Basic Science Aff/NegAffirmative1ACContention 1 Scientific MethodsStatus quo ocean exploration and development is asymmetrically focused on the applied sciences, or the search for knowledge with an applied purpose in mind. This method of applied science enforces a paradigm of negative institutional support and bias which shapes the way we execute research and interpret dataCarrier, Ph.D. in philosophy at the University of Mnster, 1 (Martin, Knowledge and Control: On the Bearing of Epistemic Values in Applied Science http://www.uni-bielefeld.de/philosophie/personen/carrier/Knowledge%20and%20ControlPU.pdf, accessed 7/3/14, LLM)The Primacy of Applied Science Among the general public, the esteem for science does not primarily arise from the fact that science endeavors to capture the structure of the universe or the principles that govern the tiniest parts of matter. Rather, public esteemand public fundingis for the greater part based on the assumption that science has a positive impact on the economy and contributes to securing or creating jobs. Consequently, applied science, not pure research, receives the lions share of attention and support. It is not knowledge that is highly evaluated in the first place but control of natural phenomena. The relationship between science and technology is widely represented by the so called cascade model. This model conceives of technological progress as growing out of knowledge gained in basic research. Technology arises from the application of the outcome of epistemically driven research to practical problems. The applied scientist proceeds like an engineer. He employs the toolkit of established principles and brings general theories to bear on technological challenges. The cascade model entails that promoting epistemic science is the best way to stimulating technological advancement. The preference granted to applied science increasingly directs university research at practical goals; not infrequently, it is sponsored by industry. Public and private institutions increasingly pursue applied projects; the scientific work done at a university institute and a company laboratory tend to become indistinguishable. This convergence is emphasized by strong institutional links. Universities found companies in order to market products based on their research. Companies buy themselves into universities or conclude large-scale contracts concerning joint projects. The interest in application shapes large areas of present-day science. This primacy of application puts science under pressure to quickly supply solutions to practical problems. Science is the first institution called upon if advice in practical matters is needed. This applies across the board to economic challenges (such as measures apt to stimulate the economy), environmental problems (such as global climate change or ozone layer depletion), or biological risks (such as AIDS or BSE). The reputation of science depends on whether it reliably delivers on such issues. The question naturally arises, then, whether this pressure toward quick, tangible and useful results is likely to alter the shape of scientific research and to compromise the epistemic values that used to characterize it. There are reasons for concern. Given the intertwining of science and technology, it is plausible to assume that the dominance of technological interests affects science as a whole. The high esteem for marketable goods could shape pure research in that only certain problem areas are addressed and that proposed solutions are judged exclusively by their technological suitability. That is, the dominant technological interests might narrow the agenda of research and encourage sloppy quality judgments. The question is what the search for control of natural phenomena does to science and whether it interferes with the search for knowledge.

The prioritization of applied science and utility distorts the epistemology of science and allows error replication; a new emphasis on pure research can change the ethos of scienceHansson, Royal Institute of Technology Department of Philosophy and History of Technology Chair, 7[Sven Ove, 3/28/07, Values in pure and applied science, Foundations of Science, 12:3, p. 258-260, EBSCO, IC]The corpus consists of generalized statements that describe and explain features of the world we live in, in terms dened by our methods of investigation and the concepts we have developed. Hence, what enters the corpus is not a selection of data but a set of statements of a more general nature. Whereas data refer to what has been observed, statements in the corpus refer to how things are and to what can be observed. Hypotheses are included into the corpus when the data provide sufcient evidence for them, and the same applies to corroborated generalizations that are based on explorative research.1 The scientic corpus is a highly complex construction, much too large to be mastered by a single person. Different parts of it are maintained by different groups of scientic experts. These parts are all constantly in development. New statements are added, and old ones removed, in each of the many subdisciplines, and a consolidating process based on contacts and cooperations between interconnected disciplines takes place continuously. In spite of this, the corpus is, at each point in time, reasonably well-dened. In most disciplines it is fairly easy to distinguish those statements that are, for the time being, generally accepted by the relevant experts from those that are contested, under investigation, or rejected. Hence, although the corpus is not perfectly well-dened, its vague margins are fairly narrow. The process that leads to modications of the corpus is based on strict standards of evidence that are an essential part of the ethos of science. When determining whether or not a new scientic hypothesis should be accepted for the time being, the onus of proof falls squarely to its adherents. Similarly, those who claim the existence of an as yet unproven phenomenon have the burden of proof. In other words, the corpus has high entry requirements. This is essential to prevent scientic progress from being blocked by wishful thinking and from the pursuit of all sorts of blind alleys. We must be cautious with what we take for granted in our scientic work. But of course there are limits to how high the requirements can be. We cannot leave everything open. We must be prepared to take some risks of being wrong, but these must be relatively small risks.The entry requirements of the corpus can be described in terms of how we weigh the disadvantages for future research of unnecessarily leaving a question unsettled against those of settling it incorrectly. This is closely related to what values we assign to truth and to avoidance of error. In addition, our decisions on corpus inclusion can be inuenced by other values that concern usefulness in future science, such as the simplicity and the explanatory power of a theory. All these are values, but they are not moral values. Hempel called them epistemic utilities and delineated them as follows: [T]he utilities should reect the value or disvalue which the different outcomes have from the point of view of pure scientic research rather than the practical advantages or disadvantages that might result from the application of an accepted hypothesis, according as the latter is true or false. Let me refer to the kind of utilities thus vaguely characterized as purely scientic, or epistemic, utilities. (Hempel 1960: 465) Whereas epistemic values determine what we allow into the corpus, inuence from non-epistemic values is programmatically excluded. According to the ethos of science, what is included in the corpus should not depend on how we would like things to be but on what we have evidence for. Therefore, it is part of every scientists training to leave out non-epistemic values from her scientic deliberations as far as possible. This, of course, is not perfectly achieved. As was noted by Ziman, we researchers all have interests and values that we try to promote in our scientic work, however hard we try to surpass them. But as he also noted, the essence of the academic ethos is that it denes a culture designed to keep them as far as possible under control (Ziman 1996: 72).2The focus on applied science ignores the fundamental constitutive value of pure science research; pure science is necessary to view knowledge and life as intrinsically valuable.Kirschenmann, University of Amsterdam Department of Philosophy of Religion and Comparative Study of Religions Professor, 1[Peter P., 2001, INTRINSICALLY OR JUST INSTRUMENTALLY VALUABLE? ON STRUCTURAL TYPES OF VALUES OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE, Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 32, EBSCO, p. 254-255, IC]In particular, I have pointed out that, and in what sense, scientic knowledge, like everyday knowledge, also possesses functional value and constitutive value. Furthermore, my investigation could, in general terms, be said to have issued in a certain defense of the intrinsic value of scientic knowing, along with the inherent value of scientic knowledge. In this connection, I have cautioned those who might be inclined to draw hasty moral conclusions from the intrinsic value of things. Taking a broader perspective, I should maintain that all forms of knowing can be attributed a fundamental constitutive value. Knowing is an essential part of our being and acting in the world, which in general is considered to be a good thing. The cognitive dimension pervades all of our lives, e.g. our emotions, our relations with things and with other people. At the same time, on the considerations and analysis presented here, many cases of knowing can be experiences that as such are intrinsically valuable, e.g. an everyday perception of some object or getting acquainted with a stranger. There are various views which would question, maybe not the conceptual distinctions proposed, but the value-type attributions countenanced here. I mentioned sociological views which prevent the question of an intrinsic value of scientic knowledge from arising. I referred to pragmatist views which in their way refuse to grant any intrinsic value of knowledge or truth. In a Hegelian perspective, clearly, one would not speak of the intrinsic or inherent value of nite, individual things or experiences at all; similarly, one would not accord them any nal value. In a Christian theological perspective, one might at least hesitate to do so, holding that nothing in created reality has the source of its value in itself (with the possible exception of autonomous persons leading a God-pleasing life). As concerns knowledge, this idea is backed up by quite a theological tradition which connes itself to discussing differences in its usefulness and its uselessness, or vanity. Finally, I owe the reader some answer to the query, mentioned in the beginning, of how one could even consider attributing intrinsic value to such diverse things as knowledge and nature or animals. Apart from my arguing that not intrinsic value, but at most inherent value, can be attributed to concrete particular things, the answer is rather straightforward. Intrinsic value, like all other types of value discussed here, is a structurally characterized value type; such value types can in principle be applied to knowledge and sundry other things. Saying that something has intrinsic value just means that the source of its value lies in the thing itself. This does not imply that the intrinsic value of knowing is the same, or of the same kind, as the intrinsic value of natural activities of animals. There of course remains the laborious task of specifying what these intrinsic values substantially consist of. That of knowing surely includes some satisfaction of curiosity, while that of animal activity may include enjoyment of movement. Whether something morally ought to be striven for or be protected will also depend on such further substantial specications.31

