EXPLORATION OF THE SEAS
VOYAGE INTO THE UNKNOWN 

Committee on Exploration of the Seas Ocean Studies Board
Division on Earth and Life Studies
National Research Council of the
National Academies 
4nov03

THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS
Washington, D.C.
www.nap.edu

Exploration of the Seas: Voyage into the Unknown (2003)
Ocean Studies Board (OSB)
228 pages, 7 x 10, 2003, ISBN 0-309-08927-1
http://www.nap.edu/books/0309089271/html/ 6nov03

Executive Summary

[Full report at NAS website]

In the summer of 1803, Thomas Jefferson sent Meriwether Lewis and William Clark on a journey to establish an American presence in a land of unqualified natural resources and riches. It is fitting that, on the 200th anniversary of that expedition, the United States, together with international partners, should embark on another journey of exploration in a vastly more extensive region of remarkable potential for discovery. Although the oceans cover more than 70 percent of our planet's surface, much of the ocean has been investigated in only a cursory sense, and many areas have not been investigated at all. During this journey, there is little doubt that discoveries will be made:

• A spectrum of marine natural products will have profound pharmaceutical potential.
• Vast new mineral and energy resources will be uncovered.
• The physical factors responsible for changes in climate will be identified.
• New ecosystems will alter our view of the origin of life.
• Artifacts will provide new information about the history of civilization.
• Surprising new species and organisms will be found.

In response to a request from the U.S. Congress to examine the feasibility and value of an ocean exploration program, the Ocean Studies Board of the National Research Council established the Committee on Exploration of the Seas (Box ES.1), whose findings are reported in this document. In addition to a public meeting, the committee convened an International Global Ocean Exploration Workshop in May 2002 to seek advice from the international community and discuss the possibilities for, and interest in, a global ocean exploration program.

This study will assess the feasibility and potential value of implementing a major, coordinated, international program of ocean exploration and discovery. The study committee will survey national and international ocean programs and strategies for cooperation between governments, institutions, and ocean scientists and explorers, identifying strengths, weaknesses, and gaps in these activities. Based primarily on existing documents, the committee will summarize priority areas for ocean research and exploration and examine existing plans for advancing ocean exploration and knowledge. These findings will then be used to help characterize the technology, human resources, organizational structures, and funding that would be needed to address the identified priorities in the United States and internationally. Finally, the committee will recommend strategies to facilitate such a program, including information regarding the countries and organizations likely to participate; the institutional arrangements needed (including the possibility of new treaties or laws); the technology and infrastructure needed (including manned and autonomous underwater vehicles, ships, observing systems, and data management systems); and an estimate of the potential costs.

• A new program for ocean exploration is necessary.
• An international, top-down program is not feasible at the outset.
• The United States should lead by example and develop a national program with international representation.
• The United States should operate the program using an independent (nonfederal) entity.
• Federal funding for the independent organization should be provided through either the National Oceanographic Partnership Program (NOPP), the National Science Foundation (NSF), or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

Exciting discoveries are made in the ocean sciences every year. From the identification of ecosystems that thrive without sunlight to the new pathways for photosynthesis recently identified in marine microbes, discoveries in our oceans continue to revolutionize and refine our theories of the origins of life here and the possibilities for life elsewhere in the universe. However, such discoveries are largely serendipitous. In the United States, ocean sciences rely on relatively few large, carefully managed assetsships, submersibles, and laboratory facilities. Research funding is relatively more available for projects that will revisit earlier sites and discoveries and for improving current understanding than it is to support truly exploratory oceanography. A new program to provide opportunities for investigating new regions and that draws on research from a variety of disciplines, would speed discovery and application of new information.

A coordinated, international ocean exploration effort is not unprecedented-the international Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE), 1971-1980, was established by the Marine Sciences Act of 1966 and motivated both by anticipated discoveries of useful and important marine resources and by scientific curiosity. Questions about the health of the world's oceans led scientists to argue for systematic baseline surveys that were not possible from randomly spaced observations. The IDOE program recognized that exploration of the ocean required a sustained global effort with international participation, and justification for the program included issues of clear international interest. More information was necessary to describe the ability of the oceans to provide food for an expanding world population, to protect the United States and other nations from maritime threats to world order, to assuage the deterioration of water quality and waterfronts in coastal cities, to support expanded ocean shipping, and to locate new supplies of seabed oil, gas, and minerals. The objective of IDOE was to "achieve more comprehensive knowledge of ocean characteristics and their changes and more profound understanding of oceanic processes for the purpose of effective utilization of the ocean and its resources" (National Academy of Sciences, 1969). More specifically, it was expected that the program would help increase the yield from ocean resources, improve predictions of and responses to natural phenomena, and protect or improve the quality of the marine environment. IDOE was a great success-it provided observational databases on the physics, geochemistry, paleoceanography, biology, and geophysics of the ocean that fueled hypothesis-driven research for decades.

Recommendation: As was true when IDOE was proposed and supported, ocean exploration remains a necessary endeavor to identify and fully describe the resources the oceans contain. The pace at which we discover living and nonliving resources and improve our understanding of how the oceans respond to chemical, biological, and physical changes must increase.

