For a graduate school that has as its primary responsibility the training of future researchers and leaders, it is important to help the students recognize that to remain at the cutting edge of science, it is essential to not only to solve problems but to ask how to explore, how to probe a phenomenon or process more accurately, more deeply or from an entirely new direction – to think outside the box as the saying goes. We train our students in data analysis, theoretical studies, numerical simulation of processes, and some in field work. But as we all know, major strides in science often occur when we bring a new tool or method to bear that adds another dimension to the question (such as magnetometers that revealed the symmetric magnetic reversals supporting ideas about seafloor spreading) or simply improved measurement accuracy (the salinometer instead of titration); the list of examples is long.
When a new tool comes along, a lot of exciting and important work begins and energizes the research for several years. After a while things settle into a routine as we use it more widely, sometimes leading us to realize that we need a better tool or instrument to address questions that have been identified but lie beyond our reach. And this is my concern, are we adequately instilling in our students the sense that the quest to conduct first class science also means being on the lookout for new approaches to observation, i.e. novel sensors and platforms. We offer courses on methods, be they on mathematics, statistics, or data analysis, all important. But where do we discuss sensors and instrumentation, where do we convey the message that to stay at the frontier of science, we must keep sharpening our tools? We are proud of what we have learned and are keen to pass this knowledge to the next generation. But where do we learn how to address future challenges?
This discussion may seem hopelessly vague, but I like to think that there are some possibilities. For example, in classes where observation plays an important role, illustrate how as the tools developed, they opened new frontiers of research. In some cases, the emergence of novel techniques stimulated new areas of research or gave us a completely new perspective on an old question, whereas in other cases perhaps we knew the next step, but couldn’t do much for lack of appropriate tools? If we have courses in data analysis, why not introduce students to sensor, instrument and system design? A course in this area might be particularly helpful for those with only a limited background in physics or engineering at the undergraduate level. This ‘hands-on’ experience would help them become conversant about instrumentation, and indeed help them to articulate the need for new tools as they move forward in their careers. The scope and quality of oceanography is defined by the tools at its disposal. Consider how acoustics and robotics are being used for high resolution mapping and studies of the sea floor.
An area that is crying out to be developed is sustained observation of the water column. We know how to do this, namely, to team up with the merchant marine. This would enable us to probe the dynamics of the global ocean water column that is all but impossible by other means. We use current meters and floats for specific tasks, but they do not lend themselves for sustained observation. With MM-vessels in regular traffic we can do this, but we are handicapped by the lack of tools and sensors - hence the lack of interest. I think we can do better and have made some suggestions in earlier posts (Jan. 15, 2024; Apr. 22, 2024; Sept. 9, 2024). How do we take the next step?