A few weeks ago, we discussed the giant barrel sponge mass spawning event on Molasses Reef. I interviewed Dr. Joe Pawlik from UNC Wilmington for the piece.</p><p>At the time we talked, he told me about his upcoming mission at Aquarius undersea research station. I got to meet Dr. Pawlik and the aquanaut team last week, and was invited to visit the habitat during their mission.</p><p>I had a great time diving the Aquarius again. Last August, when I visited Dr. Martens for the Ocean Acidification study, I was in awe of the operation, the experiments and the people. And I was very pleased with myself for getting the opportunity to do such a cool thing.</p><p>This time I had a little different perspective. Experiments, people and awe-factor aside, I had a seriously sad undercurrent of thought gushing through my head. This might be the next to the last mission (NASA is scheduled for June, and there might be one more). I honestly can&#x92;t believe it!</p><p>During this mission the aquanauts are conducting four experiments:</p><p>* Lindsey Deignan: mapping giant barrel sponges in each plot on the reef. It&#x92;s like Google Maps for the underwater sponge population;</p><p>* Steven McMurray: continuation of long-term barrel sponge population monitoring focusing on the dynamics of size, structure and water filtration;</p><p>* Inga Conti-Jerpe: examining the types of plankton consumed by sea whips and sea fans;</p><p>* John Hanmer: affects of benthic community structure on feeding behavior of parrotfish.</p><p>The aquanauts spend about nine hours a day diving on the reef at designated workstations. These four bright young minds are making significant contributions to ocean science. In the grand matrix of soft and hard corals, sponges and feeding behavior, the studies are raising more questions and inferring additional implications for water quality, reef ecology and the overall health of the oceans. Aquarius is the only place in the world this can be accomplished.</p><p>And to top it off, the aquanauts and habitat technicians Mark Hulsbeck and Brad Peadro said at night they see things floating by they know have not been identified. What are the unknown implications of that simple observation?</p><p>I asked Dr. Pawlik how things would change if Aquarius is no longer available for his research. He said he cannot continue the experiments he&#x92;s been doing the last two decades without the concentrated exposure an Aquarius mission provides. I asked each of the aquanauts the same question while we were in the habitat watching the marine life float by the window. They all agreed. End of story? No, we are not done yet. Read on.</p><p>Here is another thought that hit me: If, as many scientists say, the ocean is deteriorating and corals are endangered due to human influence, then perhaps Aquarius should be enjoined from closing. According to the Endangered Species Act, survival of endangered species is of utmost importance; this demands that everything must be done by the government to ensure the survival of a species.</p><p>Maybe we should find the snail darter folks and ask them to sue the government to keep Aquarius open since coral is severely threatened. Instead of trying to stop something from being built, like the Tellico Dam, why can&#x92;t we stop something from being closed, if threatened species, like coral and turtles, will benefit? What an interesting twist.</p><p>If we can&#x92;t continue the scientific investigation, how will we know how long the reef can sustain coral and other species? The Supreme Court &#x93;held that because the value of an endangered species was incalculable the cost to ensure their survival outweighed the costs already expended on the Tellico Dam.&#x94; See http://bgpappa.hubpages.com/hub/The-Story-Of-The-Snail-Darter.</p><p>If this reasoning is extended, then the costs that have been expended for scientists at the Aquarius laboratory to study critically threatened species are inconsequential compared to the costs of losing the species (which are incalculable). So the government, by its own definition and admission, must keep the research going, since not doing so would further endanger already at-risk species. We have a case. Or we are more confused than ever. And so, it seems, was Congress and the Court. Holy Snail Darter, Batman! Quick, somebody get me a lawyer!</p><p>See the Coral Reef Evaluation and Monitoring Project at http://ocean.floridamarine.org/fknms_wqpp/pages/cremp.html for the details of the decline in coral cover in the Florida Keys: &#x93;Coral cover reached its lowest point in 2010 at 5.9%. The coral cover value attained in 2010 represents an approximate 53% decline in cover since project inception in 1996.&#x94;</p><p>In an era of abject government waste, how is it that something with this unique-in-the-world value is about to get tossed away? That&#x92;s a true waste. How much of a positive impact to education and science would be lost if Aquarius projects join the dodo bird?</p><p>I may be contrarian in this view, but I think we need to approach the issue from a position of strength, not fear. Not fear of closing, but strength of what Aquarius is. Not fear of experiments lost because they can no longer be adequately conducted, but strength in the knowledge that unlimited potential exists in a world we&#x92;ve only begun to explore.</p><p>Enter Debra Illes. She is spearheading a project to examine the possibilities. And that&#x92;s what we have. Possibilities. Aquarius is losing NOAA funding, but hey, coral and sponges are still on the reef, the pH is still falling, and a host of experiments that have been years in the making are still out there. The NEEMO project with NASA is another issue that supports keeping Aquarius undersea research station operating.</p><p>For more information contact Debra Illes at (305) 304-0795 or debra@illes.com.</p><p><i>Tim Grollimund is a freelance photographer and PADI divemaster based in Key Largo. He can be reached at tim@timgimages.com or through his web site at www.timgimages.com.</i>