Every time a scientist happens upon some completely unexpected discovery in the ocean, it is a reminder of how little is known about this environment that is so critically important to the sustainability of the planet. We now recognize that different facets of the ocean-small-scale geological, biological, and genetic diversity; chemical, geophysical, and physical oceanographic properties-interact in complex ways, and our understanding of the ocean requires its examination as a whole system. The oceans play a critical role in the maintenance of the ecosystems of the Earth. Resources contained in the oceans currently supply a substantial portion of the world's food and fuel supply, and maintain global climate patterns. The oceans harbor as yet undiscovered organisms-new searches for life continue to discover previously unknown organisms. Only a portion of the potential of the oceans has been tapped.

It is difficult to predict what discoveries are still to come, but it is clear that ocean exploration will improve the accuracy of our predictions of global climate change, produce new products that will benefit humanity, inform policy choices, and allow better stewardship of the oceans and the planet as a whole. To reach this potential, ocean research should encourage cooperation between researchers from varied disciplines.

Finding: Currently ocean science funding in the United States is predominantly awarded to research in specific disciplines, such as biological, physical or chemical oceanography. Proposals for interdisciplinary work are hampered by a funding bureaucracy that is also discipline-based. Ocean exploration is an integrative activity that will encourage and support interdisciplinary efforts that seek to discover new contributions to the marine sciences.

The very nature of scientific investigation leads oceanographers to seek out information to verify hypotheses and confirm earlier findings. The infrastructure and support needed for oceanographic work is expensive, limited, and highly scheduled to ensure efficiency in the pursuit of knowledge about the oceans. Much of the oceanographic research currently conducted re-investigates previously visited locations, limiting access to new regions and restricting long-term data collection. As a result, vast portions of the oceans have not been systematically examined for geochemical or biological characteristics. This is particularly true of the oceans in the southern hemisphere. Ground-breaking discoveries, such as hydrothermal vents, fueled intensive investigations of those regions, but they did not lead to investigations of new regions. As is being shown by an AustralianNew Zealand expedition to seamounts and abyssal plains, systematic biological exploration in even a small portion of the ocean can provide a rich collection of new organisms. The one month journey collected more than 100 previously unidentified fish species and up to 300 new species of invertebrates (National Oceans Office, 2003). A very recent example of such an exploratory effort by the United States has been initiated by the Department of Energy. Although the Sargasso Sea is thought to exhibit limited biodiversity and a simple ecosystem (Holden, 2003), it is anticipated that determining the genomic structures of all organisms within the ecosystem may reveal new pathways of carbon sequestration and hydrogen generation (Whitfield, 2003).

Recommendation: Oceanographic research should encourage scientifically-rigorous, systematic investigations of new sites in the oceans. Exploration through time should be included in oceanographic research.

Oceans provide food, energy and mineral resources, products capable of treating human disease, and affect climate and global responses to changes in climate. A new large-scale program devoted to ocean exploration is necessary to:

• coordinate efforts in ocean discovery and capitalize on the wide array of available data; provide new resources and facilities for access by researchers;

• establish support for and promote interdisciplinary approaches to ocean investigations;
• develop outreach and public education tools to increase public
• awareness and understanding of the oceans;
• discover the living and nonliving resources of the oceans; and
• provide a multidisciplinary archive of ocean data to serve as a source of basic data upon which to develop hypotheses for further investigation

Recommendation: A coordinated, broadly-based ocean exploration effort that meets the highest standards of scientific excellence should be aggressively pursued. An ocean exploration program should be initiated and contain the following characteristics, or goals, which can also be used to gauge its ultimate success:

• The program should be global and multidisciplinary.
• The program must receive international support.

The involvement of many nations in ocean exploration efforts would expand an ocean exploration program's usefulness by broadening the base of human, mechanical, and financial resources available. In fact, international collaboration is necessary to support a truly global ocean exploration program. And the interests of individual nations must be served to promote such participation-something not readily achievable by a largescale, internationally coordinated effort. The informal consensus of the workshop attendees was that a one-program-serves-all effort would be neither effective nor efficient. An international program could be best served by developing individual national ocean exploration programs to suit the needs of the countries involved. National priorities would be set and then partners sought for individual programs. Such bilateral and multilateral agreements have worked extremely well for ocean science programs such as the Ocean Drilling Program (ODP) and should serve well for ocean exploration.

Although many nations would likely be interested in participating in limited ocean exploration programs, relatively few have the resources necessary to provide significant financial support to a program. A U.S. national model should offer the example for other nations, and it should work to incorporate people from other nations to generate interest more broadly. The development of similar national programs elsewhere should be encouraged and anticipated. By developing distinct exploration programs for international cooperation to seek discoveries of specific resources or investigate regional features, the burden of international policy and agreements could be greatly reduced.

Recommendation: Given the considerations presented, it is prudent to begin an exploration effort with a model for a U.S. national program that will encourage collaboration and capacity building and that would be likely to lead to the development of similar programs in other countries. Once other national programs are established, consortia of nations can voluntarily collaborate on program plans and pool resources using multilateral international agreements to undertake regional exploration or to pursue themes of shared interest.

