I n t e r v i e w w i t h t h e C h i e f o f N a v a l R e s e a r c h
Richard W. Spinrad
Oceanography E d i t o r , R i c k S p i n r a d , i n t e r v i e w e d t h e U . S . C h i e f o f N a v a l R e s e a r c h , R e a r A d m i r a l P a u l G . G a f f n e y , Jr., f o r t h i s s p e c i a l i s s u e , w h i c h w a s s p o n s o r e d b y t h e U . S . O f f i c e o f N a v a l R e s e a r c h . A d m i r a l G a f f n e y , h i m s e l f a n o c e a n o g r a p h e r , h a s a l s o c o m m a n d e d t h e U . S . N a v a l M e t e o r o l o g y a n d O c e a n o g r a p h y C o m m a n d i n M i s s i s s i p p i a n d t h e U . S . N a v a l R e s e a r c h L a b o r a t o r y i n W a s h i n g t o n , D . C .
Oceanography: The first question deals with the Office of Naval Research's (ONR) support for The Oceanography Society: sponsorship of conferences, special issues of the magazine, and the Munk Award.
Why has ONR shown such support for TOS?
Gaffney: We believe that the N a v y and O N R have a leadership responsibility in the US for oceanography. It is a core science, it is, of all sciences, the naval science and we h a v e a responsibility to m a k e sure that the national i n v e s t m e n t and o u r i n v e s t m e n t s u p p o r t s the n e e d s of the N a v y and likewise the n e e d s of the nation.
So it is i m p o r t a n t for us to do w h a t e v - er w e can to keep the general ocean scientific area strong a n d healthy. It w o u l d not be u n u s u a l that w e w o u l d focus o n o c e a n o g r a p h y in general.
S u p p o r t i n g TOS and its m a g a z i n e is a w a y of articulating o u r leadership, o u r interest in the ocean, a n d giving back to the A m e r i c a n t a x p a y e r what-
ever w e can. The fact is, it's the A m e r i c a n taxpayer's m o n e y that w e spend, and w h e n e v e r we can r e t u r n that to h i m in some useful w a y directly, we s h o u l d do that.
A n d it is often r e t u r n e d in w a y s he doesn't know, because it gets e n g i n e e r e d into systems, or e n g i n e e r e d into certain kinds of k n o w l e d g e that is u s e d b y the sci- entific community, b u t w h e n it can go back in other ways, in the largest a n d most p r o s p e r o u s maritime nation of this planet, t h e n we s h o u l d do that. This mag- azine is the p r o p e r vehicle for d o i n g just that. In fact, m o s t of w h a t w e invest in shows u p in some kind of a journal. TOS however, tries to reach other parts of soci- ety, b e y o n d the "heads d o w n , looking at the bench"
scientist. You reach m e m b e r s of Congress, industry, educators, and all of that is part of letting p e o p l e k n o w
w h a t we're d o i n g and giving back to t h e m some of the i n v e s t m e n t that t h e y ' v e m a d e in us.
Oceanography: Is there anything that you could refer to as "feedback" or "product return" for the support of TOS? Anything specific that comes back to ONR or the Navy as a result of TOS sponsorship?
Gaffney- Some of the conferences in w h i c h w e are the principal s u p p o r t e r t e n d to focus talent in areas of spe- cial interest to us. While it seems altruistic, we are a bit selfish in that w h e n we p u t h a r d cash on the table, w e w a n t to m a k e sure that there is a direct
Dealing with coastal and marginal seas is of extreme interest to the U.S. Navy which
right now, recognizes this as the most difficult environ-
ment for them to operate in.
r e t u r n on something v e r y specific that we're after. Like the conference in Paris. Dealing with coastal and mar- ginal seas is of extreme interest to the U.S. N a v y which right now, recog- nizes this as the most difficult envi- r o n m e n t for t h e m to o p e r a t e in.
H a v i n g the conference in E u r o p e and focusing on the area is one thing, b u t then h a v i n g the conference in a setting in w h i c h there are m a n y nations interested in only coastal and marginal seas, because that is the e n v i r o n m e n t they live in I think is double- b a n g for the buck. So w e were v e r y h a p p y to s p o n s o r the Paris conference a n d get that kind of interaction going. O u r principal investigators were able to talk with others; to get ideas p u t on the table that they nor- m a l l y w o u l d n ' t h a v e h a d the o p p o r t u n i t y to do so.