Applied science is a failing model for ocean policy; only a return to pure exploration can build understanding between scientists, policymakers, and science educators.Baptista et al, Ph. D in Civil Engineering from MIT and director of NSF Sci & Tech center, 8[Antonio, 2008, Scientific exploration in the era of ocean observatories, http://vgc.poly.edu/~juliana/pub/cmop-cise2008.pdf, 7-6-14, FCB]Future scientific exploration is likely to involve groups that are occasionally geographically distributed and often diverse in expertise. The disparity of expertise in handling and interpreting complex scientific data will be even wider when comparing trained scientists with managers and policy makers who will attempt to use observatories to inform their decisions or with students whose education will depend crucially on unfettered access to observatory data and products. A major challenge (and opportunity) is thus to facilitate a redefined scientific exploration of ocean data, in which we no longer expect that expert scientists who collect or generate the data sets will also conduct the first line of data analysis. Instead, analysts will face an abundance of heterogeneous data and tools, and they will lack expert knowledge of at least some of these ingredients. Under these circumstances, it will be necessary to expertly assist these analysts. Its useful, as an abstraction, to conceptualize that such assistance will be provided in part by a multi-sensorial softwareand-data environment that we refer to as RoboCMOP, as Figure 3 shows. RoboCMOP could advance scientific exploration by accelerating the cycle of science and education, fostering creative thinking, reducing opportunities for key data going unnoticed, and providing tools for capturing, managing, and reusing abstract representations of scientific expertise.PlanThe United States federal government should substantially increase its investment in the Okeanos Explorer program. Contention 2 - SolvencyCurrent ocean budgets are cutting funds for pure science the Okeanos Explorer needs increased federal investmentAdams, NRDC Ocean writer, 14[Alexandra, 3/25/14, NRDC Switchboard, A Blue Budget Beyond Sequester: Taking care of our oceans, http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/aadams/a_blue_budget_beyond_sequester.html, accessed 7/11/14, TYBG]Unfortunately, some critical programs wont get what they need this year. This years budget cuts funding for Ocean Exploration and Research by $7 million. This funding has supported exploration by the research vessel Okeanos of deep sea corals and other marine life in the submarine canyons and seamounts off the Mid-Atlantic and New England coasts that fisheries managers and ocean conservation groups, including NRDC, are working to protect. Even though funds are stretched, shortchanging exploration and research will lead to weaker protections for species and resources that are already under stress.Now is the key time to shift our federal budget priorities for ocean exploration the potential benefits are endlessEtzioni, Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University, 14(Amitai Etzioni is University Professor and professor of International Affairs and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, Final Frontier vs. Fruitful Frontier: The Case for Increasing Ocean Exploration, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 14, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)Every year, the federal budget process begins with a White House-issued budget request, which lays out spending priorities for federal programs. From this moment forward, President Obama and his successors should use this opportunity to correct a longstanding misalignment of federal research priorities: excessive spending on space exploration and neglect of ocean studies. The nation should begin transforming the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) into a greatly reconstructed, independent, and effective federal agency. In the present fiscal climate of zero-sum budgeting, the additional funding necessary for this agency should be taken from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). The basic reason is that deep spaceNASAs favorite turfis a distant, hostile, and barren place, the study of which yields few major discoveries and an abundance of overhyped claims. By contrast, the oceans are nearby, and their study is a potential source of discoveries that could prove helpful for addressing a wide range of national concerns from climate change to disease; for reducing energy, mineral, and potable water shortages; for strengthening industry, security, and defenses against natural disasters such as hurricanes and tsunamis; for increasing our knowledge about geological history; and much more. Nevertheless, the funding allocated for NASA in the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act for FY 2013 was 3.5 times higher than that allocated for NOAA. Whatever can be said on behalf of a trip to Mars or recent aspirations to revisit the Moon, the same holds many times over for exploring the oceans; some illustrative examples follow. (I stand by my record: In The Moondoggle, published in 1964, I predicted that there was less to be gained in deep space than in near spacethe sphere in which communication, navigations, weather, and reconnaissance satellites orbitand argued for unmanned exploration vehicles and for investment on our planet instead of the Moon.)

The Okeanos Explorer is a unique vessel; it has the best equipment and planning for exploration and best coordination with research scientistsLobecker et al, Physical Scientist with the NOAA, 12[Elizabeth, 3-12, Oceanography VOL. 25 NO. 1, Always Exploring, 7-5-14, FCB]NOAAs Okeanos Explorer, Americas ship for ocean exploration, systematically explores the ocean every day of every cruise to maximize public benefit from the ships unique capabilities. Always Exploring is a guiding principle. With 95% of the ocean unexplored, we pursue every opportunity to map, sample, explore, and survey at planned destinations as well as during transits. Throughout the ships geographically diverse 2010 and 2011 field seasons, multiple opportunities arose to transform standard operational transit cruises into interdisciplinary explorations by acquiring high-quality, innovative scientific data around the clock, and rapidly disseminating those data to the public.During cruise planning, transits are optimized to allow mapping of unexplored or unmapped regions. We review input received from ocean science and management communities to identify unexplored regions for possible inclusion. We also consult those scientists and managers to verify that potential targets remain a high priority and were not recently explored.The Okeanos Explorer Program also supports surveys of opportunity to add layers of scientific value to cruises. We conduct nonmapping surveys of opportunity and include well-defined exploratory operations that help transform standard ship shakedown and transit mapping cruises into multilayered voyages of discovery. Surveys selected are those that reflect the exploration mission or provide an opportunity to test additional capabilities that could be incorporated into systematic exploration operations.Institutional support of exploration is necessary to advance marine scienceDeacon et al, historian specializing in oceanography and fellow @ School of Ocean and Earth Southampton U, 01[Margaret, Understanding the Oceans: A Century of Ocean Exploration, pg. 1, FCB] Expedition was a pioneering venture that had a profound impact both on the contemporary development of marine science, and on its subsequent metamorphosis into an international scientific discipline. This is why it continues to capture the imagination of successive generations of oceanographers. But what has its true legacy been? While the scale of the scientific achievement, and of its impact on later work, are amply borne out by examples given in this book. Chapters I and 2 take a rather more critical look at the expedition than perhaps might have been possible at the time of the celebrations, in (1972), of the centenary of its departure. They reveal that, in spite of being a truly remarkable achievement, both in terms of its organization and in the work it carried out, the Challenger Expedition did not provide the sort of impetus that its subsequent reputation might lead us to expect in cither of the particular aspects of marine science highlighted in this book, that is, the significance of technological innovation and of adequate institutions in scientific development.History plainly shows that, in science, institutions as well as individuals have an important role to play. Science is not an abstract body of knowledge, but represents the human activity of observing and interpreting independently existing complex natural phenomena. To encapsulate the closest approximation possible at any one time concerning how these operate, scientists use concepts that they constantly seek to extend and refine, but do not necessarily agree over. The formulation of ideas may be the present; of the individual, but those ideas only gain their power and influence through being promulgated and discussed in scientific societies and journals, and the detailed and interdisciplinary work needed to con- firm or transform them, especially when directed towards an objective as large and complex as the ocean, needs to be done through organizations or groups. The Challengers enduring as the ocean, needs to be done through organizations or groups. The Challengers enduring influence on marine science was due in great measure to the publication of the report of the expedition, but after this promising start there remained no public organization to carry on its work. It is only in the twentieth century that permanent institutions dedicated to occanographic research have been established, mostly since 1945.Basic research is a precondition to applied research without open-ended scientific questions, we can never determine the frame within which we need to solve problemsRoll-Hansen, Historian and Philosopher of biology at University of Oslo, 9[Nils, Centre for the Philosophy of Natural and Social Science, Why the distinction between basic (theoretical) and applied (practical) research is important in the politics of science, http://www.lse.ac.uk/CPNSS/research/concludedResearchProjects/ContingencyDissentInScience/DP/DPRoll-HansenOnline0409.pdf, accessed 7/5/14, TYBG]Basic research, on the other hand, is successful when it discovers new phenomena or new ideas of general interest. The general scientific interest is judged in the first instance by the discipline in question. But in the long run the promotion of other scientific disciplines is essential, and in the last instance the improvement of our general world picture is decisive. The aim of basic research is theoretical, to improve general understanding. It has no specific aim outside of this. But it is, of course, not accidental that improved understanding of the world increases our ability to act rationally and efficiently. It improves our grasp of what the world is like and is thus also a basis for developing efficient technologies. Some degree of realism with respect to scientific theories is inherent in basic research in this sense. The social effect of applied research, when successful, is solutions to practical problems as recognized by politicians, government bureaucrats, commercial entrepreneurs, etc. It is an instrument in the service of its patron. Applied research helps interpret and refine the patron's problems to make them researchable, and then investigates possible solutions. The practical problems of the patron set the frame for the activity. Applied research is in this sense subordinate to social, economic and political aims. Rewards are primarily for results that help the patron realize his purposes.The result of basic research, when successful, is discovery of new phenomena and new ideas of general interest. By shaping our understanding of the world the discoveries of basic science become preconditions for any precise formulation of political and other practical problems. Sometimes basic research has a direct and dramatic effect by discovering new threatening problems and thus immediately setting a new political agenda. The present grave concern over climate change is a striking example of how politics is completely dependent on science to assess the problem, i.e. make educated guesses about its future magnitude and development, and think of possible countermeasures.The differences between applied and basic research in content, in social effects, and in criteria for success imply a different relationship to politics. Science does not only provide means (instruments) for solving tasks or problems set by politics, it also shapes social and political values and goals. Applied research is generally well adapted to serve the first task while basic research is best suited for the second. From the point of view of liberal democratic decision- making there is an important distinction between solving recognized problems and introducing and formulating new problems. In the first case science has an instrumental role subordinate to politics. In the second case the role is politically enlightening and depends on independence from politics to work well. When science is asked for advice on a fearful threat like climate change, which has not yet materialized but is only a prediction about future events, the importance of autonomy becomes particularly acute and correspondingly hard to maintain.