There has been continued support for and success from oceanographic research in the United States, and a large-scale international exploration program could rapidly accelerate our acquisition of knowledge of the world's oceans. The current ocean-research-funding framework does not favor such exploratory proposals. Additional funding for exploration without a new framework for management and investment is unlikely to result in establishment of a successful exploration program. A new program, however, could provide the resources and establish the selection processes needed to develop ocean exploration theme areas and pursue new research in biodiversity, processes, and resources within the world's oceans. The current effort of the Office of Ocean Exploration at NOAA should not be expected to fill this role.

After weighing the issues involved in oversight and funding, perhaps the most appropriate placement for an ocean exploration program is under the auspices of the interagency NOPP, provided that the problems with routing funds to NOPP-sponsored projects is solved. This solution has the best chance of leading to major involvement by NOAA, NSF, and other appropriate organizations such as the Office of Naval Research. The committee is not prepared to support an ocean exploration program within NOAA unless major shortcomings of NOAA as a lead agency can be effectively and demonstrably overcome. A majority of the committee members felt that the structural problems limiting the effectiveness of NOAA's current ocean exploration program are insurmountable. A minority of the committee members felt that the problems could be corrected. If there is no change to the status quo for NOPP or NOAA, the committee recommends that NSF be encouraged to take on an ocean exploration program. Although a program within NSF would face the same difficulties of the existing NOAA program in attracting other federal (and nonfederal) partners, NSF has proven successful at managing international research programs as well as a highly-regarded ocean exploration program that remained true to its founding vision.

Finding: After exhaustive deliberation, the committee found that an ocean exploration program could be sponsored through NOPP, or through one of the two major supporters of civilian ocean research in the nation: NOAA or NSF.

Recommendation: NOPP is the most appropriate placement for an ocean exploration program, provided the program is revised to accept direct appropriations of federal funds. If those funding issues are not resolved, NOAA (with consideration to the comments above) or NSF would be appropriate alternatives.

In recent years, agencies have increasingly turned to nongovernmental groups to take on the day-to-day operations of large programs. The advantages of this approach are several. First, the process of competitive bidding for the management of the program leads to creativity in program design, cost savings, and incentives for excellent performance. Second, as programs build up and close down, there is no need to accommodate the personnel requirements through agency headcount. NSF chose the independent contractor route in selecting joint Oceanographic Institutions to operate ODP, and has recently proposed a similar plan for management of the Ocean Observing Initiative and the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program (in this case the associated not-for-profit is an international corporation). Likewise, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration will be selecting an independent contractor to manage the International Space Station.

The advantages of an external contractor are potentially even greater for an ocean exploration program. For example, if NOPP were to lead the effort, management by an independent contractor would provide a neutral third party to balance the interests of the various agency partners and accept contributions from a variety of public and private sources. If NOAA were to lead the program, management by an external group could mitigate some of the perceived inadequacies in the present, internal-NOAA program. For example, the program would be an "arm's length" away from the pressures of the agency mission and subjected to regular external review. Depending on the choice of the external managing organization, grant processing, priority-setting, connection to the external community, and transparency of decision making could be improved. If NSF were asked to lead the program, the agency would almost surely choose this route rather than build internally the infrastructure to manage the exploration-specific assets and data system.

Management of large-scale ocean research programs can be effective and efficient through the use of independent contractors. Nonfederal operators can receive support from multiple government agencies and receive financial support from private sponsors. Independent audits of program performance can be used to ensure the program is achieving the desired outcomes.

Recommendation: A nonfederal contractor should be used to operate the proposed U.S. ocean exploration program. The original contract should be awarded following a competitive bidding process. The program should be reviewed periodically and should seek to leverage federal resources for additional private contributions.

Rapid progress in ocean sampling devices now allows researchers access to new environments, including the extremes of hydrothermal systems and waters beneath the ice of the Arctic Ocean. The potential of new technology in satellites, underwater equipment, remote sensing technology, and observing systems has not yet been met. An ocean exploration program could access these new technologies to speed our discoveries of ocean resources and characteristics, while providing support for development of additional new tools necessary for interdisciplinary research.

Dramatic advances in our ability to explore the deep sea are attributable to research and development done by academic and private organizations. High-quality, long-term, multinational research programs have greatly increased our understanding of the processes that govern our planet. The Joint Global Ocean Flux Study, ODP, and the Global Ocean Observing System use tools, technology, and human resources developed and provided by a variety of nations. A new exploration effort should use existing equipment and technology whenever possible, but it will also require new methods and systems to adjust and improve in order to meet emerging needs. Additional resources for the development of innovative tools to support selected exploration voyages or investigations should greatly increase the capabilities, and discoveries, of oceanographic research. A global ocean exploration system could access observations from existing satellites, moored open-ocean sensors, data voluntarily contributed from various ships, and the global sea level network, as well as other observations that are not yet defined or routinely collected.

The science and technology results from several continuing large-scale research programs-the Tropical Ocean and Global Atmosphere program, the Ridge Interdisciplinary Global Experiment, and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study-provide important information and experience that can be applied when designing an operational ocean exploration system that is effective, affordable, and consistent with our knowledge of the scales of ocean biology, chemistry, and physics (National Research Council, 1993).

