Oregon State UniversitySpecial Collections & Archives Research Center

“Scientists Making Waves and Bringing Hope,” Dr. Jane Lubchenco

April 26, 2016

Video: “Scientists Making Waves and Bringing Hope” 

- Abstract | Biography


Faye Chadwell: Thank you for coming out tonight and joining us as we celebrate the accomplishments of a very fine, terrific member of Oregon State University faculty, Dr. Jane Lubchenco. For those of you who may not know, we are honoring Jane tonight as the winner of the Linus Pauling Legacy Award. This award was created by Dr. Linus Pauling, Jr. in 2001 when Dr. Pauling originated the award in honor of his father, OSU's probably most acclaimed graduate. And it is dedicated to recognition of an outstanding achievement by an individual or organization in a subject of interest to Linus Pauling. The OSU's libraries and press gives this award biannually, and the selection is made by an advisory committee made of previous award winners, a number of whom are Nobel laureates as well as members of History of Science faculty at Oregon State University and the faculty of Special Collections and Archives Research Center within OSU's libraries. We are very happy to be here tonight and presenting this award and also having a lecture by Dr. Lubchenco, which is the tradition with award-winners: giving a lecture. Her lecture tonight is "Scientists Making Waves and Bringing Hope." I'm not going to do the introduction for Dr. Lubchenco. I'm going to leave to another person, who I'm going to introduce here.

I am Faye Chadwell. I'm the university librarian and director of Oregon State University Press, and it's a real honor to introduce our pretty brand-new, still-shiny vice president for research at Oregon State University: Cynthia Sagers. Cynthia just started at OSU in August 2015. She previously had been a Vice Provost for Research and Economic Development at the University of Arkansas. As our Vice President for research she oversees the huge research machine enterprise at Oregon State, which has brought in $285 million in research contracts last year. So, we're rocking the research world at Oregon State University. Having gotten acquainted with Cindy, she is really a dynamic leader and I'm so glad that she's on campus and I'm also very glad that she was willing to come and introduce a really, really terrific, accomplished scientist, Dr. Jane Lubchenco. Cindy.

[Walks offstage. Audience applause.]

Cynthia Sagers: Thank you, Faye. It is indeed a pleasure to be here and to be a member of the Beaver Nation. I'm going to give Jane two introductions tonight: the first is the informal, the second is the more formal. The informal begins with awesome, terrific, fabulous, powerful, formidable, amazing. Jane Lubchenco was a role-model for me when I was a Ph.D. student at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City. Even before that as an undergraduate I knew about her work, not only as a pioneering scientist, but as a pioneering woman in science who made it real for women to be both women scientists and mothers and sisters and daughters. So, she is a pioneer on a number of levels and really has broken ground in her science field, as you know, but also just in the business of being a scientist. So, thank you Jane from me very personally you are so important to me moving forward to the place where I am today.

Now the more formal introduction, some of the accolades, some of the achievements of Jane Lubchenco, who we're honoring tonight. Jane is now a distinguished professor and advisor of Marine Studies in the Department of Integrated Biology, my home department at Oregon State University. She was recently appointed by U.S. Secretary of State, John Kerry, as the first-ever Science Envoy for the Ocean. She came to OSU in 1977 and served her appointment as administrator, that is the #1 job in NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). She did that in 2009. In her Senate Confirmation Hearing, Oregon Senator Ron Wyden called her, "The Bionic Woman of Good Science."


She served under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmospheric and administrator of NOAA from 2009-2013. She is one of the most highly-cited ecologists on earth and has been recognized with numerous science-citation classics. I'll just wrap up with the real punctuation, is she's a winner of the MacArthur Genius Award. She has 19 honorary doctorates. She won the Heinz Award for the environment. She has AAAS' Public Understanding of Science and Technology Award, and that's just the icing of the cake. It's an enormous pleasure and an honor for me to introduce Dr. Jane Lubchenco to you tonight.

[Walks off stage. Audience applause]

Jane Lubchenco: Cindy thank you very much, indeed, for that. I really appreciate your being here and thank you for those very personal and eloquent words. Good evening, everyone. Thank you for joining us. This is my great pleasure to present to you tonight the Linus Pauling Legacy Award Lecture.

My remarks tonight are focused very much on why we are here tonight, which is really to honor the legacy of Linus Pauling. He really is an amazing individual whose contributions are as fresh today as they were when he made them. I want to take this opportunity to tee off two of the different things that he really stands for, for me. One is noting how important his legacy is as a scientist, as a pioneer, who was pushing the boundaries of knowledge ahead. All scientists get excited about their work, and they all look to try to make new discoveries, bring some creative, out-of-the-box thinking. That's what gets kids into science, that's what keeps us in science, and it is really cool, fun, wonderful stuff. The creative juices that keep someone going are the ideas of new discovery, posing questions, things that we don't understand, pushing the boundaries of knowledge, sharing that with colleagues, sharing that with students. As we were talking about earlier tonight, science has gotten much more collaborative, much more interdisciplinary in recent years, and that makes it even more exciting. These are just some of the awards that Linus Pauling won for recognition of his scientific contributions [motions to projection of awards on screen].

