Arctic Science Journeys
Radio Script
1997

__________________

Paying for Ocean Research
__________________

STORY: Given a choice, Stan Senner would prefer that the Exxon Valdez oil spill not have occurred at all. The spill eight years ago dumped 11 million gallons of oil into Alaska's Prince William Sound, making it the worst environmental disaster in U.S. history. But Senner also knows that because of the spill, scientists now have a better understanding of the region's fish and wildlife.

SENNER: "Our knowledge of Prince William Sound and the Gulf of Alaska ecosystem has increased by an order of magnitude since 1989. God forbid, were there another oil spill of that magnitude tomorrow, we would know a lot more and have a much better ability to detect the injuries. It did take an Exxon Valdez tragedy for the money to become available to do this kind of work."

Stan Senner is the science coordinator for the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council, a state-federal group charged with helping the sound recover from the effects of the spill. The science he and others conducted was funded by 900 million dollars Exxon paid to settle criminal and civil penalties. Scientists have studied everything from the role of plankton in the ocean food chain to the location of seagrass beds and other critical habitats. But while much has been learned about Prince William Sound's ecosystem, Stan Senner says that publicly funded research has not kept pace elsewhere along the state's 35,000 miles of coast.

SENNER: "Most of our population is coastal and much of our economy is tied to the coast, and we know amazingly little about those resources. I'm certainly, as a citizen of this state, concerned that we're not making the investment in understanding, monitoring, and managing our natural resources."

Just what kind of research is needed and how to pay for it are subjects of debate. Dorothy Childers is the executive director of the Alaska Marine Conservation Council, an environmental organization whose members are mostly commercial fishermen. She says one problem lies with the way research is done.

CHILDERS: "Most of the fisheries science research that's done in the North Pacific is associated with stock assessment, or counting fish. It would be good if some better research could be done to help us understand how the ecosystem functions."

More money for coastal research could help solve the problem. But in an era of declining state and federal spending, that appears unlikely. Bert Sharp co-chairs the Alaska Senate Finance Committee and is a member of the Senate Resource Committee.

SHARP: "I can't justify spending any money until we can at least satisfy our basic needs. When we are still restraining our public safety and keeping the cap on education, I don't think we are going to take on any new projects that isn't mandated by the constitution, frankly."

The Marine Conservation Council's Dorothy Childers tends to agree that more money is not necessarily the answer. She says scientists need to refocus their investigations.

CHILDERS: "I think the scientific community has to accept that there's limits on money. If we redirected our scientific research money toward answering questions about the ecosystem, then we might be getting better information that will help us in managing fisheries for the benefit of the whole ecosystem rather than for the economic bottom line of the fishing industry itself."

Eight years after the nation's worst oil spill, scientists and environmentalists continue to point out the need for basic research before disaster strikes.

OUTRO: For Arctic Science Journeys, this is Debra Damron reporting from Fairbanks, Alaska.