Recommendation: An ocean exploration program should seek to access and encourage new developments in ocean technology.

The plans to acquire new equipment or use existing facilities should be tailored to meet the plans of the scientific program. Any new exploration program should seek to expedite the development and use of new technology for novel, multidisciplinary observations in new environments. In particular, the development of probes and sensors for in situ sampling and molecular analysis is a priority for biological sampling and for the identification of organisms and processes. A global ocean exploration program will no doubt stimulate such new technologies, and resources should be available to support it in selected exploration voyages or investigations.

Finding: Access to standard and new technology, including commercially available equipment and technology that is not used for and by research institutions, is necessary for an ocean exploration program to succeed. Access to commercially available assets, such as human occupied vehicles, remotely operated vehicles, and autonomous underwater vehicles, would increase flexibility and allow researchers more access to new environments, and thus promote the development of even more new technology.

Recommendation: The exploration program should seek to expedite the development and use of the new technology in new undersea environments. The list of equipment for an ocean exploration program should be tailored to meet the scientific program's plans.

In the past, the lack of standardized data collection efforts hampered long-term utility of very large data sets (e.g., IDOE). Standardization of data collection and reporting will allow the integration of information from a variety of projects. The long-term success of the program will depend on whether it can provide archives for access long after original exploration efforts end.

Recommendation: Data collection and reporting must be standardized to allow data sets from a variety of explorations to be integrated. The sampling techniques and reporting formats should be designed to be acceptable to the worldwide oceanographic community.

Data access and management policies are critical to the success of any large-scale research program. Despite the efforts of federal agencies and other parties, data sharing remains problematic across the ocean sciences. The success of an ocean exploration program could be greatly enhanced by allowing data to be shared soon after collection. Real-time data access is also a possibility that should be considered in the early stages of the program. An ocean exploration program, in particular, could benefit from accessing archives of both oceanographic and archaeological data to mine those data for new information and large-scale patterns.

Recommendation: Data access and management policies must be established before exploration begins. In particular, any exploration program should encourage oceanographers to improve their capacity to access and integrate data from many ocean sciences, extract new information from those data sets, and convey new insights to decision makers and the public. The proposed ocean exploration program should seek ways to contribute to or link exploration data to existing oceanographic and archaeological data archives.

Often only preliminary investigations can be conducted while oceanographic cruises are under way. Additional materials and equipment for sample processing on land must be accessed in order to uncover critical information. Discoveries by an ocean exploration program are very likely to occur as a result of additional, postcruise sample processing.

Recommendation: Support of postcruise science should be a major component of a global ocean exploration program. Researchers should be supported for activities that will enhance their shipboard work, such as sample analysis and data interpretation and presentation. Without direct support, many discoveries might not come to fruition.

The way an ocean exploration program is organized-both nationally and internationally-can make a difference in the effectiveness of public outreach and education efforts. By fostering collaborations among scientists and educators, an exploration program can ensure that educators are an integral part of the planning and conduct of the exploration activity, whether at sea or on land. To be successful educators must learn the science necessary to effectively use the curricula, and scientists must understand teachers' needs. Those collaborations cannot be an afterthought; they must be fully integrated throughout the process of ocean exploration. Informing government officials about program plans and accomplishments is critical to any large, federally funded program, and it will be important for all countries involved. This will require additional activities beyond those designed to reach the general public.

Recommendation: Strong education and outreach programs with global applications should be incorporated into any exploration program to bring new discoveries to the public, enfranchise the global community in ocean exploration, and develop and foster collaborations among scientists and educators in ocean exploration.

Ocean exploration provides rich content that easily captures the imagination of people of all ages. Any ocean exploration effort should seek to:

• bring new discoveries to the public in ways that infuse exploration into their daily lives and capture the inherent human interest in the ocean;
• enfranchise the global community in ocean exploration; and
• develop and foster collaborations among scientists and educators in ocean exploration.

Strong education and outreach programs with global applications should be incorporated into the exploration program. Capacity buildingnot only to multiply the program's usefulness, but also to develop and conduct international ocean exploration-must be integral to national and international ocean exploration programs.

Successful cooperation between educators and scientists relies on educators learning the science necessary to effectively use the curricula, and on scientists understanding teachers' needs. Educator-scientist partnerships could be accomplished through professional organizations (examples in the United States include the National Science Teachers Association, the National Marine Educators Association, and the American Geophysical Union) or through other model programs, such as the Centers for Ocean Science Education Excellence created through NSF, and the Bridge program (Virginia Institute of Marine Science, 2003) of NOPP. Professional development opportunities that immerse teachers in the world of scientific investigation can support the development of inquiry-based, standards-based educational materials and products. Educators and students, where appropriate, and science writers, artists, journalists, and others could participate in expeditions or shore-based activities, and postproject lesson plans could be developed by scientists and educators from the data collected.

Finding: In a large scale, international ocean exploration program, capacity building can serve to enlist additional countries in the efforts, increase the resources (e.g., trained personnel) available for future work, and aid partner nations in good stewardship of our shared oceans.