But equally impressive are those awards that he has won that recognize him as a champion, an activist, an individual who was really focused on peace and security. This combination of the two is what really makes him stand out. It is unprecedented that someone has two unshared Nobel prizes, each for a very different but very full facet of his life. This is part of the legacy that we are here celebrating tonight, and I think it is noteworthy to actually see a commitment that he made that you can read here [motions to projection of handwritten note on screen by Linus Pauling]. When he became focused on how important it was to be a champion for peace, every single talk he said, every single lecture, every single public even that I'm going to participate in, I'm going to focus on peace. So, this was a real strong commitment that he made, and in fact from what I can gather without being a historian, he seemed to be good to his word, true to his word in trying to raise awareness about the importance of having focusing global attention on some of the challenges in achieving peace. So, this is the legacy that we are talking about tonight, and it is a legacy that builds deeply on his passion for science, his understanding of the power of science, but also understanding the need to connect the approach that science and scientists take with a broader world.


The focus that I have tonight, I want to tee off that legacy and talk a little bit about peace and security, what they meant to him at the time, what they mean to us now, how our understanding of peace and security has changed through time. then I want to segue to something that he lived and breathed: the roles and responsibilities of scientists and pose the same question: how have our ideas about the responsibilities of science changed through time? Finally I want to use some examples from work in the ocean that illustrate those two. So, bear with me as we dive into the first topic: peace and security.

Clearly at the time that Linus Pauling was active, the biggest threat to peace and security was nuclear war. That is what he became passionate about. It became a major focus of his and indeed many of those of us who were alive at that time remember what a significant threat it was. That threat has not completely gone away by any stretch of the imagination; however, we now think about peace and security in a much broader context than was the case then. we have come to realize that environmental issues as well as social justice and other issues, provide a much richer understanding of what it is to achieve peace and security. We now understand that various changes in the environment, whether it's climate change, environmental degradation, droughts, habitat loss, all of those contribute directly and very immediately in some instances to civil strife, to unrest, to migrants, to warfare. I think our understanding of peace and security has really gotten broader. It's not just about weapons. It's not just about war. It's actually a much richer discussion.

The United Nations Environment Program has recently done an analysis looking at to what extent has environmental degradation contributed directly in a way that scholars would agree to civil conflict. And I think there's emerging, this is a very rich area of investigation and it seems like there is a very compelling case to be made. In addition to that, our leaders not only internationally but also nationally are focused very much on how our understanding of, in this case, climate change, how our understanding of peace and security has come to represent not just the traditional views, which Susan Rice, who is the national security advisor, is focused on here [reference to projection of Susan Rice with quotation]. To complete the thought that she was focused on in this particular speech she was giving, we now really understand how important it is to think about the impacts of climate change on national security, that climate change is now seen as a national security issue. It's not just the National Security Advisor who is talking about things like that, but also the Department of Defense has come to realize. This really started with Madeline Albright, not only both political but also Department of Defense leaders since that time have really focused more broadly on the importance of environmental changes to national defense. This is just a short nod to the reality that how we think about big issues, like peace, have really evolved through time and our understanding is much more connected to the environmental changes that are going on.


The environment is not just something that is an afterthought. It's not something that we can ignore. It really is part and parcel of people's lives: it affects their livelihoods; it affects their wellbeing, their health; it affects their security.

In addition to the changes that we have seen with respect to how we think about peace and security, our ideas of the roles and responsibilities of scientists have also evolved from Pauling's time to the present. Many scientists have thought that their primary contribution to the world is knowledge discovery. We have the evolution of the iconic ivory tower, where scientists are ensconced in the ivory tower and really focused on creation of new knowledge with the assumption that at some point that knowledge is going to be shared with the rest of the world, but it wasn't really the responsibility of scientists themselves to do that directly and immediately. That has changed in no small fashion. We are now seeing scientists embracing what I call the social contract with science and becoming much more active in sharing knowledge with the broader world, but also becoming better listeners and engaging more with society. When I was president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I focused my remarks to the assembled members of AAAS on what I see as our roles and responsibilities and really drew attention to this social contract that I believe scientists have with society, specifically the need to share what we know, not just published in scientific publications, but share what we know much more broadly, to engage with society, but also not just to identify problems but also be helpful in identifying solutions to those problems. When I proposed some of these ideas in 1997, there was, I was more than a little nervous that I would have rotten tomatoes thrown at me by the assembled folks in the room, and much to my surprise, I received a standing ovation indicating to me there really has been an evolution in thinking about this, and since that item there has been a lot more action in these directions enabling scientists to learn to become better communicators. Some of the organizations that are here, Compass, the Leopold Leadership Program, and Climate Central are just three of the organizations that now exist to help scientists engage more with the broader community and Brooke Smith, who is the Executive Director of Compass is here with us tonight. She was a former Beaver, did her Masters at OSU and now leads a very vibrant organization that is engaged in helping scientists figure out how to become bilingual, i.e., to speak the language of science but also the language of laypeople, how to engage more with society. Now she and her team are actively training out scientists at OSU and our students in helping them be more effective in their outreach.

In addition to that, the opportunities to focus on solutions, to become more engaged with problems has long been attractive to many scientists, and I want to segue now to some of the ways in which our roles and responsibilities and environmental changes is playing out in the ocean, drawing on some of the research that I have been involved in and many of my students and former students have been involved in. The ocean is a big place. It has been so bountiful and so immense that I think for decades and decades, if not centuries, people have thought that it was so immense and bountiful that there was very little we could do that would ever make a dent in the ocean. We know now that's not true. It's not infinitely resilient. It's not infinitely bountiful. We have made a significant dent in it. In fact, so much so that oftentimes now if you bring up the subject of the ocean people assume that you're going to be conveying doom and gloom.