A n o t h e r example m i g h t be the M u n k Award, w h i c h focuses on acoustics. O c e a n o g r a p h y is a core, naval sci- ence. Within oceanography, acoustics is e v e n more so, and O N R has the [U.S.] national responsibility for acoustics. While other agencies certainly do invest in acoustics projects, if w e / O N R w o u l d pull out altogeth-
er, it w o u l d collapse a n d so w e are v e r y interested in that role. W h e n w e find m e c h a n i s m s to advertise that w e are still actively interested in acoustics, we're still s u p p o r t i n g it for the long term, and h o w i m p o r t a n t it i s - w e highlight that i m p r e s s i o n b y h a v i n g this award, [ h o n o r i n g ] p e r h a p s the m o s t p r e s t i g i o u s living oceanographer, Walter Munk. It s h o w s p e o p l e o u r interest and dedication to the subject. This year, in fact, w e ' v e e x a m i n e d this a w a r d v e r y closely and are fine t u n i n g o u r p r o g r a m a little bit with some additional resources to m a k e sure that the national p r o g r a m regains some lost help.
Oceanography: You started to a d d r e s s the specific i s s u e o f w h y the coastal a n d m a r g i n a l seas m e e t i n g w a s con- d u c t e d in Europe. T h i s approach, at least in the o c e a n o - graphic c o m m u n i t y , w a s s o m e w h a t u n u s u a l in terms o f U.S. s p o n s o r s h i p . W o u l d y o u c a t e g o r i z e t h e Paris m e e t i n g as a s u c c e s s a n d as the k i n d o f t h i n g y o u w o u l d l i k e to d o in the future, as a f o c u s e d subject in a v e n u e n o t n e c e s s a r i l y in the U.S.?
Gaffney: W h e n y o u ' r e looking at priorities, c o n t e m p o - rary issues, focusing o n getting s o m e t h i n g out of it that
from, the one that we h a v e ignored, as a c o r p o r a t i o n h a v e i g n o r e d the most in the past 15 years is mine coun- termeasures. Being able to search a n d identify a n d find w a y s to a v o i d t h e m is almost exclusively a shallow- w a t e r issue. It is the ultimate a s y m m e t r i c warfare technique.
Oceanography: W h a t d o y o u m e a n ?
Gaffney: A s y m m e t r i c , m e a n i n g a v e r y cheap tool can be u s e d to defeat a v e r y p o w e r f u l enemy, w i t h expen- sive systems. Virtually a n y b o d y can use these in any place in the world. Typically the mines are in shallow- er waters, protecting harbors, or certain w a t e r w a y s that are i m p o r t a n t to them. This is the n u m b e r one issue in the w o r l d today. A n d that is w h e r e we are p u t t i n g o u r most emphasis.
There are other areas that are of equal importance:
anti-submarine w a r f a r e has historically been a top pri- ority for the Navy. It still is a priority, less than mine warfare right n o w - b u t m a n y of the techniques w e use as o c e a n o g r a p h e r s , to address the mine w a r f a r e threat, are equally as useful in the shallow water, anti-subma- rine warfare. A n d so w h e n e v e r we can m a k e that trade, is useful, rather than just h a v i n g a
clambake so that p e o p l e can exchange ideas, p u t t i n g it in the right v e n u e is important. Was the right v e n u e over-
seas? Sure. Putting it overseas just because it is a nice place to go is n e v e r a reason. If there is a g o o d reason to d o it overseas, w e s h o u l d d o it overseas.
Oceanography: T h e s u b j e c t matter, coastal a n d mar- g i n a l seas, is o n e w h i c h p e o p l e m a y h a v e i n t e r p r e t e d as "the U.S. N a v y is n o l o n g e r i n t e r e s t e d in b l u e w a t e r o c e a n o g r a p h y . " H o w d o y o u a d d r e s s that s t a t e m e n t ?
Gaffney: W h a t w e ' v e said is that w e h a v e to h a v e a bal- anced p r o g r a m that still has a d e e p - w a t e r c o m p o n e n t . A p p r o x i m a t e l y 40% of the w o r k w e d o is d e e p - w a t e r related, 40% is s h a l l o w - w a t e r related, a n d 40% is every- thing. N o w I k n o w the arithmetic does not a d d up, b u t there are certain techniques like some modeling, some r e m o t e sensing, some i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n that span all regimes and some don't. But w e seek a balance. We are trying to recognize s o m e t h i n g that has not been recog- n i z e d in the past, that there is a real challenge in the shallow water, the o c e a n o g r a p h i c challenge, and w e also k n o w that the challenge is c o n g r u e n t with the chal- lenge that the N a v y a n d the Marine C o r p s face.
