'Dark oxygen': A deep-sea discovery that has split scientists
Could lumpy metallic rocks in the deepest, darkest reaches of the ocean be making oxygen in the absence of sunlight?
Some scientists think so, but others have challenged the claim that so-called "dark oxygen" is being produced in the lightless abyss of the seabed.
The discovery - detailed last July in the journal Nature Geoscience - called into question long-held assumptions about the origins of life on Earth, and sparked intense scientific debate.
The findings were also consequential for mining companies eager to extract the precious metals contained within these polymetallic nodules.
Researchers said that potato-sized nodules could be producing enough electrical current to split seawater into hydrogen and oxygen, a process known as electrolysis.
This cast doubt on the long-established view that life was made possible when organisms started producing oxygen via photosynthesis, which requires sunlight, about 2.7 billion years ago.
"Deep-sea discovery calls into question the origins of life," the Scottish Association for Marine Science said in a press release to accompany the publication of the research.
Environmentalists said the presence of dark oxygen showed just how little is known about life at these extreme depths, and supported their case that deep-sea mining posed unacceptable ecological risks.
"Greenpeace has long campaigned to stop deep sea mining from beginning in the Pacific due to the damage it could do to delicate, deep sea ecosystems," the environmental organisation said.
"This incredible discovery underlines the urgency of that call".
The discovery was made in the Clarion-Clipperton Zone, a vast underwater region of the Pacific Ocean between Mexico and Hawaii of growing interest to mining companies.
Scattered on the seafloor four kilometres (2.5 miles) beneath the surface, polymetallic nodules contain manganese, nickel and cobalt, metals used in electric car batteries and other low-carbon technologies.
The research that gave rise to the dark oxygen discovery was partly funded by a Canadian deep-sea mining business, The Metals Company, that wanted to assess the ecological impact of such exploration.
It has sharply criticised the study by marine ecologist Andrew Sweetman and his team as plagued by "methodological flaws".
Michael Clarke, environmental manager at The Metals Company, told AFP that the findings "are more logically attributable to poor scientific technique and shoddy science than a never before observed phenomenon."
Sweetman's findings proved explosive, with many in the scientific community expressing reservations or rejecting the conclusions.
Since July, five academic research papers refuting Sweetman's findings have been submitted for review and publication.
"He did not present clear proof for his observations and hypothesis," said Matthias Haeckel, a biogeochemist at the GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research in Kiel, Germany.
"Many questions remain after the publication. So, now the scientific community needs to conduct similar experiments etc, and either prove or disprove it."
Olivier Rouxel, a geochemistry researcher at Ifremer, the French national institute for ocean science and technology, told AFP there was "absolutely no consensus on these results".
"Deep-sea sampling is always a challenge," he said, adding it was possible that the oxygen detected was "trapped air bubbles" in the measuring instruments.
He was also sceptical about deep-sea nodules, some tens of millions of years old, still producing enough electrical current when "batteries run out quickly".
"How is it possible to maintain the capacity to generate electrical current in a nodule that is itself extremely slow to form?" he asked.
When contacted by AFP, Sweetman indicated that he was preparing a formal response.
"These types of back and forth are very common with scientific articles and it moves the subject matter forward," he said.
Sign up for the Daily Briefing
Get the latest news and updates straight to your inbox
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The National
09-05-2025
- The National
The controversial search for metals beneath the world's deepest ocean
US President Donald Trump's executive order aimed at kick-starting commercial deep-sea mining has sparked debate in environmental circles on what is the most appropriate next step. He is keen to search for metals used in renewable energy, batteries and computer microchips such as copper, cobalt, manganese and nickel. The mining could take place at depths of thousands of metres. The area most likely to be affected is the Clarion-Clipperton Zone − a six-million-square kilometre region of international waters in the eastern Pacific that boasts an abundance of mineral resources. Vancouver-based firm The Metals Company has in recent years signed multiple exploration contracts from parts of the CCZ. The company, regarded as being among the most likely to begin operations, saw its stock jump in value by more than 85 per cent last month. But if tractor-like machines moved along the seabed, what effects could there be on the unique and diverse fauna that lives in the murky depths thousands of metres below the surface? 'We don't yet fully understand what the impacts are likely to be,' said Prof Jon Copley, professor of ocean exploration and science communication at the University of Southampton in the UK. 'It could be comparable to the lowest-impact mining on land in terms of environmental impact, or less, or it could be that there's a risk of species extinctions. We don't yet know. That's why we need to do further research.' Some organisations, such as the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition − an alliance of more than 100 international organisations working to promote biodiversity conservation in the world's seas − are against all deep-sea mining and have warned of 'inevitable and permanent' damage if it took place. Matthew Gianni, the coalition's co-founder and political and policy adviser, said that some of the most precious minerals − called nodules − took 'millions of years to form'. 'Once they're taken out they're not going to grow back,' he said. '[Mining] would also disturb all the animals, the ecosystem, the community of organisms living around the nodules.' Previous research on the after-effects of small-scale disturbance from the 1990s demonstrated that impacts are long-lasting, according to Dr Matthias Haeckel, of Germany's GEOMAR Helmholtz Centre for Ocean Research Kiel. 