We've heard about lots of problems in the ocean, people are more aware of those. It's sometimes one is hard pressed to hear some good news coming out of the environment more broadly, but certainly out of the ocean. I want to focus tonight on some good news, some hopeful stories, some good things that are happening in the ocean space based on good science and engagement of scientists and working together with fisherman, with policymakers, with local communities to make some good things happen. Ocean certainly as a healthy ocean as central for peace but how do we make that happen?

I think there is a lot of good news that is coming about from the ocean. There is really a new wave of scientific awareness, a new wave of action that is creating more momentum, more opportunities for good things to happen. Instead of just focusing on problems, scientists are actively focused on creating solutions to those problems and many of these problems require interdisciplinary solutions, teams of scientists working together across boundaries to make good things happen. The ocean provides a wealth of benefits to people. The most obvious ones are things like seafood. So, food from the ocean is pretty critical. The ocean plays a critical role in climate regulation. For some communities around the world, it provides fuel. Disease and pest regulation-people who live upstream of mangroves and coral reefs, know how critical they are in protecting coastal areas from the power of tsunamis or the power of storms. So, the oceans provide a wealth of very tangible benefits. They also are very important to inspire us. They are a source of education. They are a source of spiritual value for many people around the world and deep cultural heritage. The oceans provide a wealth of benefits to people, some of which we had just taken for granted. However, over-fishing, habitat loss, pollution are all changing those ocean ecosystems regardless of whether they are mangroves, coral reefs, open ocean systems, modifying them and creating more and more problems that actually threaten the benefits that we want: the economic benefits, the cultural benefits, the spiritual benefits that we want and need from oceans. If those problems weren't sufficiently dire, we add climate change and ocean acidification into the mix, it's quite easy to become quite depressed and very sober about what lies ahead. There are indeed major, major challenges that are out there, and I don't want to undermine the magnitude of those challenges. However, there are some good things that are happening, some good things that are on their way that are giving us renewed hope that in fact we might be able to tackle some of these big problems and make headway with them.

One of the big challenges is providing even just the basic necessities of people around the world with the growing number of people to feed, a growing human population. So how do we do that while at the same time restore the ecosystems that have been degraded and get to a better place?

I'm going to focus now on fisheries as the first of three small vignettes to talk about some of the changes that are underway and some of the challenges and how we are in the process of meeting some of those challenges. Fisheries is one of the important, one of the ways we've been using oceans for years and years and years and until recently it has also been inadvertently one of the most destructive activities. Fisheries mean different things to different people around the world.


They provide cultural identity and so a way of life; it's job creation; it's healthy food. For people in developing countries, it often means food security; it often means poverty alleviation to those governments. So, fisheries is not a one-size fits all-large-scale, small scale, a lot of different type of fisheries around the world but all nonetheless very important, especially from a food security standpoint. Fisheries really is key to providing food for many people, especially in the developing world. This figure shows you both the growth of the human population, this magenta color here, but also starting in 1950 through the present. The growth of wild-capture fisheries that in the mid-'80s level of and is now pretty much flat. So, we have a real disparity between increased number of mouths to feed and increases in catches from the ocean. So, this really presents a very serious challenge. If food security is so important to people around the world, how are we going to be able to provide that? Clearly aqua culture is part of the answer and part of the solution. But I want to focus for a moment on the fisheries part of that and ask in fact why is this leveling off? Is that an absolute limit or are there other options that we have? So, if we just pose a very simple question: what's limiting the supply of wild-caught seafood from the ocean, it would be quite simple to come up with: there are no new places to fish in the ocean. We've fished everywhere now. Modern technology has given us that ability. There are also non-sustainable fishing practices and unsustainable fishing policies, and I want to hone in on those two for just one moment. This is absolutely the case. It has been unsustainable. Here is some data to show you that [motions to projected chart]. Starting in 1950 to about 2010 here, this is the percent of wild fisheries around the world that are in these different categories that are used by the United Nations: fisheries that are developing, fisheries that are fully exploited, over-exploited, or collapsed. And you will note that in 1950, over 80% of the fisheries were developing. We didn't have any collapsed stocks. We didn't have any over-exploited stocks. But fast-forward 60 years later, and almost half of the fisheries are in those two categories and the other fully exploited. So, within a very short period of time we have made major in-roads in fishing around the world and many of those practices and policies are in fact unsustainable and that in fact is indeed one of the problems. Many fisherman, especially in developed countries around the world are fishering harder for fewer and fewer fish, nets coming up empty and this has been highlighted by many governments as being a very serious challenge. What, in fact, do we do? Is it hopeless?

Some new scientific information and experience in a number of countries suggest, no, it's not hopeless. There actually are ways that we can be smarter about fishing and achieve not only increases in catches but with greater economic value and more seafood. So, there is a new movement underway, if you will, of this mantra of fishing smarter, not harder, fishing in ways that are less destructive, fishing in ways that do not undermine the future fish in the ocean.

