Photo by Ian Hutchinson
The US National Science Foundation (NSF) has abandoned its plan to dismantle the Ocean Observatories Initiative (OOI), a $368 million network of more than 900 instruments, after a bipartisan revolt in Congress. The agency confirmed on 18 June that it “will not proceed with further removal or descoping of equipment from the remaining arrays,” reversing a decision announced without explanation in May.
How we got here
The OOI’s observation arrays sit off the coasts of North Carolina, Oregon, Washington and Alaska, and in the Irminger Sea between Greenland and Iceland, collecting data on ocean currents, climate variability and marine biodiversity that scientists use, among other things, to track ocean heating and forecast severe weather. NSF had said on 21 May that it intended to remove the network’s buoys and seafloor sensors, framing the move as a shift to a “nimbler approach” to its research infrastructure and estimating it would save around $48 million a year in operating costs, a small fraction of the $368 million already invested in building the network. By the time of the reversal, six of the seven moorings off Oregon and Washington had already been pulled from the water.
Congress pushes back
Senators Jeff Merkley (Democrat, Oregon) and Lisa Murkowski (Republican, Alaska) led a bipartisan bill to block what they called the “reckless dismantling” of the OOI, which would have barred federal funds being used to decommission the network until NSF “conducts a thorough review and assessment of the network with robust stakeholder engagement.” The Senate passed the bill unanimously on 17 June. Merkley said: “Dismantling the OOI is supreme stupidity, costing taxpayers millions of dollars and destroying a vital source of climate data. Our simple, bipartisan bill blocks this incredibly shortsighted decision and preserves these critical ocean monitoring sensors that keep coastal communities and fishers safe.” Murkowski added: “I’m grateful to my colleagues in the Senate for approving this legislation unanimously and helping to ensure that stakeholders and industry experts are consulted to keep our scientific researchers, our fishermen, and our communities equipped with this essential information.”
In the House, Representative Zoe Lofgren, the top Democrat on the Science, Space and Technology Committee, welcomed the U-turn but told POLITICO: “To be clear, this should have never happened. This pathetic scheme was illegal. NSF is governing via chaos and reactionary nonsense.” She added: “Scientists and coastal economies that depend on this data deserve better. My oversight team and I will be following closely what NSF does next.”
Scientific reaction
The original decision drew alarm from oceanographers, who warned it would strip out monitoring at a moment of record sea temperatures and concern over potential changes to Atlantic ocean circulation. Craig McLean, who served as NOAA’s chief scientist during Trump’s first term, said the plan “reflects the further lack of understanding that the current administration has of scientific value and scientific merit,” warning: “By dismantling such a system, we push the United States back yet again into a rear seat in global scientific leadership.” Rick Spinrad, who led NOAA under the Biden administration, was similarly blunt, calling the move “penny wise, tons foolish.”
A European dimension
The row has played out alongside a parallel push by the European Union to strengthen global ocean monitoring. On 3 June, the European Commission launched OceanEye, an initiative to reinforce international ocean observation, with a new International Alliance, coordinated by the Commission and UNESCO’s Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission (IOC), set up to support the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS). Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said: “We call on all Member States and global partners to join us to support the Global Ocean Observing System and make OceanEye a reality.” IOC Executive Secretary Vidar Helgesen added that the challenge was as much about governance as science: “We need an optimised system that countries can sustain over time, and this will only be possible with stronger investments and closer cooperation with governments.” OceanEye was presented at a side event of the Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa on 17 June, the same week NSF announced its reversal, though reporting suggests the EU’s move had been planned independently of the US row.
Part of a wider pattern
The Guardian notes that the row sits within a broader pattern since Trump returned to office in January, with the administration rolling back numerous science and climate initiatives while separately pushing to expand deep-sea mining and loosen fishing regulations, moves that have each drawn criticism from scientists and environmental campaigners.
What happens next
NSF says it will issue a “Dear Colleague Letter” to gather stakeholder input and convene an expert panel to determine a sustainable path for its ocean observing systems, though it has not committed to a timeline for redeploying the equipment already removed from the Endurance Array off Oregon and Washington. Edward Dever, an oceanography professor at Oregon State University who helps manage those arrays, said: “I believe we could have one mooring ready to go before the end of the summer and one to two others ready by fall. Ships are generally scheduled about a year in advance. Scheduling cruises on short notice can sometimes be done, but it is a challenge.”