Oceanography: A l o n g t h o s e l i n e s , w h a t are t h e prior- ities for o c e a n o g r a p h i c research w i t h i n the N a v y ?
Gaffney: I guess y o u could characterize it two ways: b y discipline or b y the actual use of the k n o w l e d g e that is gained. Let me try the latter, a n d I w o u l d say that right n o w the n u m b e r one issue, the one that w e c a n n o t blink
with the application, w e do. But it Oceanography is a core also affects the things like special llaval scietlce, operations, like a m p h i b i o u s landings w h i c h typically c o m e after the mine w a r f a r e issue is solved. The interaction of the oceans w i t h the a t m o s p h e r e in the coastal regime is v e r y com- plicated, a n d that affects o u r ability to c o n d u c t air oper- ations, w h e t h e r they be with m a n n e d or u n m a n n e d air- craft. The interaction of the oceans a n d the a t m o s p h e r e also has a great deal to do with the safe passage of ships a n d the ability of the p e o p l e on those ships to function.
K n o w i n g w h e n to avoid, or take a d v a n t a g e of bad w e a t h e r is important. So it is really impossible to d r a w the line and say this is the only application this research affects, because as y o u u n d e r s t a n d the m a r i t i m e envi- r o n m e n t it applies to all of t h e m - w e are p u t t i n g a little bit m o r e e m p h a s i s o n mine warfare now, and in m y o p i n i o n s h o u l d h a v e in the last 15 years.
Oceanography: A s a c o n s e q u e n c e , are p r o g r a m m a n - agers m o r e i n c l i n e d to p u t their m o n e y o n safer bets, or d o y o u s e e a r i s k l e v e l that's a l l o w a b l e in s p o n s o r e d research? A r e w e s e e i n g a m o r e c o n s e r v a t i v e s p o n s o r - s h i p o f research?
Gaffney: I h a v e great faith in the p e o p l e at ONR. I find t h e m a rather (now this is a c o m p l i m e n t ) irreverent g r o u p in that they try to stick to the high ground.
I will say that I am generally concerned that 20-30 years of decreasing f u n d s for basic and applied research will t e n d to design w o r k that does not require a great deal of overhead. "Overhead," to me is going to sea and d o i n g things f r o m ships as o p p o s e d to d o i n g e v e r y t h i n g from a PC or a terminal h o o k e d to a s u p e r c o m p u t e r
Oceanography • VoL 21 • No. 2/1998 5
someplace. We could completely consume this commu- nity with theoretical modeling, or simulation work, fully employ them all and never go to sea. We could also employ everyone at sea and never do anything else. I worry that nationally and in the Navy in the long term, as money continues to go down, people look for opportunities where overhead is less, to keep people working at the bench. I can't point to incidences, but I am worried about having some difficulty filling up all of our ships right now, even though, as anyone can imagine, there are thousands of years of work to be done at sea. A wise man recently told me that every time you go to sea, you find something you did not expect that you should go back and investigate. That's one of the differences between oceanography and other fields. I am concerned about that, nationally and for the Navy.
Oceanography: If w e , for a r g u m e n t ' s sake, a s s u m e that m o n e y w i l l n o t b e the s o l e driver for h o w research is d o n e in the future, that is to s a y that there is s o m e sta- bility in f u n d i n g , w h a t d o y o u s e e h a p p e n i n g fifty years d o w n the l i n e in the w a y o c e a n research is d o n e ?
Gaffney: I foresee our increased ability to handle, store, and to manipulate data-and there should be a lot more data, nationally and internationally-that can be moved around to solve peoples' problems.
I think in the fifty-year time frame, we will still be using ships, however we will be using those ships much better--as in "less risk." When you send them some- place you will know what they actually are going to do.