I'll tell you a little bit of the story about what the U.S. experience has been, because it has been a dramatic turnaround in the United States, and, in fact, is providing hope and examples for a number of other developed countries as well as developing countries. The United States is very important locally in terms of seafood and after decades and decades of over-fishing, there was finally a really tough law that was passed in 2006 that had 2 main provisions: one a very firm mandate to end over-fishing that said over-fishing must be ended by a certain time, we have to rebuild stocks.


A very tough law with teeth and timetables. Secondly, the other key provision of this law was the opportunity to use Rights-based approaches to fishery management. I'll say a little bit more about what that means, but let me just note that the U.S. experience, which I'll tell you about in a little bit, has been so successful in turning fisheries around that in 2013, the European Union also passed major reforms to their fishery policy modeled on what we had done in the United States, and that in fact is underway, is in the process of being implemented now. A number of other countries have followed suit and many others are interested.

I have to describe two major types of approaches to fishery management for you to understand why this was so successful. The first is called "Common Pool" fishery management. In this type of situation, all the fisherman are competing with one another for whatever the quota is for a particular year. It's also called "The Race to Fish." So, at the beginning of the season, the gun goes off, everybody rushes out fishes as hard as they can, as fast as they can, until the quota is reached. So, under a system like this, Common Pool fishery management, there's no incentive for any fisherman to conserve. There is every incentive for everybody to over-fish, because if I don't catch as many fish as I can, Faye is going to catch them all. So, there is no incentive for me to be conservation-minded. An alternative type of fishery management that didn't really come into being until the mid-'80s is called a "Rights-based" approach to management. There are different ways you can do this, but in general the total amount of catch for the year is determined scientifically, but all different players in the fishery, the fisherman for example, are allocated a fraction of that quota or are allocated a place that they can fish so they have secure access to either the quota or a place and under a system like this fisherman can fish whenever they want during the season. Each fisherman stops when they have reached their own quota that has been allocated. In a Rights-based management program like that, everyone has a different incentive now than compared to a Common Pool fishery. Each individual in that fishery has incentive to have the fishery be healthy, because if the size of the pie is a particular size this year and my fraction of that pie is like 5%, let's say Faye has been a better fisherwoman than I so she's got 10% of the quota, each of us, though, is incentivized to have the pie get bigger and bigger through time, meaning we can all catch more fish. I still have my 5%, she has her 10% but we are all now incentivized to think long-term and to have the fishery be healthy so that we each can catch more fish. So, under this Rights-based approach, individuals, or groups, or communities, whoever holds the quota, is incentivized to think long-term. This type of fishery management aligns short-term and long-term perspectives, it aligns conservation and economic perspectives. It's not a panacea, but it has made an incredible difference in many fisheries.

Scientific information that came to bear in 2008 has really been catalytic in changing people's thinking about Rights-based approaches to fishery management. This figure shows the percent of fisheries that are collapsed. This was an analysis of about 11,000 fisheries around the world through time starting in 1950 and the red line shows the fisheries that are, and so in 1950 there were no fisheries that were collapsed but through time more and more of them have collapsed, so this is part of the challenge with fisheries today.


The Rights-based approaches to fisheries started in the '70s and '80s and you can see there were not very many Rights-based programs but in the '80s there were more and more of them, and so the number of Rights-based programs has grown quite rapidly over a short period of time. this purple line shows the trajectory of fisheries that became Rights-based but started off before they were Rights-based they were on the same downward trajectory as other fisheries, but once they became Rights-based programs they have leveled off and are doing much more sustainable than all the rest of the fisheries that were not Rights-based approaches. So, this was combining small-scale, large-scale, tropics, temperate: lots of different types of fisheries and it was pretty powerful evidence that said, hey, maybe we need to take a look at fishery management and embrace some new approaches to see what possibilities exist.

The U.S. experience has been a pretty powerful one. I'm going to show you data from the year 2000 and the year 2015. This is the number of over-fished stocks that we had in U.S. Federal waters in the U.S. [Refers to projected information]. Ninety-two, and then after that new law was passed in 2006 and after we adopted more Rights-based approaches, that number of over-fished stocks has plummeted to 29. So that's really impressive turnaround in a relatively short period of time. even more importantly, there were no stocks in the year 2000 that had been overfished and then brought back to recovery to a point that they can be fished again, so zero in 2000 and by 2015 thirty-nine. So, the U.S. experience with fishery management has finally turned a corner and is on a path to sustainability and profitability and it has been an amazing turnaround. When I was administrator of NOAA this was a lot of what we were working on and this is a really good-news story. not all the fisheries in the U.S. are doing great, but many, many are than used to be and there is some pretty amazing work that's underway. So, these changes coincide with not only the mandate to end over-fishing that was passed in 2006 but the embrace of more Rights-based programs, and right now about 2/3 of the fish by volume that are caught in the U.S. are under some kind of Rights-based program. So, it really has become much more common. One quick example of that is from the West Coast Groundfish fishery off the coast of Washington, Oregon, and California. This is a very vibrant fishery. It had been. But after decades of overfishing by the year 2000 it was declared a Federal fishery disaster. So really, really bad news. Fisherman were hurting. It was very, very challenging. Many of them remember the good old days. My neighbor down in Depot Bay is 93 and he remembers the good old days and he remembers this crash and he is very eloquent in saying you know we really blew it. This fishery was declared a Federal fishery disaster in the year 2000 became under the new law was, new management with a Rights-based approach was started in 2011 and this fishery has had a remarkable turnaround. It is now 13 of the species are now certified by the Marine Stewardship Council, and the Seafood Watch Program in the program in the modern-day aquarium independent certification of which seafood is sustainable, 40 species of the groundfish now are either top choice or a good alternative. So, this fishery is one of the fisheries that really has had a pretty impressive turnaround.