Now is the key time to reemphasize pure science and exploration; observational data is necessary to allow subsequent developments in applied scienceMartin, Science and Technology Policy Researcher at University of Sussex, and Calvery, Science Technology and Innovation Studies, University of Edinburgh, 1[Jane, Ben, 9/2001, SPRU, Changing Conception of Basic Research, http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/2674369.pdf, accessed 7/5/14, TYBG]3.5.1 Is basic research becoming more important?Some interviewees judged that conditions were getting better for basic research in the current climate. Several scientists in the UK commented that the political climate for basic research is better than it was in the 1970s and 1980s. One reason given for the increased importance of basic research is the emergence of certain new technologies (such as biotechnology) which require very basic research but then quickly produce marketable products (Elzinga 1985) now a fundamental breakthrough can simultaneously be a commercial breakthrough (Crook 1992). This is how strategic research is often described. A UK policy maker observed that now it is often difficult to make a distinction between basic and applied research. Because the speed of research is increasing, because the speed of moving from discovery to exploitation is increasing, and because the same individual people can be involved in any point of the cycle.One US policy maker ascribed this phenomenon to more advanced instrumentation; because tools are better, it is possible to go straight from the modeling stage (often involving computer imaging) to development, without having to go through the traditional intermediate phases. The interviewee mentioned pharmaceuticals in this context but implied that this was occurring more generally. This could also feed into the justification for the funding of basic research; a UK policy maker pointed out that because of the rapid pull-through from basic research into application it was now easier for the public to accept the importance of basic research. Yet if these suggestions are correct and basic research is becoming more important, it may be that because of its closer links with technology the research itself is changing in subtle ways.

Basic research is necessary to make science a self-correcting process, which resolves problems in our knowledge and applications. Criticisms of science are targeted toward applied science, not basic research.Hutcheon, former prof of sociology of education @ U British Columbia, 93[Pat, A Critique of "Biology as Ideology: The Doctrine of DNA", http://www.humanists.net/pdhutcheon/humanist%20articles/lewontn.htm, 7-5-14, FCB]The introductory lecture in this series articulated the increasingly popular "postmodernist" claim that all science is ideology. Lewontin then proceeded to justify this by stating the obvious: that scientists are human like the rest of us and subject to the same biases and socio-cultural imperatives. Although he did not actually say it, his comments seemed to imply that the enterprise of scientific research and knowledge building could therefore be no different and no more reliable as a guide to action than any other set of opinions. The trouble is that, in order to reach such an conclusion, one would have to ignore all those aspects of the scientific endeavor that do in fact distinguish it from other types and sources of belief formation. Indeed, if the integrity of the scientific endeavor depended only on the wisdom and objectivity of the individuals engaged in it we would be in trouble. North American agriculture would today be in the state of that in Russia today. In fact it would be much worse, for the Soviets threw out Lysenko's ideology-masquerading-as-science decades ago. Precisely because an alternative scientific model was available (thanks to the disparaged Darwinian theory) the former Eastern bloc countries have been partially successful in overcoming the destructive chain of consequences which blind faith in ideology had set in motion. This is what Lewontin's old Russian dissident professor meant when he said that the truth must be spoken, even at great personal cost. How sad that Lewontin has apparently failed to understand the fact that while scientific knowledge -- with the power it gives us -- can and does allow humanity to change the world, ideological beliefs have consequences too. By rendering their proponents politically powerful but rationally and instrumentally impotent, they throw up insurmountable barriers to reasoned and value-guided social change. What are the crucial differences between ideology and science that Lewonton has ignored? Both Karl Popper and Thomas Kuhn have spelled these out with great care -- the former throughout a long lifetime of scholarship devoted to that precise objective. Stephen Jay Gould has also done a sound job in this area. How strange that someone with the status of Lewontin, in a series of lectures supposedly covering the same subject, would not at least have dealt with their arguments! Science has to do with the search for regularities in what humans experience of their physical and social environments, beginning with the most simple units discernible, and gradually moving towards the more complex. It has to do with expressing these regularities in the clearest and most precise language possible, so that cause-and-effect relations among the parts of the system under study can be publicly and rigorously tested. And it has to do with devising explanations of those empirical regularities which have survived all attempts to falsify them. These explanations, once phrased in the form of testable hypotheses, become predictors of future events. In other words, they lead to further conjectures of additional relationships which, in their turn, must survive repeated public attempts to prove them wanting -- if the set of related explanations (or theory) is to continue to operate as a fruitful guide for subsequent research. This means that science, unlike mythology and ideology, has a self-correcting mechanism at its very heart. A conjecture, to be classed as scientific, must be amenable to empirical test. It must, above all, be open to refutation by experience. There is a rigorous set of rules according to which hypotheses are formulated and research findings are arrived at, reported and replicated. It is this process -- not the lack of prejudice of the particular scientist, or his negotiating ability, or even his political power within the relevant university department -- that ensures the reliability of scientific knowledge. The conditions established by the community of science is one of precisely defined and regulated "intersubjectivity". Under these conditions the theory that wins out, and subsequently prevails, does so not because of its agreement with conventional wisdom or because of the political power of its proponents, as is often the case with ideology. The survival of a scientific theory such as Darwin's is due, instead, to its power to explain and predict observable regularities in human experience, while withstanding worldwide attempts to refute it -- and proving itself open to elaboration and expansion in the process. In this sense only is scientific knowledge objective and universal. All this has little relationship to the claim of an absolute universality of objective "truth" apart from human strivings that Lewontin has attributed to scientists. Because ideologies, on the other hand, do claim to represent truth, they are incapable of generating a means by which they can be corrected as circumstances change. Legitimate science makes no such claims. Scientific tests are not tests of verisimilitude. Science does not aim for "true" theories purporting to reflect an accurate picture of the "essence" of reality. It leaves such claims of infallibility to ideology. The tests of science, therefore, are in terms of workability and falsifiability, and its propositions are accordingly tentative in nature. A successful scientific theory is one which, while guiding the research in a particular problem area, is continuously elaborated, revised and refined, until it is eventually superseded by that very hypothesis-making and testing process that it helped to define and sharpen. An ideology, on the other hand, would be considered to have failed under those conditions, for the "truth" must be for all time. More than anything, it is this difference that confuses those ideological thinkers who are compelled to attack Darwin's theory of evolution precisely because of its success as a scientific theory. For them, and the world of desired and imagined certainty in which they live, that very success in contributing to a continuously evolving body of increasingly reliable -- albeit inevitably tentative -- knowledge can only mean failure, in that the theory itself has altered in the process.Ocean exploration should be our highest research priority. The benefits from ocean exploration outweigh any other science expenditure, and are key to understanding climate change, energy production, medicine, and the economy.Etzioni, Professor of International Affairs at George Washington University, 14(Amitai Etzioni is University Professor and professor of International Affairs and director of the Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at George Washington University, Final Frontier vs. Fruitful Frontier: The Case for Increasing Ocean Exploration, Issues in Science and Technology, Summer 14, http://etzioni.typepad.com/files/etzioni---final-frontier-vs.