be castigated from a couple of photos of poor technique.

Possibly not, however it would depend upon upon how much poor technique is allowed throughout the rest of the study by the person/persons controlling the study, which would impact the quality of the science.


Bob

 

[Joneill]

Possibly not, however it would depend upon upon how much poor technique is allowed throughout the rest of the study by the person/persons controlling the study, which would impact the quality of the science.


Bob

I think the intended point in Wookie's post was the irony of "scientists" studying climate change while obviously not giving a cr_p about their personal impact on the coral - but I can`t say this surprises me as there is much hypocrisy and "do as I say, not as I do" mentality when it comes to this topic...