This doesn't mean everything is great. There are still challenges out there, but it's on a much better path and some of the fisherman that I've worked closely with said I can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel. We actually are in a better place. I can feel good about having my sons and daughters come into the fishery and I couldn't before. So, this focus on new approaches to management that are science-based are being adopted many places around the world. These are Rights-based fisheries.


And you can see this is a list of countries now. You can't read that [referring to projection on the screen], but you can see where they are here. Now there are about 500 species that are under some kind of Rights-based management program in 40 different countries. So, this has really taken off. Again, it's not a panacea. It has to be appropriate for a fishery. It has to be well-designed but it really is providing some new hope. So, well-designed Rights-based fisheries can really empower fishers and communities and can lead to some pretty strong benefits.

We're doing very, quite respectable job of addressing unsustainable fishing practices and policies with these policy reforms and they're gaining currency. One of the other real challenges with fisheries has been illegal fishing, illegal, unregulated, unreported fishing. The ocean is such a big place it's really hard to patrol all those bad actors that are out there that are doing things to undermine legal fishing. But there has been remarkable turnaround in the appetite to address illegal fishing with many new policies, many new actors in the mix here. It's really turning things around in a pretty impressive fashion. So, we're talking about IUU fishing (Illegal, Unregulated, and Unreported). It's huge. It is big bucks, which is what drives it. And what we're seeing are new policies. Secretary John Kerry has really shone the spotlight on IUU fishing. There's now a new international fishery crime unit at Interpol countries and the EU has passed really tough legislation that is calling out and shaming countries whose fisherman are engaged in illegal activities and we have a new international agreement called the Port State Measures Agreement that acknowledges that the ocean is a big place, we can't be patrolling at once but all those fishing vessels at some point have to come back to a home port. They have to come back to port to refuel, to offload their fish, whatever. So that's where they can be apprehending. So, the countries that signed this agreement are agreeing that they will not allow vessels that have been identified as fishing illegally to come into their ports. So here we have countries working together to address a big global program and it's beginning to work.

In addition to that, there is new technology and new gaming software that is being brought to bear so that you can actually watch what the bad guys are doing, know where they are, deploy assets to go out and get them and there are a number of non-governmental organizations and governments that are in this space. We also have increased public attention to this problem. Ian Urbina is a reporter for the New York Times. She wrote a six-part series on illegal fishing and slave labor. The AP just won a Pulitzer Prize for their reporting on slave labor and illegal fishing. So, there's more public awareness and more interest in this issue.

To sum up some of the good news here, we're not out of the woods with fisheries by a long shot, but there is increased appetite, increased tools, increased interest, and more success in fishing smarter, not harder. Holistic science with science-based limits, teeth and timetables, empowered fishermen and communities, and international cooperation is really beginning to make a big difference in this space.

The one final point that I had highlighted as what's limiting the supply of seafood are places for refuge for fish in case we make mistakes in determining what the limits can be. And that brings me to the second topic, which really is marine protected areas and marine reserves. These are places in the ocean that are managed for some conservation benefit. I'm going to focus just on marine reserves, fully protected areas, no fishing, no oil and gas, no extractive activity, no dumping. Here again is an area where we have some pretty powerful scientific information that has now been able to trigger a lot more action on the part of governments and local communities.


We know, for example, that when you create a no-take area, things change very dramatically inside. You get increases in biomass, this is percent change [referring to projected graph on screen]. Increase in biomass, huge increases in density, in size, and diversity within an area. Good things happen inside an area. Some of that bounty also spills out to adjacent areas outside. And one of the most important benefits of protected areas is that fish or invertebrates can get big inside, because they're no longer being caught and getting big means that individual makes a lot more young. This is a vermillion rock fish [referring to projected image], something that's common off our coast. This is a 14.5"-er. Vermillion rock fish of this size makes about a 150,000 young. Each one of these little icons represents 100,000 young. So, 150,000 young. If you let this rock fish grow to be 24" that individual produces 1.7 million young. So, a little bit bigger size means a lot more young. Creating protected areas to project those what the fisherman call BOFFs (Big Old Fat Female Fish). And there are fisherman that have t-shirts and caps that say, "Save the BOFFs, Save the BOFFs," because they know how important they are to the future of the fishery. Protected areas is a great way to save the BOFFs and to provide for not only spillover but also healthier ocean communities.

In addition to those benefits, we are learning from many of the great big huge protected areas that have been created recently how important they are in providing resilience against climate change. Areas that have bleached for example are coming back a lot faster if they are in protected areas. They don't have the same kind of stresses that areas that are fished do. So compelling scientific evidence about the benefits of reserves. All of this evidence is actually creating increased momentum internationally to create more projected areas and to involve communities, fisherman, and others in so doing.