I see a combination of using ships with remote sensing techniques, real-time linkups, and widening the aper- ture of ships-or eliminating ships using uninhabited, undersea vehicles (UUV). UUV will also be a way to increase the aperture of a ship, if you are going to use a ship, or not use a ship when you don't have to, because ships are expensive with people on board. Using satel- lites, remote sensing techniques, buoys, over-the-hori- zon radars, instruments on airplanes, commercial air- liners, ships of opportunity and all those kinds of things will, likewise, reduce the need for ship time. I am not one that would define away a ship, however. I still think that you have to go out there occasionally and look over your spot. I can't imagine ODP (Ocean Drilling Program) being replicated through UUV over the next 50 years. If you want to look below the surface, you probably still have to do that from some vessel that floats on the top.
Oceanography: A c t u a l l y the O c e a n D r i l l i n g P r o g r a m is a g o o d w a y to c o m e b a c k to the q u e s t i o n o f f u n d i n g , in the t e r m s o f its b e i n g an i n t e r n a t i o n a l p r o g r a m . You've e s t a b l i s h e d this s c e n a r i o for fifty y e a r s d o w n the line, g i v e n that w e h a v e a current n a t i o n a l a n d i n t e r n a t i o n a l f u n d i n g structure. Will that w o r k for the
k i n d s o f o b j e c t i v e s y o u ' v e stated for the future, or are w e l o o k i n g at a d i f f e r e n t w a y o f s u p p o r t i n g o c e a n o - graphic research?
Gaffney: I guess I don't envision a big budget meeting where 50 nations get together in a room and put togeth- er a master plan for the global oceanography program except for some discrete, international programs. But the whole program, I don't see being coordinated well by some international body. I can see coordination between communities, among scientists, on an individ- ual level and for some discrete experiments that can be orchestrated and bureaucratically handled. I'm sort of a decentralization-guy. I would prefer that international collaborations be made up of the scientists themselves, by picking the right partners because they know what is going on, rather than some bureaucratic body, who by its definition becomes detached from the science and doesn't get its feet wet or its hands dirty trying to legis- late where dollars go. That worries me.
But there is another way for international coopera- tion/coordination to occur in discrete areas, and that is by increasing involvement in industry, which is gradu- ally becoming more international. I would hope that industry is a very interested partner in TOS and an increasingly important partner in TOS, because the big parties that can afford to go out to sea are international, and they can make things happen as well.
Oceanography: So y o u s e e t h e m as catalysts, n o t nec- e s s a r i l y the l e a d e r for i n t e r n a t i o n a l c o o p e r a t i o n ?
Gaffney: Not necessarily the leader, maybe in certain areas they could be the leader. Certainly in the resources, geology/geophysics area they could be lead- ers, sure, and I have no problem riding along with them and making partnerships.
It is sort of a theme that we have at ONR, and I have not really tried it in oceanography, but if I really thought about it, I could. I've been worried about the dwindling money going out to academia over the years.
And I'm also worried about money going out to indus- try. I'd like to see the two get together-the basic research community, which includes some small percentage of government laboratories and industry. In my opinion, industry doesn't put money into basic research, and so their vision is unofficially truncated at the level of product development-they don't look 30-40 years down the line (there are some exceptions). And the universi- ties, while they may look down the line, they often don't have a clue about produce-ability. Why don't those guys get together and let the university be the long-view for industry, and let industry be the produce-ability check for the university? Pooling money/resources-I'll be investing in both, but they should come together to get more out of it.
Oceanography: O t h e r t h a n i n v e s t i n g in b o t h is there a l e a d e r s h i p r e s p o n s i b i l i t y that y o u s e e federal a g e n - cies, s p e c i f i c a l l y O N R h a v i n g in this regard?
Gaffney: I think ONR is in a better position to take a leadership role in this than other agencies-than the National Science Foundation (NSF). We can be more top-down and they can operate in the reverse-it's a great balance the w a y we do business and the NSF does busi- ness, and we're right next door to each other. We're cur- rently trying to cooperate in engineering areas, like ship- building for instance, and in oceanography as well.
Maybe there is a chance that an oil exploration c o m p a n y and a university could work together and we could be the f u n d i n g catalyst for that. I don't think I've seen a proposal in that area, but I like that idea: the dose of real- ity in the long term, a n d both groups working together.
Oceanography: A s the Chief of N a v a l Research and as an o c e a n scientist and o n e of the f e w that h a v e served in b o t h capacities, w h a t are y o u r personal, v e r s u s a d m i n i s - trative, v i e w s o f the nature o f the international o c e a n o - graphic c o m m u n i t y ?