-fruitful-frontier-ist-summer-2014.pdf)Although these technologies are promising, additional research is needed not only for further development but also to adapt them to regional differences. For instance, ocean wave conversion technology is suitable only in locations in which the waves are of the same sort for which existing technologies were developed and in locations where the waves also generate enough energy to make the endeavor profitable. One study shows that thermohaline circulation ocean circulation driven by variations in temperature and salinityvaries from area to area, and climate change is likely to alter thermohaline circulation in the future in ways that could affect the use of energy generators that rely on ocean currents. Additional research would help scientists understand how to adapt energy technologies for use in specific environments and how to avoid the potential environmental consequences of their use. Renewable energy resources are the oceans particularly attractive energy product; they contribute much less than coal or natural gas to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions. However, it is worth noting that the oceans do hold vast reserves of untapped hydrocarbon fuels. Deep-sea drilling technologies remain immature; although it is possible to use oil rigs in waters of 8,000 to 9,000 feet, greater depths require the use of specially-designed drilling ships that still face significant challenges. Deep-water drilling that takes place in depths of more than 500 feet is the next big frontier for oil and natural-gas production, projected to expand offshore oil production by 18% by 2020. One should expect the development of new technologies that would enable drilling petroleum and natural gas at even greater depths than presently possible and under layers of salt and other barriers. In addition to developing these technologies, entire other lines of research are needed to either mitigate the side effects of large-scale usage of these technologies or to guarantee that these effects are small. Although it has recently become possible to drill beneath Arctic ice, the technologies are largely untested. Environmentalists fear that ocean turbines could harm fish or marine mammals, and it is feared that wave conversion technologies would disturb ocean floor sediments, impede migration of ocean animals, prevent waves from clearing debris, or harm animals. Demand has pushed countries to develop technologies to drill for oil beneath ice or in the deep sea without much regard for the safety or environmental concerns associated with oil spills. At present, there is no developed method for cleaning up oil spills in the Arctic, a serious problem that requires additional research if Arctic drilling is to commence on a larger scale. More ocean potential When large quantities of public funds are invested in a particular research and development project, particularly when the payoff is far from assured, it is common for those responsible for the project to draw attention to the additional benefitsspinoffsgenerated by the project as a means of adding to its allure. This is particularly true if the project can be shown to improve human health. Thus, NASA has claimed that its space exploration benefit[ted] pharmaceutical drug development and assisted in developing a new type of sensor that provides real-time image recognition capabilities, that it developed an optics technology in the 1970s that now is used to screen children for vision problems, and that a type of software developed for vibration analysis on the Space Shuttle is now used to diagnose medical issues. Similarly, opportunities to identify the components of the organisms that facilitate increased virulence in space could in theoryNASA claimsbe used on Earth to pinpoint targets for anti-microbial therapeutics. Ocean research, as modest as it is, has already yielded several medical spinoffs. The discovery of one species of Japanese black sponge, which produces a substance that successfully blocks division of tumorous cells, led researchers to develop a late-stage breast cancer drug. An expedition near the Bahamas led to the discovery of a bacterium that produces substances that are in the process of being synthesized as antibiotics and anticancer compounds. In addition to the aforementioned cancer fighting compounds, chemicals that combat neuropathic pain, treat asthma and inflammation, and reduce skin irritation have been isolated from marine organisms. One Arctic Sea organism alone produced three antibiotics. Although none of the three ultimately proved pharmaceutically significant, current concerns that strains of bacteria are developing resistance to the antibiotics of last resort is a strong reason to increase funding for bioprospecting. Additionally, the blood cells of horseshoe crabs contain a chemicalwhich is found nowhere else in nature and so far has yet to be synthesizedthat can detect bacterial contamination in pharmaceuticals and on the surfaces of surgical implants. Some research indicates that between 10 and 30 percent of horseshoe crabs that have been bled die, and that those that survive are less likely to mate. It would serve for research to indicate the ways these creatures can be better protected. Up to two-thirds of all marine life remains unidentified, with 226,000 eukaryotic species already identified and more than 2,000 species discovered every year, according to Ward Appeltans, a marine biologist at the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO. Contrast these discoveries of new species in the oceans with the frequent claims that space exploration will lead to the discovery of extraterrestrial life. For example, in 2010 NASA announced that it had made discoveries on Mars that [would] impact the search for evidence of extraterrestrial life but ultimately admitted that they had no definitive detection of Martian organics. The discovery that prompted the initial press releasethat NASA had discovered a possible arsenic pathway in metabolism and that thus life was theoretically possible under conditions different than those on Earthwas then thoroughly rebutted by a panel of NASAselected experts. The comparison with ocean science is especially stark when one considers that oceanographers have already discovered real organisms that rely on chemosynthesis the process of making glucose from water and carbon dioxide by using the energy stored in chemical bonds of inorganic compoundsliving near deep sea vents at the bottom of the oceans. The same is true of the search for mineral resources. NASA talks about the potential for asteroid mining, but it will be far easier to find and recover minerals suspended in ocean waters or beneath the ocean floor. Indeed, resources beneath the ocean floor are already being commercially exploited, whereas there is not a near-term likelihood of commercial asteroid mining. Another major justification cited by advocates for the pricey missions to Mars and beyond is that we dont know enough about the other planets and the universe in which we live. However, the same can be said of the deep oceans. Actually, we know much more about the Moon and even about Mars than we know about the oceans. Maps of the Moon are already strikingly accurate, and even amateur hobbyists have crafted highly detailed pictures of the Moonminus the dark sideas one set of documents from University College Londons archives seems to demonstrate. By 1967, maps and globes depicting the complete lunar surface were produced. By contrast, about 90% of the worlds oceans had not yet been mapped as of 2005. Furthermore, for years scientists have been fascinated by noises originating at the bottom of the ocean, known creatively as the Bloop and Julia, among others. And the worlds largest known waterfall can be found entirely underwater between Greenland and Iceland, where cold, dense Arctic water from the Greenland Sea drops more than 11,500 feet before reaching the seafloor of the Denmark Strait. Much remains poorly understood about these phenomena, their relevance to the surrounding ecosystem, and the ways in which climate change will affect their continued existence. In short, there is much that humans have yet to understand about the depths of the oceans, further research into which could yield important insights about Earths geological history and the evolution of humans and society. Addressing these questions surpasses the importance of another Mars rover or a space observatory designed to answer highly specific questions of importance mainly to a few dedicated astrophysicists, planetary scientists, and select colleagues.Science Diplomacy Advantage1ACPure science is key to sustainable science diplomacy and global leadershipColetta, PhD in Political Science at Duke University, 9 (Damon, Masters in Public Policy @ Harvard, Assoc Prof of Geopolitics & National Security Policy @ US Air Force Academy, September 2009, http://www.usafa.edu/df/inss/Research%20Papers/2009/09%20Coletta%20Science%20and%20InfluenceINSS(FINAL).pdf, accessed 7/9/14, LLM)Less appreciated is how scientific progress facilitates diplomatic strategy in the long run, how it contributes to Joseph Nyes soft power, which translates to staying power in the international arena. One possible escape from the geopolitical forces depicted in Thucydides history for all time is for the current hegemon to maintain its lead in science, conceived as a national program and as an enterprise belonging to all mankind. Beyond the new technologies for projecting military or economic power, the scientific ethos conditions the hegemons approach to social-political problems. It effects how the leader organizes itself and other states to address well-springs of discontentmaterial inequity, religious or ethnic oppression, and environmental degradation. The scientific mantle attracts others admiration, which softens or at least complicates other societies resentment of power disparity. Finally, for certain global problemsnuclear proliferation, climate change, and financial crisisthe scientific lead ensures robust representation in transnational epistemic communities that can shepherd intergovernmental negotiations on to a conservative, or secular, path in terms of preserving international order. In todays order, U.S. hegemony is yet in doubt even though military and economic indicators confirm its status as the worlds lone superpower. America possesses the material where withal to maintain its lead in the sciences, but it also desires to bear the standard for freedom and democracy. Unfortunately, patronage of basic science does not automatically flourish with liberal democracy. The free market and the mass public impose demands on science that tend to move research out of the basic and into applied realms. Absent the lead in basic discovery, no country can hope to pioneer humanitys quest to know Nature. There is a real danger U.S. state and society could permanently confuse sponsorship of technology with patronage of science, thereby delivering a self-inflicted blow to U.S. leadership among nations.US Science Diplomacy promotes solutions to multiple systemic issuesFederoff, Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID, 8(Nina, April 2, 2008, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION, http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf, accessed 7-11-2014, LK)The welfare and stability of countries and regions in many parts of the globe require a concerted effort by the developed world to address the causal factors that render countries fragile and cause states to fail. Countries that are unable to defend their people against starvation, or fail to provide economic opportunity, are susceptible to extremist ideologies, autocratic rule, and abuses of human rights. As well, the world faces common threats, among them climate change, energy and water shortages, public health emergencies, environmental degradation, poverty, food insecurity, and religious extremism. These threats can undermine the national security of the United States, both directly and indirectly. Many are blind to political boundaries, becoming regional or global threats. The United States has no monopoly on knowledge in a globalizing world and the scientific challenges facing humankind are enormous. Addressing these common challenges demands common solutions and necessitates scientific cooperation, common standards, and common goals. We must increasingly harness the power of American ingenuity in science and technology through strong partnerships with the science community in both academia and the private sector, in the U.S. and abroad among our allies, to advance U.S. interests in foreign policy. 