This is a figure that shows the growth of marine protected areas internationally [refers to projected image]. Throughout the ocean and you can see that just in the last decade there's been a real upsurge. We still only have 3.7% of the ocean is in any kind of protected area. That's still really, really tiny. And 1.9% are in these no-take marine reserves that are fully protected. That's still is a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed, but in fact there has been quite remarkable progress in the last decade. We've gone from 0.1% to 1.9% of the ocean strongly protected. So, this scientific evidence is actually triggering more interest and more appetite for having more protected areas. In particular, some countries have really been taking a lead in this space. In 2015, very large marine reserves were announced by Palau fully. 83% of its exclusive economic zone is protected. Chile 24%, UK a little over 20%, New Zealand, Seychelles, are all countries that now are creating some very large protected areas and one very innovative development was announced by Seychelles at the Climate Conference and Parties in Paris last December. Seychelles is a country that had quite considerable foreign debt they have now announced a deal with the debt holders that their debt will be relieved in exchange for creating a marine spatial plan for the entire EEZ setting aside 30% of their exclusive economic zone as no-take and creating a climate adaptation fund to continue to fund adaptation to climate change.


So, some real new creative approaches to debt relief in exchange for protecting the oceans. So, some real new creative ideas. So, fishers reform I've talked about. I've talked some of the new innovations in protected areas.

Then the third and this will be short final topic is the intersection of those two for some creative scientists led by one of our former students has really been creating new innovations in this space. So, combining Rights-based approaches to fisheries with marine reserves under something called a TURF reserve. A TURF is a type of Rights-based management. It stands for Territorial User Rights Fisheries. So, this focus is on small-scale fisheries, some of the most challenging to make sustainable. They are important. About 90% of the world's fisherman are there. About 40 million fishers. And it's about ¼ of the global catch. A Territorial User Right Fishery, so in exchange for exclusive access to fish in an area, fisherman agree that they will in the middle of that area create a no-take area, a fully protected marine reserve. That protects habitat, protects biodiversity, and then they get exclusive rights to catch the spillover into the areas that they have exclusive rights to fish in. this new idea of TURF reserves has been tested a number of places to huge benefit. Fish Forever is an active program of Environmental Defense Fund. Rare and sustainable fisheries group led by Steve Gains and Chris Costello at UC Santa Barbara and they're working in these places around the world on these TURF reserves. In Belize for example they did a pilot project that had such amazing results after just a year that the government has decided to do it along the whole coast of Belize. So, some pretty dramatic turnaround with this combination of Rights-based approaches and marine reserves.

In Belize in particular they have reported some very strong benefits. Those benefits are exactly what has led the government to embrace this as a solution for the entire coast. There are other examples underway. I was just in Indonesia and saw a Blue Swimming Crab Fishery that is now a TURF reserve. This is one that is in the Philippines. So, there are many places around the world where these new approaches are being tried, being embraced, being refined. Because each one needs to be designed in a way that is appropriate to that place.

So, we've seen some good changes underway, some amazing benefits as a result of fisheries reform and protected areas. One question is how do we replicate. How do we scale up those? What's the incentive for reform happening? There is some new good news also that is coming out. This is a new paper that was published in the proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences recently [refers to projected title]. It talks about if we could in fact reform fisheries, get things in order, just wave a magic wand and put all good fisheries in place, what would be the economic benefit, how long would it take, and what's actually possible? How much money would it take? What they found was that in fact the median fishery could be recovered within about 10 years. So that's a lot faster than everybody has assumed was the case. Yes, it takes some money to do that fishery reform, but the benefit to cost-ratio is 10:1. So there is huge benefit if in fact we get good fishery reform in place. So, this has created a lot of buzz, a lot of excitement, especially looking at some of these very compelling numbers that you can have increase in a triple bottom line: more seafood on consumers' plates, more fish in the ocean to play a key role in ocean ecosystems, but also more profits because it's all about fishing smarter, not harder. Huge excitement around some of these reforms that are gaining currency.


I want to note that aqua culture is going to be a very important part of the solution, and it's important that it be sustainable. We don't have time to talk about that tonight. We also need to pay attention to other threats that are happening in the ocean, whether it's climate change and bleaching or other pollution, plastics those kinds of things. I don't want to do such a broad brush here that we're saying there aren't any problems that are out there. Nonetheless, I am very encouraged. I'm hopeful because of the good things that are underway. There are changes that are possible. We're seeing new policy reforms that are science-based. We're seeing depleted stocks being rebuilt and able to be fished. We're seeing serious international attention to illegal activities in the ocean, creation of new marine reserves, new Rights-based approaches, a big upside that provides incentive. So that's actually pretty encouraging. It doesn't get us out of the woods, but there's a lot of good stuff that's happening. I think there is reason to be cautiously optimistic that we can in fact recover some of the bounty that has been lost and use it wisely.

