The polar research community was reminded of the risks in polar research yesterday with the news that a helicopter crash had killed two Canadian Coast Guard officers, including the commander of the venerated research icebreaker CCGS Amundsen, and scientist Klaus Hochheim. I’m at the biennial Polar and Alpine Microbiology Conference right now, and there were many sad reactions to the news. I haven’t had the privilege of working with any of the crash victims, but many here have. The news resulted in a long discussion over dinner last night on risk in field research. The question that never seemed to get answered was how much risk is acceptable?
Very often in response to tragedy the answer is determined, with very little discussion, to be zero. Two cases were presented at dinner where, following non-lethal accidents, unilateral decisions were made to reduce risk to zero. These two cases are very different from the tragedy on Monday – the accidents occurred during non-essential activities and on ships belonging to UNOLS, the University National Oceanic Laboratory System (the US fleet of academic research vessels). The policy changes from these incidents however, are indicative of a risk-adverse mindset among science managers. The lack of conversation on what is an acceptable level of risk is troubling. Advocating for zero risk is easy, but is impractical, costly, and threatens the quality of research. A quick look at the incidents in question:
DISCLAIMER – I made an effort to find some documentation on these incidents but LexisNexis didn’t turn up anything useful. the following is lore that has past down through the oceanographic community.
Incident 1: Shark bites girl, girl bites UNOLS
UNOLS vessels used to hold “swim calls” while in tropical waters. Researchers on long cruises could take a quick dip after weeks in a cramped, hot vessel. A pretty good perk. Perks are good for moral. Moral is good for work. Some years ago (?) a swim call was held after a vessel had been stationary for some time, and after scraps of food were dumped overboard. There was a shark. Someone got bit. They sued. UNOLS banned swim calls.
Incident 2: Get drunk once, never drink again
This incident happened in the 70’s and details are even sketchier. UNOLS vessels used to allow alcohol, but after an inebriated crewmember was injured (and sued…) all alcohol was banned. The US is unique among the major nations that conduct oceanographic research in having dry ships (expeditions on foreign vessels are very popular).
You might say so what? In neither case did a ban really reduce the ability of the UNOLS fleet to conduct research. I’ve even heard from some female colleagues that they favor the alcohol ban – weeks at sea with a majority male crew can be awkward enough without alcohol. The problem is the instigation of rules disproportionate to the incidents, the mindset that seeks zero risk. Perhaps this results from the reasonable desire of UNOLS to not be sued by an individual over the consequences of a choice he or she makes. What is baffling is the rejection of the obvious alternative: inform individuals of the risks of field research, and then hold them accountable for the decisions they make in the field.
At various times I’ve worked as a divemaster, whitewater kayak instructor, and raft guide. There is a small amount of risk involved in participating in any one of these leisure activities, and every year people die or are seriously injured doing them. Despite this a sort of equilibrium has been reached – people are informed of the risk, acknowledge it in consent forms, and participate. There is no need to eliminate all the risk – we don’t restrict rafting tours to flat sections of river or scuba divers to water they can stand up in. I’ve never once signed a liability waiver as a researcher, despite working in some very challenging environments. Instead it was assumed that bureaucracy had rounded all the sharp corners, and that I was free to sue if I stubbed my toe on one they missed.
There is no way to know what policy changes will result from Monday’s incident. It would be crass to speculate at a time when families and colleagues are coming to terms with the tragedy, and irresponsible when so few details are known. We are all reminded that risk comes with the privilege of pursuing science outside the office. I hope that as a community (and for that matter, as a nation) we can learn to approach the concept of risk rationally.