Gaffney: M y experience as an oceanographer is as a mil- itary specialist in oceanography. I've worked around oceanography in the military context since 1971, and m a n y of m y experiences have been
international in nature: Vietnam, Indonesia, Spain, and trips to 30-40 other countries. There has been a great interest on the part of the N a v y in
working with our colleagues around the world for a couple of reasons. One is to reduce the cost of research-whenever y o u can get a partner, that is good news; getting access to one's waters, gathering data together, perhaps training other nations to increase their skills and then the quid pro quo for that is exchanging data with them, which allows us to get a better picture of the globe. In fact, we are the only global Navy. You can read the front page of the Washington Post or the New York Times and guess where the N a v y might be the very next d a y based on w h a t is going on. We can go any- place. A n d we don't have the wherewithal to character- ize the whole ocean ourself. We can do that by cooper- ating with as m a n y allies as possible and we do that. I've traveled all over the world and have signed agreements with any n u m b e r of countries: Albania, Russia, Japan, Korea, I n d o n e s i a . . . This is critically important for us to do our job. The other part of that is if one wants to cooperate with a neighbor, friend or someone y o u w o u l d like to be y o u r friend, and you're in the military, you w o u l d like to be able to develop a trusting relation- ship, not based on w e a p o n s or w a r fighting.
Oceanography is a w a y for the U.S. N a v y to e n t e r - a n d the N a v y is typically the first uniformed service to enter a n e w c o u n t r y - a n e w relationship. Oceanography is non-threatening. It is just the opposite. It aids commerce,
transportation, and pollution issues. It provides a whole n u m b e r of things that can help a nation do better. We have great skill in oceanography in the U.S. Navy, or are able to reach it through our principal investigators from ONR because of the data we hold and manage. We have the ability to go in and do very good things with partner nations and be a national spokesman. We are the only agency that really has global kinds of information, glob- al reach, global interests and could actually be the first agency in.
To go back to Albania, before they had their recent troubles just after they became a democracy, the first people into Albania were ocean surveyors. They did a rather unsophisticated k i n d of oceanography; they went in a n d m a p p e d their coastline for navigation safe- ty. They collected other data, too. We gave that infor- mation to the Albanians and they p r o d u c e d charts.
Then all of a s u d d e n commerce started coming in.
W h e n we did that, I signed an agreement with the Minister of Defense of Albania, w h o h a p p e n e d to be a mathematician, and u n d e r s t o o d immediately w h a t we did, h o w we did it. He u n d e r s t o o d global positioning systems and navigation and b a t h y m e t r y and swath sonars and those types of things and he was incredibly interested in the topic. N o w here is a one star admiral working with a Minister of Defense of a very important nation trying to grow into democracy. We signed our agreement, he and I and their Chief of
Oceanography is a way Naval Operations and the whole gen- for the U.S. N a v y to e n t e r . . , eral staff on national television for just a new relationship, the exchange of a couple of charts-it was just amazing. He said to me that he signed a lot of agreements with n e w Western Allies, a n d that this was the first agreement that really deliv- ered something useful for his country.
Oceanography: Your c o m m e n t s i m p l y an u n d e r l y i n g t h e m e o f the role o f o c e a n s c i e n c e s in d i p l o m a c y . T h e State D e p a r t m e n t h a s r e q u e s t e d t h e N a t i o n a l A c a d e m y o f S c i e n c e s to u n d e r t a k e an a s s e s s m e n t o f o u r n a t i o n a l i n v e s t m e n t , if y o u w i l l , in s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y as a d i p l o m a t i c tool. Are w e , as a n a t i o n , d o i n g e v e r y t h i n g w e can to f u l l y u s e o c e a n s c i e n c e a n d t e c h n o l o g y as a d i p l o m a t i c tool?
Gaffney: I cannot speak for the whole government, because I just don't k n o w w h a t the other agencies are doing proactively in science or oceanography as a tool for better relations between countries. I k n o w that it is important to the U.S. N a v y and I k n o w it is very impor- tant to ONR. As a mission of ONR, it is one of the rea- sons we have two foreign field offices: one in Tokyo and one in London, taking care of Asia and Europe. It is a w a y for us to reach out and peacefully engage our neighbors or people w e ' d like to have a closer relation- ship with. It is not threatening a n d we do it proactively.
In both places we have two oceanographers, and they have great connections; that is good news for the U.S.