I am reminded by what Pauling said about his hope that he is asked if he is hopeful and he said, well, I'll just read it [referring to projected quote]. "I'm asked from time to time, am I hopeful/ I say I am. I believe that we're going to get through this difficult period... If I weren't hopeful, why should I be spending my time going around making television interviews and giving popular talks and traveling around the world working for world peace?" So, I think in the spirit of the Pauling legacy we are seeing an evolution of our thinking about what peace and security means and what it's going to take to achieve it. We're seeing an evolution in our thinking about the roles of scientists, the importance of their activating their social contracts, engaging with society and helping craft solutions, and we're seeing scientists making waves and bringing hope in the ocean space, bringing good science to the table, engaging with users, engaging with communities and making some important things happen. I'm energized not only by those things but by many of our young students of whom are with us tonight and who have been working on these issues with me and with Bruce. Ally, Jenna, Jessie, and Liz, you guys are terrific and it's so exciting to be working with you on these issues. I've highlighted Brooke who's the Executive Director of Compass. I highlighted some of the work of Bruce and my first Ph.D. student Steve Gaines. So, all beavers. Laura is now in the Whitehouse working on these issues. Kirsten is on the faculty at OSU and I've talked about all of their research. And then my partner in crime, Bruce Menge, who is really so supportive of these issues and a great scientist. So I just wanted to do a shout-out to those individuals and tell you collectively how excited we all area about the new directions that OSU with the evolution of the Marine Studies Initiative, led by two very capable individuals who are good friends, good colleagues, good collaborators, and both good scientists they're really some amazing things that are happening and they dovetail directly with the new directions in society with the United Nations Sustainable Development goals, providing an overarching umbrella for us to think about sustainability: how do we meet today's challenges? How do we satisfy needs of people today in ways that are indeed sustainable? Focusing directly on the sustainable development goal that's around the ocean but it's about the integration of all of those different topics and that integration is part of what is so exciting about being in science today, being at a university today, the integration of science, the passion of young people and so with that I'll leave you with this great image of the ocean and all the people that have contributed to the work that I've just described. Thank you very much indeed.



JL: Faye do we have a little time for questions? We do.

Audience member #1: Thank you for the wonderful, insightful talk. Have you seen how much would change and how is that reflected as the old school fisherman have seen the sunset and a new generation has come forward? I grew up with the old generation fisherman, and I'm just wondering about the science and talking to people and having them listen which is probably relatively new.

JL: I've seen really open-minded, innovative fisherman of all ages. I was describing a little earlier Bruce's and my neighbor in Depot Bay who is 93 and who is, by anybody's definition, has been fishing for a long time. he grew up on the Oregon Coast, he's been fishing there. He remembers what the old days were like before all the depletion. He's been raving on what the what he calls the younger generation of fisherman to actually be more conservation minded than he thinks they have been, and he's been one of the strongest champions for the reforms that have been happening. That's just one individual who it would be easy to have characterized him as somebody who is out of touch with reality, but he saw the good days, then the bad days, and is seeing some good come back. I think there are folks like Fred who have been in every age group, if you will. There are young turks that are much more progressive, that are open to new ideas, but the same is true of some of the fisherman that have been fishing for quite a while, so it's all over the map.

Yes? Way back in the back here.

Audience Member #2: How would the climate change models affect the models for fishery sustainability in the future?

JL: That's a great question. When one is looking at fishery models now, well, let me say that differently. It's absolutely essential that fishery management now be taking climate change into account, because the ocean is so incredibly dynamic. We're seeing changes in the location of many species around the world, oftentimes moving farther north in the northern hemisphere, farther south in the southern hemisphere, so moving toward the poles or toward deeper water. And other changes as well. But that one is a pretty easy one to track. Fishery management needs to be thinking about not just the conditions of today, but the conditions tomorrow in a climate changed world. That has been slow in coming. It has been very slow in coming. NOAA just this year came out with a new climate policy as regards fishery management and it's just beginning to be implemented. So, scientists have known for some time they need to be doing this, but to actually run the models and to have those models be embraced by the decision-makers, the managers, was another hurtle. That's just beginning to happen and I think it caught many people off guard. You all may know that cod in New England, that's an example of where a fishery was seriously over-fished for decades and decades and decades and now the combination of that overfishing plus climate change is making it very, very difficult for that fishery to come back. I think one of the lessons of that is the sooner we, well, you don't want to have a fishery be so depressed it's very difficult to have recovery. You want to catch it and get good management in place before the bottom drops out essentially.


Audience Member #3: You did an excellent job summarizing the reform movement in the fisheries policy and it was fantastic, but I'm surprised you didn't mention about the tremendous progress in the new technology and the chemical and physical and biological ends of the ocean science that have already begun to have impact on fishery management hugely. So, can you point to an example of what I was just talking about?

JL: Sure. Thank you for bringing that up. There have been so many changes underway in the sciences, it's hard to hit on all of them. by not focusing on all the new knowledge that we have, I'm not ignoring that it exists. the new knowledge that we have about the physical part of the ocean, how dynamic our shore is, we've just learned so much about that, even just in the last couple of decades. This is one of the real joys of being at OSU is the very talented oceanographers that we have who are right on the cutting edge of all these new advances, and it's in physical oceanography, it's in chemical oceanography, biological, but one of the things that I'm most excited about is some of the new sensing that is underway that is enabling us to get a better understanding of new, real-time what are the dynamic changes that are underway. We have seasonal upwelling in our system, but to really understand in a more granular, spatial scale of what's happening where is just vastly enabled by some of the new gliders for example that are giving us huge new insight into the ocean looks like it's pretty uniform, and in fact it's not. It's quite dynamic. It varies a lot in space and time, but to really understand that we're getting some great new tools to be able to visualize, to be able to track to be able to measure and then model it and understand some of those changes. So, thank you for focusing on that.

There was another hand? Yes, right here. Thank you.