Recommendation: National exploration programs should strengthen participation in international exploration through exchange programs for scientists and educators from different countries and through training programs for educators who are preparing to set up exploration-based programs in their own countries. All materials and resources developed or collected through the ocean exploration program should be archived to document the history of collaborations among scientists and educators involved in ocean exploration.

Access and flexibility are necessary to implement an ocean exploration program. Although assets for oceanographic research exist, a new ocean exploration program that seeks to enhance the current efforts, as proposed in this report, will require substantial assets. New oceanographic assets would increase the effectiveness of the program, while minimizing interference with the current research endeavors. Although the specific assets needed should be tailored to the exploration plans, approximations have been generated using previous programs and existing equipment.

Recommendation: To undertake a truly large-scale, ocean exploration program that would incorporate the disciplines discussed in this report, a specialized, dedicated flagship, and a modest fleet of underwater vehicles should be provided. Such a program would require first-year funding of approximately $270 million. Thereafter, annual operating costs would be about $110 million. A more moderate program, operating fewer assets, could be operated for approximately $70 million annually.

The scope of the proposed exploration program for the oceans will depend on annual funding. An important new ocean exploration program can be undertaken at various levels, and estimates of the return on that investment should be made accordingly. If funds are limited, the theme areas the program seeks to address should be scaled back; apportionment of program initiatives should prevent sacrifices of postcruise data analysis and data bank maintenance and support. In any such initiative, the input of the research community should be sought to assist in identifying necessary trade-offs. The proposed exploration office should be responsible for implementing program activities and operations-congressional earmarking can obstruct program integrity and success. With broad, interdisciplinary involvement, open forums for discussion of program goals and choices, and accountable management of the program, a large-scale, international ocean exploration initiative is likely to succeed in providing economic, scientific, and environmental benefits for all.

Recommendation: Especially at the lower levels of funding presented in this report, the efficient, effective use of resources must be ensured and should involve the following:

• decision-making should be informed by the research community,
• program managers and administrators, and legislators; and
• a clear statement of program goals must be used to drive the choices
• of capitalization.

A large-scale ocean exploration program should be initiated. An extraordinary leap in our understanding of the functioning of the oceans and their role in global climate and life support systems is likely. International partners should be sought to share in the costs and benefits of the program.

The ocean is a critical component of the planet's biodiversity and a crucial vehicle for developing new understanding of biological, geological, chemical, and physical processes, both here on Earth and throughout the cosmos. However, public awareness of the oceans' significance to the planet is extremely limited. "[The American public possesses] only superficial knowledge of the oceans, their functions, and their connection to human well being," according to a survey by the Ocean Project, a consortium of aquariums; zoos; and science, technology, and natural history museums (Belden et al., 1999).

Although more than 1,500 people have successfully climbed Mount Everest, more than 300 men and women have journeyed into space, and 12 men have walked on the moon, only 2 people have descended and returned in a single dive to the deepest parts of the ocean, and they spent less than 30 minutes in the cloud of sediment on the ocean bottom. Those numbers are indicative of humanity's instincts to chart the unknown. Every year, new technologies become available to help us probe our oceans in new ways. At the same time, our living marine resources are in danger from harm by overuse, the climate of our planet is changing, and the need for cures for human suffering is as great as ever. A global ocean exploration program that encompasses all of those facets-opening new areas of inquiry and solving problems-is feasible and justifiable and should be vigorously pursued.

The oceans are our common global heritage. They cover 70 percent of the Earth's surface, regulate our weather and climate, and connect the people of many nations. The oceans sustain a large portion of Earth's biodiversity, and they provide humanity with substantial living and nonliving resources. The oceans still conceal artifacts that document human civilizations' relationships with the seas and with one another. Histories of trade routes, coastal civilizations, and maritime technology can be found within the oceans.

Despite our intimate connection with the sea much of the world's oceans and ocean floor remain unexplored.' This is the last frontier on Earth-and the potential for discovery is largely untapped. Discoveries made in the past three decades offer exciting economic and scientific opportunities, and they speak to the need to continue expeditions in search of the unknown (Watkins, 2002). For example, in 1976 organisms, including crabs and clams, were discovered at the Galapagos Rift hydrothermal vent field by a geologist conducting the first photographic survey of the region (Lonsdale, 1977; Weiss et al., 1977; Spiess et al., 1980). Maps and photographs lead to manned submersible dives the following year, and the discovery of massive tube worm colonies. Those unique chemosynthetic life forms were photographed inadvertently, but knowledge of their existence has revolutionized our understanding of where and how life occurs and intensified our discussions of the possibility of life on other planets (Rothschild and Mancinelli, 2001). The vent communities also provide new materials for use in biomedical research. Exciting archaeological discoveries of vessels, pottery, and even ancient coastal villages are shedding new light on human history. Exploration of the oceans must continue-not only to discover new phenomena and seek new information, but also to facilitate a more integrated and comprehensive understanding of the marine environment and the interconnected processes that control it.

1    Some estimates suggest about 95 percent of the world's oceans and 99 percent of the ocean floor are unexplored (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000).