Oceanography • VoL 11 • No. 2/1998 7
Navy. I tell senior p e o p l e in the N a v y about this tool that they have. I can a p p l y that to plasma physics and marine corrosion and ship engineering and a whole b u n c h of other things. I think science is an i m p o r t a n t w a y to m a k e connections with people w e w o u l d like to h a v e a closer relationship with, because it is not provocative and it helps the p a r t n e r get better as well as us, and it does not cost a lot of money. I guess m y opin- ion is that the nation should use science as a tool to get closer together.
You can look at some of the things C o n g r e s s m a n Weldon (R-PA) has d o n e with Russia and the Duma.
W h e t h e r y o u agree with it or not, science was a w a y for him to make g o o d connections. H e
m a d e excellent c o n n e c t i o n s a n d o p e n e d dialogue that we n e v e r even h o p e d to have. As a matter of fact, it was oceans and e n v i r o n m e n t a l sci-
ences that did it. So I think that science should be used in d i p l o m a c y as m u c h as possible. It is used actively in the N a v y and I w o u l d h o p e that e v e r y agency that can use science would.
If we do something that is n e w - a n e w relationship with a n e w country, and science or o c e a n o g r a p h y hap- pens to be a potential lead-in, those activities are always c o o r d i n a t e d with the State Department.
Oceanography: You alluded to the ONR foreign offices, what kinds of services or products w o u l d the non-U.S, scientists get from these offices?
Oceanography: You cited the relationship with the Russians, w h i c h i n v o l v e d the release of data.
Recently, the Vice President and others have suggest- ed there will be more declassification of U.S. informa- tion, not unlike what was done with the altimetry data. Can y o u comment on what data might be next?
Gaffney: There is lots of data that has been released other than the Geosat a l t i m e t r y . . , most of it is h y d r o - graphic station (temperature-salinity with depth) mea- surements. I w o u l d say it is millions of discrete obser- vations that have been released as raw databases. I think the role of the operational o c e a n o g r a p h e r is great.
The role of O N R is to be sure that the
I think that science operational o c e a n o g r a p h e r s play their should be used in diplomacy role deliberately. You w a n t to make as much as possible, the data available, since it is o w n e d b y the taxpayer, b u t y o u do not w a n t to make a security mistake. It is a v e r y deliberate process, operational o c e a n o g r a p h e r s consider the value of the data, and d e t e r m i n e h o w to release it so that it retains its scientific value. I w o u l d continue to p u s h for a release, because m y constituents, the principal investi- gators s u p p o r t e d b y ONR, can use that data. The more data they get, the less they have to go out and collect all over again. A n d we have ways to m o v e data so effi- ciently, off of h o m e pages, bulletin boards, electronical- ly, at low to no cost to the Navy. I will continue to be an advocate of releasing data as long as we do it deliber- ately, and we don't make a giant security mistake.
Gaffney: The offices have m o n e y to do cooperative research. It is a place w h e r e they can go to try to navigate through, at least, the N a v y bureaucracy. Remember, the one thing that ONR employees are most p r o u d of is o u r technical b a s e - w e k n o w what is going on. If a French scientist is looking for s o m e o n e in America or Europe to hook u p with, for staff s u p p o r t or collective/collabora- tive funding for example, a scientific officer might help him with those types of connections. We also sponsor conferences, and w o r k s h o p s that bring people together to exchange ideas. I just did one in Istanbul on electric drives. These opportunities are great for us, but they are also great for our colleagues overseas as well.
! was the CNR for two weeks, and the Prime Minister
Oceanography: I'm understanding that the message to the research community is that they can look forward to continued declassification. It's the pace and type of data that are not defined, correct?
Gaffney. Right, and we are looking at all types of infor- mation. If y o u read the MEDEA report, they w o u l d clas- sify that operational data held b y the N a v y are the crown jewels of o c e a n o g r a p h y on this planet. That is the data that they are looking at: bathymetry, magnetic, hydrographics, ice data, b i o l u m i n e s c e n c e . . . Getting it out ten years ago w o u l d have cost an awful lot of m o n e y - i t m e a n t standing at the copy machine for ten years and licking stamps all night. N o w it is really triv- of Armenia was coming to make his
first trip to the United States, and guess where his first stop was, after he got off the airplane?-the ninth floor of ONR.