Audience Member #3: Yeah, I would also like to thank you. I may be much more optimistic than when I walked in earlier in the evening. So, thank you very much on that. I do have a question: is China engaging in this process of marine reserves and all these different things that you talked about that are positive change?

JL: When Cindy introduced me, she mentioned that I serve as the U.S. Science Envoy for the ocean. As we were talking about in the reception earlier, China is one of the countries that it's in my portfolio of countries that I'm interacting with around ocean sciences. I just came back from a week in China and a week in Indonesia and a few days in Thailand. The short answer is absolutely yes, they are very interested. They are very keenly interested. They have huge challenges. They are currently not very good actors on the global scene when it comes to fisheries. What they have been doing is pretty, they exhausted the fisheries in their own waters and now they're fishing pretty much everywhere else around the world. On the other hand, they are a very practical nation and food security for them looms large. It's one of the most important issues that the government cares about. They know that food security for them is going to depend in large part on the ocean and they are very cognizant of the fact that something needs to change. China has recently passed a new 5-year plan, they do this grandiose planning every five years, this new 5-year plan that was just gone through all the different hoops, focuses on what they call an econological symbolization. This is a new thinking for China.


They have come up to appreciate the importance of climate change and have made some very significant commitments to address climate change. They still have a long way to go but they are actually pushing hard on this and doing some reforms that I think a lot of people thought would never happen. The same is beginning to happen on the food security front, and it's not just food from the land but food from the ocean where they're beginning to understand there are real limits but the limits are reached a lot faster if you don't have good practices and policies, that you can actually as I was saying fish smarter, not harder. And they are very intrigued with some of the information that we were sharing about the up-side for increased catches, increased seafood in the ocean, increased profits. The global analysis that those scientists did for all the fisheries around the world suggests that China has the biggest upside potential. If they reform their fisheries they have the most to gain in terms of increased catches, increased healthy oceans, and increased profits. That really got their attention and now we're really starting down the road of working more closely with them to do some exchanges, to understand what that would look like, what the possibilities are, what might a Rights-based approach look like in China? That's totally a novel concept. So, some really interesting discussions in this space. It's too early to tell, for sure, but absolutely intrigued interest.

Audience Member #4: Many of us may be consumers of protein or fish from the ocean in the audience here. Do you have any recommendations that we could take away with us as we make decisions about how we buy products that come from the ocean?

JL: That is a great question. I personally pay attention to the modern-day aquarium seafood watch guidelines. There's an app that you can download on your phone. You can also just go to their website and look. If you just put in seafood watch, modern day aquarium seafood watch. They rate independently seafood that is both farmed as well as wild caught and I think that it is, if I want to know if my seafood is being caught or farmed in a sustainable way that's where I go. I would suggest that. There used to be a number of different programs that were all independent. They all coalesced and are doing the same thing the same way, so that's a good, reliable source. Some of our grocery stores also rely on marine stewardship council. That is another independent, third-party certifier. That is one that you can have confidence in as well. You're absolutely right to focus on things that individuals can do. It's not just the knowledge that we have and the things that I've been focusing on but what each individual does in our daily lives that really adds up to a lot.

Audience Member #5: I wanted to ask about Dr. Pauling's legacy. However, he's of course, not just one of our greatest scientists, but also a voice of dissent, along with other contemporaries, like Bertrand Russel, Albert Einstein, who was not afraid to risk to the ire of commercial or political interests, to speak his truth and share the knowledge that he felt he had learned with society. I was just wondering if you could share any thoughts you might have with us about the role of scientists in dissent against some of the more controversial aspects of our political culture today.

JL: You've hit on a really important topic. Dissent within the scientific community that is just something that is part and parcel of being a scientist. We argue about things. We challenge each other.


There's a standard of reproducibility, the criteria of peer review that we rely on. Scientists know full well that knowledge continues to evolve, and that's just part and parcel of what we do. A key role of scientists in our society is to share what's known, but also to speak truth to power, to be willing to challenge conventional wisdom. We've seen that play out with respect to climate change, for example, or many other areas in science and society and I think it is important not just for scientists but for individuals to follow their own conscience and to feel free to disagree if something is not consistent with their own beliefs, their own values. As a society, we clearly value the importance of dissent, unlike some other countries around the world, but it has been voices of scientists oftentimes as being respected individuals who actually can make a stronger point about dissent than someone who wears a different hat, for example. I think that is a distinguished tradition. I know scientists who speak out on different issues. Sometimes I agree with them. Sometimes I don't agree with them. But I think that that is a cherished tradition that any true democracy really should respect and enable and we need to be tolerant of dissent. That's one way that we make progress.

I want to take this opportunity to thank those of you who are involved the selection of the award and also to acknowledge our gratitude toward the individual that we're honoring tonight, Linus Pauling, for being such an amazing person, left such a valuable legacy, and it's been a great honor for me to share some of these thoughts with you. I know full well we have some major challenges that we're facing in this world, but I am indeed encouraged by the number of people who are involved, who are interests. The number of scientists that are really working on solutions, the young people that are very passionate about finding better, smarter ways to be living on this planet and sharing it with others. Thank you so much for your attention to night. Thank you for coming. Please join me in thanking the Oregon Historical Society for hosting us tonight in this beautiful, wonderful venue. Thank you very much indeed.




Return to Main Page