Search for: All records

Pursuing an academic career in marine science requires individuals to acquire a range of skills that can be applied across different contexts, including experimental or computational skills, policy engagement, teaching, and seagoing fieldwork. The tendency to advertise careers in marine science with imagery of research expeditions leads fieldwork to be perceived as a requirement for a career in marine science, with this experience supposedly an indicator of competitiveness in this discipline. Historically, those participating in remote fieldwork over extended periods of time were perceived as “adventurous explorers, with a strong bias towards western, able-bodied men” (Nash et al., 2019). Imagery reinforcing such notions for marine scientists fail to recognize that this perception can be discouraging to individuals from other backgrounds who may be excluded from the discipline by a range of real and perceived participatory barriers. Such exclusionary factors include: caring responsibilities, physical mobility, challenging social environments, isolating and physically uncomfortable working environments, mental health challenges and access to opportunity (Giles et al., 2020). Such barriers disproportionately affect diverse, underrepresented, and marginalized groups, who may therefore struggle to identify with marine science as a potential discipline in which to pursue a successful career. 

Understanding and managing the response of marine ecosystems to human pressures including climate change requires reliable large-scale and multi-decadal information on the state of key populations. These populations include the pelagic animals that support ecosystem services including carbon export and fisheries. The use of research vessels to collect information using scientific nets and acoustics is being replaced with technologies such as autonomous moorings, gliders, and meta-genetics. Paradoxically, these newer methods sample pelagic populations at ever-smaller spatial scales, and ecological change might go undetected in the time needed to build up large-scale, long time series. These global-scale issues are epitomised by Antarctic krill (Euphausia superba), which is concentrated in rapidly warming areas, exports substantial quantities of carbon and supports an expanding fishery, but opinion is divided on how resilient their stocks are to climatic change. Based on a workshop of 137 krill experts we identify the challenges of observing climate change impacts with shifting sampling methods and suggest three tractable solutions. These are to: improve overlap and calibration of new with traditional methods; improve communication to harmonise, link and scale up the capacity of new but localised sampling programs; and expand opportunities from other research platforms and data sources, including the fishing industry. Contrasting evidence for both change and stability in krill stocks illustrates how the risks of false negative and false positive diagnoses of change are related to the temporal and spatial scale of sampling. Given the uncertainty about how krill are responding to rapid warming we recommend a shift towards a fishery management approach that prioritises monitoring of stock status and can adapt to variability and change.