He came in, sat at this table for two
h o u r s and talked about a $40,000 investment in research we m a d e in three or four scientists in Armenia that were w o r k i n g on materials for lasers. H e said y o u cannot believe w h a t that investment by the O N R in our country, has done for our prestige and morale. He came here to tell me that personally for two hours.
Three of our four M u n k A w a r d winners are from out- side the U.S.-we f u n d the best p e r s o n for the job.
ial to get it out. The issue is let's
l will continue to be a~l advocate review it, see if it's important, can we
of releasing data as long release it or can we w a r p it a little bit as we do it deliberately.., so that w h e n w e d o release it, it doesn't do damage. That is w h a t we are proceeding with and, to m y knowledge, the N a v y is behind that. I am really behind that because it w o u l d help m y constituents and it w o u l d really save me money.
To really u n d e r s t a n d the data, y o u ' v e got to clear s o m e b o d y - a n d that matter is not trivial.
Oceanography: Before w e close, w h a t a b o u t s o m e general c o m m e n t s o n Year of the Ocean?
Gaffney: The year is not over yet. The President, Vice President, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of the Navy all showed up at the National Oceans Conference, in addition to a whole lot of good looking and impor- tant people. I don't recall, since I started hanging around this political-oceanography business in 1975, a better dialogue or critical mass of folks together. I am very happy that the Secretary of the Navy John Dalton, a former submariner, has become so personally inter- ested in oceanography. He has played a personal role in the Navy's investment in the exposition in Lisbon. He was there for the opening. He was a
co-sponsor for the Ocean Conference and participated personally and vig- orously and went to tens of briefings on exactly how that conference would be set up and run perfectly. He offered the site for the conference at the Naval Postgraduate School, and he has become a vigorous, comfortable co- chairman of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council of the National Oceanographic Partnership
Program. I think that is three times a miracle-and we've had many Secretaries of the Navy that have been inter- ested in oceanography. I can name several of them, but Secretary Dalton has been more interested than any one else. That is just really great news for ONR who has a very large segment of its money invested in oceanogra- phy, and the Chief of Naval Research by law reports to the Secretary of the Navy. To have your boss intimately interested in the largest chunk of your investment is great. So, to me, the Year of the Ocean was a magnifi- cent success.
We are a maritime nation and I think it is insane for the United States not to understand w h y the ocean is a part of w h y we are a great nation-it acts as both an insu- lator, and a conductor of this country. It keeps the bad things away, but it also brings us to the rest of the world. To not understand that medium is insane.
The Navy needs to understand maritime weather on the oceans, and that's what makes the Navy and the Marine Corps different from the other services. The Year of the Oceans put a spotlight on that. When the
Secretary of the Navy gets involved in the Year of the Oceans, 45 admirals get involved as well, whether they like it or not, and now they all know about it.
Oceanography: Finally, c o n s i d e r the T O S internation- al a u d i e n c e and a y o u n g graduate in ocean scientist c o m i n g into the research c o m m u n i t y right now. What is y o u r advice?
Gaffney: What is your goal in life? Do you want to make a difference, live in a nice place, have adventure, or make a lot of money? Some of those things apply to research oceanographers, some don't. You're probably not going to be real rich. You'll probably be away from home a lot. On the other hand, you'll We are a maritime nation
and I think it is insane for the United States
not to understand w h y the ocean is a part of w h y we are a great nation- it acts as both an insulator, and a conductor of this country.
definitely have more adventures than your b u d d y down the street will.
And you've got to want to do something that is very important-I think the world is figuring out that the ocean is very important. We see threats to the environment. There's an awful lot of speculation whether there is global change going on and we have the chance to determine whether or not that is happening, and do something about it. The next generation is going to do something about that-the old guys are not going to do anything about that. The people in school, the post-docs now are going to have to wrestle with that problem and it could be a major issue. Just think of this. About 50%- maybe 75% of the world's population lives within 200km of the ocean, attracted by good recreation, better weather, and transportation options. Before the people you're talking about die, the population of the earth-at the rate we're going now-will double. I predict the same ratio will live along the shores-the stresses that will put on the edge of the ocean are incredible.
So I believe there is an incredible amount of work out there. Will you get rich? No. Will you do important, maybe the most important things for the planet? Yes, I think so. Will it be adventurous? Yes, absolutely. I would encourage you to go into the field, but if you go in thinking you're going to make a lot of money, be a millionaire being an ocean researcher, don't.
Oceanography • Vol. ] ] • No. 2 / ] 9 9 8 9