As defined by the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000), exploration is discovery through disciplined, diverse observations and the recording of findings. Ocean exploration has included rigorous, systematic observation and documentation of the biological, chemical, physical, geological, and archaeological aspects of the ocean in the three dimensions of space and in time. This definition of exploration is much broader than the definition one would find, for example, within the context for the extractive industries, where exploration is a search for hydrocarbon or mineral deposits. More general approaches allow researchers to develop and ask questions that are not rooted in specific hypotheses and that often lead to unexpected answers a difficult task to promote within the current approaches to research funding.

Exploration is an early component of the research process; it focuses on new areas of inquiry and develops descriptions of phenomena that inform the direction of further study. It is the collection of basic observations that later allow hypotheses to be posed to connect those observations with the laws of physics, chemistry, and biology. In some disciplines, such as physics, exploration has been pursued aggressively, and the resources are best invested in testing hypotheses and conducting controlled experiments. In other disciplines, the system under investigation is so vast, complex, or remote that exploration is still the necessary first step. Outer space, the human genome, and the oceans are excellent examples. This nation and others have invested heavily in the exploration of outer space and the functioning of the human genome, and each program has both captured the imagination of the public and produced tangible, valuable discoveries. No similar systematic program exists for ocean exploration, despite its promise.

In June 2000, a panel of experts from the ocean science community was convened to fulfill a presidential request to provide recommendations for a national ocean exploration strategy (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000). In October, the President's Panel on Ocean Exploration recommended that the United States add a national program of ocean exploration to its current marine research portfolio (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000). That program would provide the opportunity to explore the Earth's oceans through broad-based observations and through interdisciplinary and cross-cultural investigations. The panel's vision was to "not only go where no one has ever gone, but to 'see' the oceans through a new set of technological 'eyes,' and record those journeys for posterity" (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2000).

In December 2000, the U.S. Congress requested that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences conduct a study to examine the possibility of developing and implementing an international ocean exploration program. An ad hoc study committee was formed under the advisement of the National Research Council's (NRC) Ocean Studies Board to address the charge (Box ES.1).

This report constitutes the work of the NRC's Committee on Exploration of the Seas, and it contains recommendations for the implementation of an international ocean exploration program. International input was sought during a May 2002 workshop, which was hosted by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC). Participants representing national and international organizations from 22 nations addressed the committee and discussed ideas for an international program. Summaries of the workshop sessions are included in the report as Appendix D.

People have explored the oceans since the dawn of human history, even as we used oceans as highways to new lands. Scientific exploration of the oceans can be traced back at least to Captain James Cook's three Pacific expeditions between 1768 and 1779. At that time, most of the globe was unexplored and maps were drawn as much from imagination as from experience. By the time Cook died, he had mapped much of the Pacific's shoreline-from Antarctica to the Arctic.

Cook's explorations opened the way for Darwin's voyages on the Beagle (1831-1836). The scientific bonanza from Darwin's observations, which led to his theory of evolution, was the consequence of including a naturalist on the expedition, almost as an afterthought. The influence of discovery associated with those expeditions is nearly impossible to overestimate in terms of science and popular culture alike.

The first expedition undertaken purely for the sake of science was the voyage of the RMS Challenger (1872-1876), which set out to investigate "everything about the sea" (Figure 1.1). The researchers made physical, chemical, biological, and geological measurements in all the oceans except the Arctic. With support from the British Admiralty and Royal Society, the expedition systematically collected observations of the oceans, stopping every two hundred miles. The results were staggering: they filled 50 volumes (Murray, 1895). The researchers discovered thousands of new species, and

FIGURE 1.1 Expedition route of HMS Challenger. (From Oceanography: An Invitation to Marine Science (Non-Info Trac Version) 4th edition by Garrison. © 2002. Reprinted with permission of Brooks/Cole, a division of Thomson Learning: www.thomsonrights.com, fax 800-730-2215.)

they observed that the oceans are not deepest at the middle and that ocean sediments are far more homogeneous than are those found on land.

The 1925-1927 Meteor expedition, undertaken by the German navy, was one of the first modern oceanographic research cruises. The Meteor traversed the South Atlantic 13 times, collecting 67,400 soundings and detailed current, salinity, temperature, and oxygen measurements at 310 stations. The Meteor conducted plankton tows, collected a large number of bottom samples, and executed systematic atmospheric (using instrument balloons and kites) and geologic studies. The expedition captured the imagination of people around the world, demonstrating conclusively the power of ocean exploration for educating the public.

The economic depression of the 1930s stifled opportunities to follow up on the success of the Meteor expedition. During World War Il, the value of oceanographic information assumed new importance with the advent of submarine warfare, and national security drove data-gathering efforts. With the exception of participants in the International Decade of Ocean Exploration (IDOE) broad international cooperation was not encouraged in the Cold War years, and the best data were not often made freely available.

The landmark achievements of oceanographic exploration over the past 50 years have been well documented in NRC's 50 Years of Ocean Discovery: National Science Foundation 1950-2000 (National Research Council, 2000a), and are not reiterated here with the exception of those activities that represented efforts to achieve international cooperation because those efforts informed the committee's deliberations on the proposed organization and structure of a new international exploration program.