2AC Pure Science Solves SDPure science is key to international science diplomacy Anthis, Rhodes Scholar Post-Doctoral Researcher, 9(Nick, September 17th, THE UNIVERSALITY OF BASIC SCIENCE MAY BE THE DEEPEST LINK BETWEEN THE US AND THE MUSLIM WORLD, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/a_universal_truth/, accessed 7/9/14, LLM)In more general terms, scientific diplomacy is an idea that makes a great deal of sense. Most simply, in our 21st century society, science and technology so permeate our everyday lives that few areas of government policy can regularly ignore such considerations. More poignantly, however, science is fundamentally an international endeavor. Even the least senior scientists (i.e. grad students and post-docs) may travel internationally at a frequency that rivals that of the more senior members of many other professions. A lab in the US may have ongoing scientific collaborations (or heated competitions) with labs in Europe, Asia, or elsewhere. Advances in technology have aided these collaborations tremendously, making differences in time zones the only real obstacle still preventing regular face-to-face communication (by voice-over IP video conferencing) between scientists on opposite sides of the globe. Finally, scientific findings are published in international journals accessible to anyone who reads English and whose institution subscribes to the journal (although the rise of open-access publishing is easing this final constraint).This internationality stems from another fundamental aspect of science: that its truths are universal. Independent of location, culture, or religion, the process of evaluating scientific knowledge shouldin principle, at leastremain the same. Of course, as Jasanoff points out, the successful application of scientific findings to address societal needs is affected by all of these subjective factors. But the universality of basic science may be the deepest link that the US and the Muslim world share. (On the flipside, we also share many of the same enemies of scientific progress; as in the US, creationism has flourished in many majority-Muslim countries.) Today, the US can still claim to be the worlds greatest scientific powerthough maybe only tenuously. A thousand years ago, however, the Middle East would have unequivocally held that designationanother common link and an important reminder that preeminence is not permanent.So, where does this leave us in terms of actual scientific diplomacy? Centers of scientific excellence and science envoys are both good ideas, and I expect that well see a vamped-up corps of science envoys in the very near future. Beyond these actions, though, the Obama administration should look for ways to encourage further collaborations between practicing scientists in the US and the Muslim world, and programs along these lines may be simpler to implement and more likely to yield the desired results. New education and travel grants to send American scientists to work in the Middle East and elsewhereand vice versawould be one avenue. One of the greatest gifts the US has to offer the outside world is graduate education at our many research universities, and we need to ensure that this option is as accessible as possibleand not hampered by the visa and immigration difficulties that became so much more common after 9/11. Additional grants to bring outside scientists to the US to attend conferences or workshops or to meet with collaborators could also be helpful.These actions should help foster the exchange of ideas between scientists in the US and Muslim countries. New scientific collaborations will help advance scientific progress and may help focus resources to pertinent problems that would otherwise be neglected. Such collaborations also have the immediate benefit of improving the scope and impact of the scientists work, assisting with career advancement and raising the prestige of local research communities. In the long run, the hope is that this exchange of scientific ideas will contribute to greater cross-cultural appreciation and understanding. Given the vast resources that have been wasted creating an enormous credibility gap between the US and the Muslim world (particularly through the Iraq war), scientific diplomacy is certainly a cause worth funding.2AC SD Solves WoTScience diplomacy is key to the war on terror it fosters development that weakens the impetus and secures loose WMDsFederoff, Science and Technology Adviser to the Secretary of State and the Administrator of USAID, 8(Nina, April 2, 2008, TESTIMONY BEFORE THE HOUSE SCIENCE SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH AND SCIENCE EDUCATION, http://gop.science.house.gov/Media/Hearings/research08/April2/fedoroff.pdf, accessed 7-11-2014, LK)An essential part of the war on terrorism is a war of ideas. The creation of economic opportunity can do much more to combat the rise of fanaticism than can any weapon. The war of ideas is a war about rationalism as opposed to irrationalism. Science and technology put us firmly on the side of rationalism by providing ideas and opportunities that improve peoples lives. We may use the recognition and the goodwill that science still generates for the United States to achieve our diplomatic and developmental goals. Additionally, the Department continues to use science as a means to reduce the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction and prevent what has been dubbed brain drain. Through cooperative threat reduction activities, former weapons scientists redirect their skills to participate in peaceful, collaborative international research in a large variety of scientific fields. In addition, new global efforts focus on improving biological, chemical, and nuclear security by promoting and implementing best scientific practices as a means to enhance security, increase global partnerships, and create sustainability.2AC SD Solves WarmingInternational science diplomacy key to international solutions to warmingHulme and Mahony, Fellows on the Science, Technology and Society Program at Harvard University 10 [Mike and Martin, Climate change: what do we know about the IPCC?, http://mikehulme.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Hulme-Mahony-PiPG.pdf, accessed 7/12/14, LK]The consequences of this geography of IPCC expertise are significant, affecting the construction of IPCC emissions scenarios (Parikh, 1992), the framing and shaping of climate change knowledge (Shackley, 1997; Lahsen, 2007; ONeill et al., 2010) and the legitimacy of the knowledge assessments themselves (Elzinga, 1996; Weingart, 1999; Lahsen, 2004; Grundmann, 2007; Mayer & Arndt, 2009; Beck, 2010). As Bert Bolin, the then chairmen of the IPCC remarked back in 1991: Right now, many countries, especially developing countries, simply do not trust assessments in which their scientists and policymakers have not participated. Dont you think credibility demands global representation? (cited in Schneider, 1991). Subsequent evidence for such suspicions has come from many quarters (e.g. Karlsson et al., 2007) and Kandlikar and Sagar concluded their 1999 study of the North-South knowledge divide by arguing, ... it must be recognised that a fair and effective climate protection regime that requires cooperation with developing countries, will also require their participation in the underlying research, analysis and assessment (p.137). This critique is also voiced more recently by Myanna Lahsen (2004) in her study of Brazil and the climate change regime: Brazilian climate scientists reflect some distrust of ... the IPCC, which they describe as dominated by Northern framings of the problems and therefore biased against interpretations and interest of the South (p.161).Ext - Inherency UnderfundingThe USfg is underfunding ocean exploration its key to solve the economy and strengthen leadershipBidwell, US News, 13[Allie, 9-25-14, Scientists Release First Plan for National Ocean Exploration Program, http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2013/09/25/scientists-release-first-plan-for-national-ocean-exploration-program, US News, FCB]More than three-quarters of what lies beneath the surface of the ocean is unknown, even to trained scientists and researchers. Taking steps toward discovering what resources and information the seas hold, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Aquarium of the Pacific released on Wednesday a report that details plans to create the nation's first ocean exploration program by the year 2020.The reportstems from a national convening of more than 100 federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, nonprofit organizations and private companies to discuss what components should make up a national ocean exploration program and what will be needed to create it."This is the first time the explorers themselves came together and said, 'this is the kind of program we want and this is what it's going to take,'" says Jerry Schubel, president and CEO of the Aquarium of the Pacific, located in Long Beach, Calif. "That's very important, particularly when you put it in the context that the world ocean is the largest single component of Earth's living infrastructure ... and less than 10 percent of it has ever been explored."In order to create a comprehensive exploration program, Schubel says it will become increasingly important that federal and state agencies form partnerships with other organizations, as it is unlikely that government funding for ocean exploration will increase in the next few years.Additionally, Schubel says there was a consensus among those explorers and stakeholders who gathered