ArticlePublisher preview available

A Two-Ocean Bouillabaisse: Science, Politics, and the Central American Sea-Level Canal Controversy

Authors:
Christine Keiner
Christine Keiner
Christine Keiner
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Read publisher preview
Download citation
To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the author.

Abstract

As the Panama Canal approached its fiftieth anniversary in the mid-1960s, U.S. officials concerned about the costs of modernization welcomed the technology of peaceful nuclear excavation to create a new waterway at sea level. Biologists seeking a share of the funds slated for radiological-safety studies called attention to another potential effect which they deemed of far greater ecological and evolutionary magnitude – marine species exchange, an obscure environmental issue that required the expertise of underresourced life scientists. An enterprising endeavor to support Smithsonian naturalists, especially marine biologists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute in Panama, wound up sparking heated debates – between biologists and engineers about the oceans’ biological integrity and among scientists about whether the megaproject represented a research opportunity or environmental threat. A National Academy of Sciences panel chaired by Ernst Mayr failed to attract congressional funding for its 10-year baseline research program, but did create a stir in the scientific and mainstream press about the ecological threats that the sea-level canal might unleash upon the Atlantic and Pacific. This paper examines how the proposed megaproject sparked a scientific and political conversation about the risks of mixing the oceans at a time when many members of the scientific and engineering communities still viewed the seas as impervious to human-facilitated change.
A preview of this full-text is provided by Springer Nature.
Learn more
Content available from Journal of the History of Biology
This content is subject to copyright. Terms and conditions apply.
A Two-Ocean Bouillabaisse: Science, Politics, and the Central
American Sea-Level Canal Controversy
CHRISTINE KEINER
Department of Science, Technology, and Society, College of Liberal Arts
Rochester Institute of Technology
Rochester, NY 14623-5604
USA
E-mail: christine.keiner@rit.edu
Abstract. As the Panama Canal approached its fiftieth anniversary in the mid-1960s,
U.S. officials concerned about the costs of modernization welcomed the technology of
peaceful nuclear excavation to create a new waterway at sea level. Biologists seeking a
share of the funds slated for radiological-safety studies called attention to another
potential effect which they deemed of far greater ecological and evolutionary magnitude
– marine species exchange, an obscure environmental issue that required the expertise of
underresourced life scientists. An enterprising endeavor to support Smithsonian
naturalists, especially marine biologists at the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute
in Panama, wound up sparking heated debates – between biologists and engineers about
the oceans’ biological integrity and among scientists about whether the megaproject
represented a research opportunity or environmental threat. A National Academy of
Sciences panel chaired by Ernst Mayr failed to attract congressional funding for its 10-
year baseline research program, but did create a stir in the scientific and mainstream
press about the ecological threats that the sea-level canal might unleash upon the
Atlantic and Pacific. This paper examines how the proposed megaproject sparked a
scientific and political conversation about the risks of mixing the oceans at a time when
many members of the scientific and engineering communities still viewed the seas as
impervious to human-facilitated change.
Keywords: Smithsonian Institution, National Academy of Sciences, Ernst Mayr,
Charles Elton, Marine biology, Invasion biology
Journal of the History of Biology (2017) 50:835–887 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10739-016-9461-8
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
... The 2015 Centennial of the Panama Canal generated interest in how the first inter-American canal was completed (e.g., Carse, 2014;Keiner, 2017), and especially in the completion of the current canal expansion project (Rivera & Sheffi, 2013). The creation of Lake Gatun in 1913 by damming the Chagres River and Lake Alajuela (Madden) in 1934 by damming the Madden River led to the need to manage the region's tropical rainforests and reservoirs to sustain the water supplies for the Panama Canal (Carse, 2014(Carse, , 2016Heckadon-Moreno, 1993;Zaret, 1984). ...
... Over time, it became apparent that a new canal through Darien, Panama, was not needed, and that the existing Panama Canal could be expanded safely and with much less environmental impact. Results from the research of Golley and his colleagues contributed to a decade-long series of controversial debates regarding the impacts of the proposed canal as part of Project Plowshare (e.g., Kaufman, 2013;Keiner, 2017;Kirsch, 2005;Rubinoff, 1968). Reflecting on Golley's research on the proposed Darien canal is particularly timely because the collaborative, holistic approach that he developed is still appropriate for mega-projects today. ...
View
View
What Is Natural?: Coral Reef Crisis
Book
  • Oct 2023
During the late 1960s and 1970s, massive herds of poisonous crown-of-thorns starfish suddenly began to infest coral reef communities around the world, leaving in their wake devastation comparable to a burnt-out rainforest. In What is Natural?, Jan Sapp both examines this ecological catastrophe and captures the intense debate among scientists about what caused the crisis, and how it should be handled. The crown-of-thorns story takes readers on tropical expeditions around the world, and into both marine laboratories and government committees, where scientists rigorously search for answers to the many profound questions surrounding this event. Were these fierce starfish outbreaks the kind of manmade disaster heralded by such environmentalists as Rachel Carson in Silent Spring? Indeed, discussions of the cause of the starfish plagues have involved virtually every environmental issue of our time -- over-fishing, pesticide use, atomic testing, rain forest depletion, and over-population -- but many marine biologists maintain that the epidemic is a natural feature of coral-reef life, an ecological "balance of nature" that should not to be tampered with until we know the scientific truth of the crisis. But should we search for the scientific truth before taking action? And what if an environmental emergency cannot wait for a rigorous scientific search for "the truth?" The starfish plagues are arguably one of most mysterious ecological phenomena of this century. Through the window of this singlular event, What is Natural lucidly illustrates the complexity of environmental issues while probing the most fundamental questions about the relationship between man and nature.
View
View
View
View
Project Plowshare: The Peaceful Use of Nuclear Explosives in Cold War America
Book
  • Nov 2012
Inspired by President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” speech, scientists at the Atomic Energy Commission and the University of California’s Radiation Laboratory began in 1957 a program they called Plowshare. Joined by like-minded government officials, scientists, and business leaders, champions of “peaceful nuclear explosions” maintained that they could create new elements and isotopes for general use, build storage facilities for water or fuel, mine ores, increase oil and natural gas production, generate heat for power production, and construct roads, harbors, and canals. By harnessing the power of the atom for non-military purposes, Plowshare backers expected to protect American security, defend US legitimacy and prestige, and ensure access to energy resources. The book shows how science, politics, and environmentalism converged to shape the lasting conflict over the use of nuclear technology. Despite technological and strategic promise, Plowshare's early champions soon found themselves facing a vocal and powerful coalition of federal and state officials, scientists, industrialists, environmentalists, and average citizens. Skeptical politicians, domestic and international pressure to stop nuclear testing, and a lack of government funding severely restricted the program. By the mid-1970s, Plowshare was, in the words of one government official, “dead as a doornail.” However, the thought of using the atom for peaceful purposes remains alive.
View
View
View
View
View