The International Geophysical Year (IGY; 1957-1958) was a significant step for the improvement of international cooperation on large-scale oceanographic projects and other studies of the physics of the planet. Observations collected during IGY resulted in several breakthroughs, including the body of work that led to the formulation of the theory of plate tectonics.

One visible program that resulted from international cooperation during IGY was the Indian Ocean Expedition. The Indian Ocean was the least explored of the world's oceans, and it held much promise for major discoveries. Advice and ideas from 40 scientists representing a variety of nations and all oceanographic disciplines were used to develop the program. Originally, planning and direction were accomplished by a contract with the National Academy of Sciences, but beginning in 1964 the National Science Foundation (NSF) managed the program. The scientific community continued to provide program direction. Loose coordination among the three major oceanographic institutions (the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University; the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California; and the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in Massachusetts) resulted in disparate data sets. Because the data gathered on different cruises by different research groups could not be integrated, the usefulness of the resulting databases was severely compromised.

Archaeologists uncover information on ancient civilizations, and marine archaeologists examine sunken communities or ships for tools, pottery, and cargo, for example, that can reveal details about a culture. Marine archaeology was slower to develop than the ocean sciences. Despite the sustained efforts of archaeology generally, marine archaeology has been hampered by the difficulty of locating and excavating sites. Underwater archaeology dates to the late 1 800s, and from the beginning the field relied on advances in technology to improve identification of and access to sites. From diving bells to tethered diving helmets, each new contraption increased the amount of time divers could spend under water. But it was not until the advent of the self-contained underwater breathing apparatus-SCUBA-in the middle of the twentieth century that ready access to shallow ocean bottoms could be achieved. Scuba allowed the systematic excavation of sites, and it allowed divers to complete delicate work in fragile ships' hulls. In the 1960s archaeologists began to dive to direct true excavations of underwater relics, and the field of underwater archaeology soon became one of the most important branches of its field.

For the purposes of this report, the most significant modern precursor to the proposed program in ocean exploration was IDOE (1971-1980). This systematic program of ocean exploration was motivated both by anticipated uses of marine resources and by scientific curiosity. Questions about the health of the world's oceans led scientists to argue for systematic baseline surveys that were not possible from randomly spaced observations. The IDOE program, a good example of exploration, which was established as a result of the congressional Marine Sciences Act of 1966, reflected the view that exploration of the ocean required a sustained global effort with international participation.

Justification for IDOE was based on the oceans as a source of food for an expanding world population; maritime threats to world order; waterfront deterioration in coastal cities; increased pollution in coastal areas; expanding requirements for seabed oil, gas, and minerals; and expanding ocean shipping. The National Academies of Science and Engineering involved the U.S. marine science community in planning IDOE. The resulting report, An

Oceanic Quest: The International Decade of Ocean Exploration (National

Academy of Sciences, 1969), specified science and engineering programs and resources needed to address goals. The stated objective of the program was "to achieve more comprehensive knowledge of ocean characteristics and their changes and more profound understanding of oceanic processes for the purpose of effective utilization of the ocean and its resources." More specifically, it was expected that the program would help increase the yield from ocean resources, improve predictions of and responses to natural phenomena, and protect or improve the quality of the marine environment. Some important features distinguished the IDOE programs from other marine science initiatives of the day. At that time, cooperation between

U.S. and foreign investigators was unique. The emphasis on long-term and continuing studies required resources from several groups, and partnerships between government and private parties in the United States evolved. A steering committee was formed to develop and refine criteria for the proposed programs. Keystone programs-among them the Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment, for the exploration of physical oceanographic eddies, and Climate: Long-range Investigation, Mapping and Prediction (paleoceanographic mapping of global temperatures at the last glacial maximum)-were called for in the NRC report. The Geochemical Ocean Sections (geochemical mapping of the oceans) program was brought into IDOE after it was developed independently.

NSF was responsible for planning, management, and funding of IDOE, initially with a budget of $15 million. IDOE began as an office in NSF's Division of National and International Programs, separate from the research program that contained ocean and earth sciences. When NSF was reorganized in 1975, IDOE, the NSF oceanography section, and the oceanographic facilities and support section were combined to form NSF's Ocean Sciences Division. A working group was established at NSF that consisted of program managers and members of the research community. The IDOE working group set the ground rules for IDOE funding, one of which was that projects had to be multiple-institution initiatives. Although the working group did not try to promote specific science goals, it did encourage projects that fell into one of four categories: environmental quality, living resources, seabed assessment, or environmental forecasting (National Research Council, 1999).

One important force behind the adoption of IDOE was the advocacy of Vice President Hubert Humphrey (Wenk, 1972). With his support, the U.S. Marine Council successfully sought and secured commitments from other nations, and in 1968, the IOC of the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization recommended supportfor IDOE. United Nations support for the program was obtained in Proposition 3 of General Assembly Resolution 2467 (XXIII), which was cosponsored by 28 nations. This resolution ensured government-to-government support for the program.