in July that participating organizations need to take advantage of technologies that are available and place a greater emphasis on public engagement and citizen exploration utilizing the data that naturalists and nonscientists collect on their own."In coastal areas at least, given some of these new low-cost robots that are available, they could actually produce data that would help us understand the nation's coastal environment," Schubel says.Expanding the nation's ocean exploration program could lead to more jobs, he adds, and could also serve as an opportunity to engage children and adults in careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics, or STEM."I think what we need to do as a nation is make STEM fields be seen by young people as exciting career trajectories," Schubel says. "We need to reestablish the excitement of science and engineering, and I think ocean exploration gives us a way to do that."Schubel says science centers, museums and aquariums can serve as training grounds to give children and adults the opportunity to learn more about the ocean and what opportunities exist in STEM fields."One thing that we can contribute more than anything else is to let kids and families come to our institutions and play, explore, make mistakes, and ask silly questions without being burdened down by the kinds of standards that our formal K-12 and K-14 schools have to live up to," Schubel says.Conducting more data collection and exploration quests is also beneficial from an economic standpoint because explorers have the potential to identify new resources, both renewable and nonrenewable. Having access to those materials, such as oils and minerals, and being less dependent on other nations, Schubel says, could help improve national security.Each time explorers embark on a mission to a new part of the ocean, they bring back more detailed information by mapping the sea floor and providing high-resolution images of what exists, says David McKinnie, a senior advisor for NOAA's Office of Ocean Exploration and Research and a co-author of the report. On almost every expedition, he says, the scientists discover new species. In a trip to Indonesia in 2010, for example, McKinnie says researchers discovered more than 50 new species of coral."It's really a reflection of how unknown the ocean is," McKinnie says. "Every time we go to a new place, we find something new, and something new about the ocean that's important."And these expeditions can have important impacts not just for biological cataloging, but also for the environment, McKinnie says.In a 2004 expedition in the Pacific Ocean, NOAA scientists identified a group of underwater volcanoes that were "tremendous" sources of carbon dioxide, and thus contributed to increasing ocean acidification, McKinnie says. Research has shown that when ocean waters become more acidic from absorbing carbon dioxide, they produce less of a gas that protects the Earth from the sun's radiation andcan amplify global warming. But until NOAA's expedition, no measures accounted for carbon dioxide produced from underwater volcanoes."It's not just bringing back pretty pictures," McKinnie says. "It's getting real results that matter."US funding of ocean exploration is chronically underfundedDove, Georgia Aquarium director of research, and McClain, Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center 12[Craig, 10-16-12, Deep Sea News, We Need an Ocean NASA Now, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-1/, 7-12-14, FCB]For too long ocean exploration has suffered from chronic underfunding and the lack of an independent agency with a dedicated mission. Here, Al Dove and I call for the creation of a NASA-style agency to ensure the future health of US ocean science and exploration. Over a decade ago, one of us (CM) made his first submersible dive off of Rum Cay in the Bahamas. At the surface the temperature was a warm 91F and at the bottom 2,300 feet down the temperature was near freezing. Despite my large size, I dont remember feeling cramped inside the soda can-sized sub at any moment. The entire time I pressed my face against a 6-inch porthole, my cheek against the cool glass, and focused my eyes on the few feet of illuminated sea floor around me and the miles of black beyond. Here in the great depths of oceans I got my first look at the giant isopod, a roly-poly the size of a large shoe. This beast and the surrounding abyss instantly captured my imagination, launching me on a journey of ocean science and exploration to unravel the riddles of life in the deep. A thousand miles away, off the coast of Yucatan Mexico, the other of us (AD) experienced equal wonder at the discovery of the largest aggregation ever recorded of the largest of fish in the world, the whale shark. These spotted behemoths gather annually in the hundreds off the coast of Cancun, one of the worlds most popular tourist destinations, and yet this spectacular biological was unknown to science until 2006. Swimming among them, I reverted to a childish state of wonder, marveling at their size, power and grace, and boggling that they have probably been feeding in these waters since dinosaurs, not tourists, inhabited the Yucatan. Whether giant fish or giant crustaceans, are opportunities to uncover the oceans mysteries are quickly dwindling. The Ghost of Ocean Science Present Our nation faces a pivotal moment in exploration of the oceans. The most remote regions of the deep oceans should be more accessible now than ever due to engineering and technological advances. What limits our exploration of the oceans is not imagination or technology but funding. We as a society started to make a choice: to deprioritize ocean exploration and science. In general, science in the U.S. is poorly funded; while the total number of dollars spent here is large, we only rank 6th in world in the proportion of gross domestic product invested into research. The outlook for ocean science is even bleaker. In many cases, funding of marine science and exploration, especially for the deep sea, are at historical lows. In others, funding remains stagnant, despite rising costs of equipment and personnel. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a committee comprised of leading ocean scientists, policy makers, and former U.S. secretaries and congressmen, gave the grade of D- to funding of ocean science in the U.S. Recently the Obama Administration proposed to cut the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) within NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a move supported by the Senate. In NOAAs own words, NOAA determined that NURP was a lower-priority function within its portfolio of research activities. Yet, NURP is one of the main suppliers of funding and equipment for ocean exploration, including both submersibles at the Hawaiian Underwater Research Laboratory and the underwater habitat Aquarius. This cut has come despite an overall request for a 3.1% increase in funding for NOAA. Cutting NURP saves a meager $4,000,000 or 1/10 of NOAAs budget and 1,675 times less than we spend on the Afghan war in just one month. One of the main reasons NOAA argues for cutting funding of NURP is that other avenues of Federal funding for such activities might be pursued. However, other avenues are fading as well. Some funding for ocean exploration is still available through NOAAs Ocean Exploration Program. However, the Office of Ocean Exploration, the division that contains NURP, took the second biggest cut of all programs (-16.5%) and is down 33% since 2009. Likewise, U.S. Naval funding for basic research has also diminished. The other main source of funding for deep-sea science in the U.S. is the National Science Foundation which primarily supports biological research through the Biological Oceanography Program. Funding for science within this program remains stagnant, funding larger but fewer grants. This trend most likely reflects the ever increasing costs of personnel, equipment, and consumables which only larger projects can support. Indeed, compared to rising fuel costs, a necessity for oceanographic vessels, NSF funds do not stretch as far as even a decade ago. Shrinking funds and high fuel costs have also taken their toll on The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) which operates the U.S. public research fleet. Over the last decade, only 80% of available ship days were supported through funding. Over the last two years the gap has increasingly widened, and over the last ten years operations costs increased steadily at 5% annually. With an estimated shortfall of $12 million, the only solution is to reduce the U.S. research fleet size. Currently this is expected to be a total of 6 vessels that are near retirement, but there is no plan of replacing these lost ships. The situation in the U.S. contrasts greatly with other countries. The budget for the Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) continues to increase, although much less so in recent years. The 2007 operating budget for the smaller JAMSTEC was $527 million, over $100 million dollars more than the 2013 proposed NOAA budget. Likewise, China is increasing funding to ocean science over the next five years and has recently succeeded in building a new deep-sea research and exploration submersible, the Jiaolong. The only deep submersible still operating in the US is the DSV Alvin, originally built in 1968. The Ghost of Ocean Science Past 85% of Americans express concerns about stagnant research funding and 77% feel we are losing our edge in science. So how did we get here? Part of the answer lies in how ocean science and exploration fit into the US federal science funding scene. Ocean science is funded by numerous agencies, with few having ocean science and exploration as a clear directive. Contrast to this to how the US traditionally dealt with exploration of space. NASA was recognised early on as the vehicle by which the US would establish and maintain international space supremacy, but the oceans have always had to compete with other missions. We faced a weak economy and in tough economic times we rightly looked for areas to adjust our budgets. Budget cuts lead to tough either/or situations: do we fund A or B? Pragmatically we choose what appeared to be most practical and yield most benefit. Often this meant we prioritized applied science because it was perceived to benefit our lives sooner and more directly and, quite frankly, was easier to justify politically the expenditures involved. In addition to historical issues of infrastructure and current economic woes, we lacked an understanding of the importance of basic research and ocean exploration to science, society, and often to applied research. As example, NOAA shifted funding away from NURP and basic science and exploration but greatly increased funding to research on applied climate change research. Increased funding for climate change research is a necessity as we face this very real and immediate threat to our environment and economy. Yet, did this choice, and others like it, need to come at the reduction of our countrys capability to conduct basic ocean exploration and science and which climate change work relies upon? Just a few short decades ago, the U.S. was a pioneer of deep water exploration. We are the country that in 1960 funded and sent two men to the deepest part of the worlds ocean in the Trieste. Five years later, we developed, built, and pioneered a new class of submersible capable of reaching some of the most remote parts of the oceans to nimbly explore and conduct deep-water science. Our countrys continued commitment to the DSV Alvin is a bright spot in our history and has served as model for other countries submersible programs. The Alvin allowed us to be the first to discover hydrothermal vents and methane seeps, explore the Mid-Atlantic ridge, and countless other scientific firsts. Our rich history with space exploration is dotted with firsts and it revolutionized our views of the world and universe around us; so has our rich history of ocean exploration. But where NASA produced a steady stream of occupied space research vehicles, Alvin remains the only deep-capable research submersible in the service in the United States. NeglectedUS neglecting ocean exploration nowMcClain 12 (Craig, the Assistant Director of Science for the National Evolutionary Synthesis Center and has conducted deep-sea research for 11 years and published over 40 papers in the area, October 16, 2012, We Need an Ocean NASA Now, http://deepseanews.com/2012/10/we-need-an-ocean-nasa-now-pt-1/, LK)Whether giant fish or giant crustaceans, are opportunities to uncover the oceans mysteries are quickly dwindling. The Ghost of Ocean Science Present Our nation faces a pivotal moment in exploration of the oceans. The most remote regions of the deep oceans should be more accessible now than ever due to engineering and technological advances. What limits our exploration of the oceans is not imagination or technology but funding. We as a society started to make a choice: to deprioritize ocean exploration and science. In general, science in the U.S. is poorly funded; while the total number of dollars spent here is large, we only rank 6th in world in the proportion of gross domestic product invested into research. The outlook for ocean science is even bleaker. In many cases, funding of marine science and exploration, especially for the deep sea, are at historical lows. In others, funding remains stagnant, despite rising costs of equipment and personnel. The Joint Ocean Commission Initiative, a committee comprised of leading ocean scientists, policy makers, and former U.S. secretaries and congressmen, gave the grade of D- to funding of ocean science in the U.S. Recently the Obama Administration proposed to cut the National Undersea Research Program (NURP) within NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, a move supported by the Senate. In NOAAs own words, NOAA determined that NURP was a lower-priority function within its portfolio of research activities. Yet, NURP is one of the main suppliers of funding and equipment for ocean exploration, including both submersibles at the Hawaiian Underwater Research Laboratory and the underwater habitat Aquarius. This cut has come despite an overall request for a 3.1% increase in funding for NOAA. Cutting NURP saves a meager $4,000,000 or 1/10 of NOAAs budget and 1,675 times less than we spend on the Afghan war in just one month. One of the main reasons NOAA argues for cutting funding of NURP is that other avenues of Federal funding for such activities might be pursued. However, other avenues are fading as well. Some funding for ocean exploration is still available through NOAAs Ocean Exploration Program. However, the Office of Ocean Exploration, the division that contains NURP, took the second biggest cut of all programs (-16.5%) and is down 33% since 2009. Likewise, U.S. Naval funding for basic research has also diminished. The other main source of funding for deep-sea science in the U.S. is the National Science Foundation which primarily supports biological research through the Biological Oceanography Program. Funding for science within this program remains stagnant, funding larger but fewer grants. This trend most likely reflects the ever increasing costs of personnel, equipment, and consumables which only larger projects can support. Indeed, compared to rising fuel costs, a necessity for oceanographic vessels, NSF funds do not stretch as far as even a decade ago. Shrinking funds and high fuel costs have also taken their toll on The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) which operates the U.S. public research fleet. Over the last decade, only 80% of available ship days were supported through funding. Over the last two years the gap has increasingly widened, and over the last ten years operations costs increased steadily at 5% annually. With an estimated shortfall of $12 million, the only solution is to reduce the U.S. research fleet size. Currently this is expected to be a total of 6 vessels that are near retirement, but there is no plan of replacing these lost ships. The situation in the U.S. contrasts greatly with other countries. The budget for the Japanese Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAMSTEC) continues to increase, although much less so in recent years. The 2007 operating budget for the smaller JAMSTEC was $527 million, over $100 million dollars more than the 2013 proposed NOAA budget. Likewise, China is increasing funding to ocean science over the next five years and has recently succeeded in building a new deep-sea research and exploration submersible, the Jiaolong. The only deep submersible still operating in the US is the DSV Alvin, originally built in 1968.Ext - Solvency US Key Heg, EnvironmentThe US maintains the largest most capable fleet of ocean exploration vehicles, they rely on federal ocean pure research funding, and theyre key to naval power and the environmentUNOLS, The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System, 96[2/96, UNOLS, The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System: Celebrating 25 Years as the Nation's Premier Oceanographic Research Fleet, https://www.unols.org/info/25annpap.html, 7-12-14, FCB]The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is a consortium of 57 academic institutions with significant marine science programs that either operate or use the U.S. academic research Fleet. It is now entering its 25th year as the world leader in oceanographic facilities. The 27 research vessels in the UNOLS Fleet stand as the largest and most capable Fleet of oceanographic research vessels in the world.UNOLS owes its success to a unique management strategy. The UNOLS Council, which consists of seagoing scientists, vessel operators and marine technicians, ensures that ship and equipment schedules are coordinated to make efficient use of finite resources. This coordination is governed by one simple reality - every dollar used to support ships is one less dollar for science. Part of the UNOLS management philosophy is to maintain an entrepreneurial spirit among the various operators of the ships. This fosters a competition among the ships for science operations that has resulted in a level of effectiveness not found in any other oceanographic fleet. The close integration between the users of the Fleet and the academic institutions that operate the research vessels also results in a substantial financial savings. The academic institutions that operate the vessels subsidize the costs through a variety of direct and indirect means. Operations of the Fleet are highly responsive to changes in the annual science needs. Each operator of a UNOLS vessel functions on a year to year grant basis. Funding is only available as required to provide the services needed by the scientific community.In the past three years, the level of Federal funding for ocean science has decreased nearly 30%. The decrease in science funding is projected by UNOLS to lead to a long term excess capacity in the Fleet. If the trends in funding that we have seen over the past three years continue, the Fleet will have to change in one of two ways. Its size can be reduced to match its capacity to the smaller amount of research that will be performed with decreased budgets. Alternatively, other Federal and State users of the Fleet must be found.The UNOLS Council is charged with planning for future facility requirements for ocean science research to ensure that the Fleet maintains its vitality. This includes planning for replacement of ships as they age (with a lifetime of about 30 years and 27 ships, that's nearly one a year). Despite the reduction in Federal support for oceanographic research, UNOLS must continue to plan for new facilities to replace our existing assets as they age, and to explore the requirements for new types of facilities as the needs of ocean science change.The University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS) is a consortium of 57 academic institutions (Appendix) with significant marine science programs that either operate or use the U.S. academic research fleet. In the early 1960's operators of oceanographic research vessels formed a Research Vessel Operators Committee (RVOC) to coordinate work on operational and regulatory issues. UNOLS was established in 1971, in recognition of the need to ensure scientific access to research vessels and to extend the work of RVOC. It is now entering its 25th year as the world leader in oceanographic facilities. The 27 research vessels in the UNOLS Fleet (Table 1) stand as the largest and most capable Fleet of oceanographic research vessels in the world. It is a substantial national asset. The UNOLS Fleet provides the platforms on which the bulk of American oceanographic research is performed. Research performed on ships of the UNOLS Fleet contributes to our understanding of interannual changes in climate that are driven by El Nino, formation of tropical storms, and fisheries management. The Fleet supports studies of global ocean circulation, fundamental studies of ocean acoustics and light scattering that are basic to the Navy's mission of national defense, and the pure research needed