The Marine Council and the NRC report called for significant participation in IDOE by other federal agencies. In the first year, it became clear that such an arrangement was unworkable. Each agency had its own mission, which did not necessarily coincide with the kinds of projects identified for emphasis by IDOE program managers. Proposals from agency scientists did not fare well in peer review because the scientists often were unfamiliar with the process and were unknown to academic reviewers. Program management was another challenge. Even when an IDOE objective fell squarely within the mission of a given agency, funding procedures, management style, and long-range research objectives became obstacles. In the first year of the program, half of the funds were transferred from NSF to other federal agencies, with few tangible results. The one exception was the North Pacific Experiment for environmental forecasting, because it addressed the Office of Naval Research's interests directly. Over time, the North Pacific Experiment was jointly funded by the Office of Naval Research and IDOE, with close coordination of managers from both agencies.

International participation did not materialize to the desired extent because other nations were not able to organize themselves as quickly as the United States had done. The U.S. IDOE submitted annual plans and programs to IOC and received the endorsement of member states. Nevertheless, scientists from other countries did not receive financial support in a timely manner. IOC had little funding for international participation, and U.S. IDOE funds could not be used to support scientists from other nations. Two international programs created through bilateral agreements were exceptions: the French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study and the U.S.-U.S.S.R. follow-on to the Mid-Ocean Dynamics Experiment, which was truly cooperative in planning and execution (National Research Council, 2000a). The French-American Mid-Ocean Undersea Study, which was to conduct a detailed exploration of a section of the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, was already in the planning phase when IDOE was established, and it was carried out jointly by the two nations during the early years of the program.

Despite some criticisms that international participation could have been more robust, IDOE is considered a major success. It provided the observational database on the physics, geochemistry, paleoceanography, biology, and geophysics of the ocean that fueled hypothesis-driven research for decades. The oceanographic research community recognized the achievements that were possible only through large, multidisciplinary, cooperative programs. When IDOE ended, program funding remained at NSF and was redistributed into the research sections along the disciplinary lines of the major physical, chemical, geological, and biological programs within IDOE. The research community proposed important follow-on programs, such as the Ridge Interdisciplinary Global Experiments, an initiative to study the midocean ridges and hydrothermal vent ecosystems, and the Joint Global Ocean Flux Study, a geochemical follow-on to the Geochemical Ocean Sections. However, none of these programs embraced the interdisciplinary emphasis on exploration that had been envisaged for IDOE.

Discussions in past NRC reports (National Research Council, 1999, 2000a), the capsulated summary of the Indian Ocean Expedition, and experiences of the members of the Committee lead to the following finding.

Finding: A new era for ocean exploration should build on lessons from earlier experiences. Primary among them are the following

A program (IDOE) housed entirely within one agency (NSF) can have difficulty engaging other federal agencies as partners in exploration.

An exploration program entirely within a mission-oriented agency can have difficulty remaining independent from the agency mission.

A program that sets out long-term goals and priorities, but that selects proposals for funding by a competitive process, can be quite successful.

Decadal achievements can be significant, but there is a need and a demand for a more sustained effort.

Bilateral, international efforts are more likely to be successful in joint planning, funding, and execution than are large-scale international programs, but they require careful planning and tailoring of projects to the interests of the partners.

Coordination is essential to ensure that data sets from different projects can be integrated into a global picture.

Progress in oceanography over the next decade will occur both in the traditional marine science disciplines and, as this report will show, through ocean exploration at the fringes and intersections of those disciplines. Multidisciplinary ocean exploration will most likely lead to discoveries that might refocus basic research regarding the oceans' contributions to global climate change, the hydrodynamics of midocean ridges, and the nature of coastal processes. New international collaborations, with new capabilities in technology, should be combined to maximize discoveries and benefits from a large-scale ocean exploration effort.

The ocean provides physical and cultural connections for people from many nations. An ocean exploration program could open a dialogue to increase public awareness of the oceans as a common global bond, highlighting the importance of the oceans in their lives. Exploration presents a spirit of challenge and rich opportunities to engage students, educators, and the public in the excitement of search and discovery through the pursuit of knowledge about our planet and our people.

This report is organized into eight chapters and a series of appendixes. Chapter 2 describes the benefits of initiating a global ocean exploration program, and Chapter 3 presents recommendations for broadly defined and specific goals of a new international ocean exploration program. Areas of particular promise are emphasized for the early phases of a new program. Chapter 4 discusses international arrangements, and Chapter 5 presents discussion and recommendations for a new program's domestic structure. The existing technology and infrastructure that might be applied to a global effort are presented in Chapter 6, and developing technologies are identified. In Chapter 7, outreach, education, and capacity building are discussed. Proposed funding is discussed in Chapter 8 to provide readers with the committee's best estimate of costs for equipment, center operations, and staff support. Appendix C includes the agenda and list of participants for the International Global Ocean Exploration Workshop, and Appendix D is the summary of the workshop presentations and discussions. A list of oceanographic and fishery vessels of the world fleet is presented in Appendix E to introduce current global capacity for shipboard ocean research. Details of each ship are limited, however, and the seaworthiness of some vessels is not established. Appendix F is a list of international autonomous underwater vehicles.