to manage the ocean wisely.US Key Laundry ListOnly the USfg solves - military power, heath, education, intellectual property Kaysen, MIT Political Economy Professor, JFK advisor, 65[Carl, Basic Research and National Goals: A Report to the Committee on Science and Astronautics, U.S. House of Representatives, pg. 147 167, FCB]The foregoing classification of the kinds of benefits that basic research can be expected to provide makes clearer why this activity qualifies for support from the Government budget. Of the benefits listed above, those relating to military capability fall directly within the sphere of Federal responsibility, and only the Federal Government can and will pay for them. This applies both to military requirements for applied research and development, and to the insurance value of the scientific reserve corps. Those relating to health are increasingly an area of social concern, in which governmental responsibilities are recognized. The same can be said of those relating to higher education. It can be argued that beneficiaries of services should pay their full costs in both higher education and health. However, this is not the direction that public policy appears to be currently taking.Thus only two classes of benefits arc potentially the basis for support through the market system: The value of research outputs as inputs for technical developments of direct value to business firms, and the value of basic scientists as stimuli to the better functioning of scientists and engineers working directly on applied research and development projects in the same laboratory. (So far as the latter are involved in defense and related enterprises, this too is a matter of Government finance.) On the second count, we may say that, by and large, the market system will work so as to provide for the support of a level of basic research activity appropriate to that purpose taken in isolation. On the first, as we have seen already (p. 2 above), there are good reasons for expecting that business firms, acting individually, will systematically underinvest in basic research to a substantial degree. These reasonsthe difficulty of appropriating the benefits of basic research to any single firm, and the uncertainty in the character, magnitude, and timing of the payoff in new technology of the fruits of any particular piece of basic researchare not absolutes; they are rather a matter of degree. The longer the time horizon over which a particular business can look ahead, the broader the scientific basis of the technology underlying its processes and products, the more its activities cover the whole range of that technology, the less its position in the markets in which it operates is subject to competitive inroads, the more likely it is to invest in basic research. Thus the relatively few firms that make large investments in basic scienceoutside those financed through defense contracts in any eventare those like Bcil Telephone, General Electric, Du Pont, Standard Oil of New Jersey, and the like. Indeed, to a significant extent, the competitive positions and prospects of these firms are such that the question of whether it pays to make these expenditures is not one which they need face too sharply. But for the generality of firms, the extent to which such expenditure appears wise is limited. US Key Best Universities US is key, we have the best university facilities for integrating pure research, but that leadership is eroding due to lack of supportKigotho, University World News Writer, 14(Wachira, February 28th, Chinas rapid rise in global science and engineering, http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20140227152409830, accessed 7/13/14, LLM)Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 identified the quality of higher education in science, technology, engineering and mathematics STEM as critical to providing the advanced work skills necessary to strengthen an innovation-based economic landscape. In thi regard, the US awarded the largest number of science and engineering PhDs of any country followed by China, Russia, Germany and the United Kingdom.Of 200,000 doctorates in science and engineering earned worldwide in 2010, about 33,000 were awarded by universities in the United States, China 31,000, Russia 16,000, Germany 12,000 and the United kingdom 11, 000, says the report.But China leads the world when factoring in doctorates in the biological, physical, Earth, atmospheric, ocean and agricultural sciences and computer sciences. The issue is that the numbers of doctoral degrees in natural sciences and engineering have risen dramatically in China, whereas the numbers awarded in the United States, South Korea, and many European countries have risen more modestly, says the report.Also, in the United States only 57% of doctorates were earned by citizens and permanent residents, while temporary visa holders obtained the remainder.Available statistics indicated that in 2010 more than 5.5 million first degrees were awarded in science and engineering worldwide, with students in China earning about 22% against the European Unions 17% and the United States 10%. Currently, science and engineering degrees account for about one-third of all bachelor degrees awarded in the United States, 60% in Japan and about 50% in China, said Jaquelina Falkenheim, senior analyst in the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics at the US National Science Foundation.In her analysis of the global higher education system, Falkenheim noted that only 5% of all bachelor degrees awarded in 2010 were in engineering compared to 31% in China. Other places with a high proportion of engineering degrees were Singapore, Iran, South Korea and Taiwan.Emerging global competition for scientific innovation leadership seems to be encouraging governments to boost university enrolments in science and engineering fields. The number of these degrees awarded in China, Taiwan, Turkey, Germany and Poland more than doubled between 2000 and 2012. During this period, science and engineering first university degrees awarded in the United States, Australia, Italy, the United Kingdom, Canada and South Korea also increased between 23% and 56%, said Falkenheim. Marginal declines were noted in France (14%), Japan (9%) and Spain (4%).US sets the bar in influenceDespite intense competition in visibility, performance and investment in STEM fields, the United States continues to set the bar in terms of influential research results. For instance, from 2002-12, researchers in the US authored 48% of the worlds top 1% of cited papers.American inventors were also awarded the highest number of high value patents registered in the worlds largest markets the US, European Union and Japan. According to the report, there were few such patents issued in China and India.One outstanding aspect that cannot be missed in the 600-page Science and Engineering Indicators 2014 report is Chinas catch-up efforts. Apart from upping spending on R&D, China now has the largest contingent of doctoral students in American research universities.Between 1991 and 2011, more than 63,000 Chinese students were awarded doctorates in science and engineering from leading research universities in the United States, accounting for 27% of 235,582 such awards to foreign students. Over the 20-year period, the number of science and engineering doctorates earned by Chinese nationals has more than doubled, says the report. And so the battle for supremacy in the fiercely contested areas of global leadership in science and technology will likely be decided in laboratories in American universities.US Key - NSFSpecifically, the NSF is key US S&T is funded by NSFBement, Director of NSF, member of US National Commission for UNESCO, 8 [Arden, 4/2/2008, International Science and Technology Cooperation, Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-110hhrg41470/html/CHRG-110hhrg41470.htm, FCB]The U.S. portion of international S&E research and education activities is funded by all NSF directorates and research offices. International implications are found throughout all of NSF's activities, from individual research awards and fellowships for students to study abroad, to centers, collaborations, joint projects, and shared networks that demonstrate the value of partnering with the United States. As a result of its international portfolio encompassing projects in all S&E disciplines, NSF effectively partners with almost every country in the world. The following examples illustrate the international breadth and scope of NSF's international portfolio.The Research Experiences for Undergraduates program, an NSF-wide activity, gives undergraduate students the opportunity to engage in high-quality research, often at important international sites. One of these sites is CERN, the European Laboratory for Particle Physics in Switzerland, and one of the world's premier international laboratories. Undergraduate students work with faculty mentors and research groups at CERN, where they have access to facilities unavailable anywhere else in the world. NSF also provides support for the Large Hadron Collider housed at CERN. Collaborations among individual NSF-supported investigators are also common in NSF's portfolio. Recently, scientists at the University of Chicago created a single-molecule diode, a potential building block for nanoelectronics. Theorists at the University of South Florida and the Russian Academy of Sciences then explained the principle of how such a device works. They jointly published their findings. There are also examples where NSF partners with the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) to support international S&T programs to facilitate capacity building. For example, the U.S.-Pakistan Science and Technology Program, led by a coordinating committee chaired by Dr. Arden Bement, NSF Director, and Dr. Atta-ur-Rahman, Pakistan Minister of Education and Science Advisor to the Prime Minister. USAID funds the U.S. contribution of the joint program and supports other programs in Pakistan involving NIH and other agencies. This U.S.-Pakistan S&T program supports a number of joint research projects peer reviewed by the National Academy of Sciences and approved by the joint S&T committee. Over the past year, the Committee has also established sixteen S&T working groups that involve interagency participation in Pakistan and in the United States to carry out joint research projects of mutual interest (with direct benefit to Pakistan). Through this collaboration, NSF just completed a network connection of Internet 2 with Pakistan to facilitate research and education collaborati