'The oldest disturbance in the CCZ in the north-east Pacific is now almost 50 years old,' he said. This activity has left 'disturbance scars, which are clearly visible at the sea floor', added Dr Haeckel. However, since the scale of deep-sea mining associated with Mr Trump's executive order would be significantly larger, Dr Haeckel said 'larger-scale consequences can follow'. Despite the executive order, commercial deep-sea mining is not set to begin imminently and may not happen at all. Activities are governed by the International Seabed Authority, which developed from the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. The US has not ratified the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, but until recently had accepted it as what legal experts term customary international law, meaning that it would abide by it. About a quarter of the CCZ is of potential interest and, Prof Copley said, the ISA has set up nearly two million square kilometres of protected areas in 13 blocks. If the protected areas are, for example, representative of the wider area in terms of the species present, keeping them pristine could prevent extinctions. But Prof Copley said that significant research was needed to determine if this was the case. 'If commercial mining by The Metals Company goes ahead, I don't think that would have immediate catastrophic impacts. The risk is from cumulative regional-scale impacts,' Prof Copley said. This is why, he said, stepping away from the ISA framework would increase the risk of serious harm to seabed habitats, which already face pressures from climate change. The executive order has been described as 'a victory' for The Metals Company, which has been lobbying the Trump administration to allow to go-ahead for deep-sea mining. 'Ultimately, The Metals Company needs a commercial licence to be viable, that's why it's going to the US,' said Dr John Childs, who researches the politics of resource extraction at Lancaster University in the UK. Some reports have suggested that Mr Trump sees deep-sea mining – which has not yet happened on a large commercial scale – as something that could reduce the US's dependence on China for battery metals and rare earths. Beijing has said that Mr Trump's executive order violates international law. Dr David Santillo, a senior scientist at the Greenpeace Research Laboratories at the University of Exeter in the UK, said that deep-sea mining would be 'a really bad idea and terrible prospect'. 'If someone is saying the answer is to mine the deep sea bed, we're asking the wrong question,' he said. 'We have to take a step back and look at what we're using minerals for. 'The minerals in question are things that could have much more closed-loop systems for their management. We're still incredibly wasteful with minerals once we've finished with them. There's some recycling, but not something we've in any way reached peak on,' added Dr Santillo. More than 30 countries have declared their support for a moratorium or other restrictions that would, at least until further research is undertaken to understand the impacts, prevent operations from starting.
Zawya
09-04-2025
- Zawya
Researchers eye exit from Trump's America
More than 75 per cent of scientists are now considering departing the country over Trump's policies. In the halls of US universities and research labs, one question has become increasingly common as President Donald Trump tightens his grip on the field: whether to move abroad. "Everybody is talking about it," JP Flores, a doctoral student in genetics at the University of North Carolina, said. The discussion was thrust into the spotlight after Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a specialist in fascism, announced he was taking a new post in Canada over the Trump administration's "authoritarian" bent. "I made the decision when Columbia folded," he said. "I made it in a split second." Columbia University, which the Trump administration has threatened with major funding cuts, said it agreed to take steps to rein in pro-Palestinian protests, among other actions. "It is not the time to cower and fear," said Stanley, who added there was "absolutely no doubt that the United States is an authoritarian country." With similar threats lodged by Trump against other universities, many researchers are worried about the future of academic freedom in the United States. Coupled with the administration's broad cuts to federal funding, some fear the country's research field, once viewed as the envy of the world, may be losing its luster. More than 75 per cent of scientists are now considering departing the country over Trump's policies, according to a survey of over 1,600 people published in late March by the journal Nature. More than 75 per cent of scientists are now considering departing the country over Trump's policies. "The trend was particularly pronounced among early-career researchers," the journal said. "People are just so scared," Daniella Fodera, a Columbia PhD student whose research grant was cancelled, said. Amid the uncertainty, several academic institutions in recent weeks have announced a hiring freeze and a reduction in the number of graduate student positions. "That's definitely messing up the academic pipeline," said Fodera, a biomechanics student. Karen Sfanos, head of a research lab at Johns Hopkins University, said: "It's kind of a surreal time for scientists because we just don't know what's going to happen with funding." "There's not a lot of clarity, and things are changing day by day," she said, noting it is hitting the "youngest generation" relatively hard. Fodera, who studies uterine fibroids -- benign tumours affecting many women -- said she has begun to "actively look at positions in Europe and abroad for continuing my post-doctoral training." With mounting concerns among US researchers, several European and Canadian universities have launched initiatives to attract some of the talent, though they may not need to try too hard. "I know researchers already that have dual citizenship, or who have family in Canada, in France, in Germany, are saying, 'I think I'm going to go live in Germany for the next, you know, five years and do research there,'" said Gwen Nichols. The physician, a senior leader at a blood cancer research group, warned the possible exodus could make the United States "lose our dominance as the biopharmaceutical innovation leader of the world." "We'll see the problem 10 years from now, when we don't have the innovation we need," she added. Genetics researcher Flores agreed, saying "it has become quite clear that there's gonna be a major brain drain here in American research." One young climate researcher, who requested to remain anonymous, said she had started the process of attaining EU citizenship and that colleagues in Europe "have all been extremely sympathetic to the situation." But she noted that those with limited resources, like many recent graduates, would be the least likely to be taken on by European institutions and may decide to drop out of science altogether. "This is a generational loss for science across all disciplines," she warned. 2022 © All right reserved for Oman Establishment for Press, Publication and Advertising (OEPPA) Provided by SyndiGate Media Inc. (
Khaleej Times
08-04-2025
- Khaleej Times
'Major brain drain': Researchers eye exit from Trump's America
In the halls of US universities and research labs, one question has become increasingly common as President Donald Trump tightens his grip on the field: Whether to move abroad. "Everybody is talking about it," JP Flores, a doctoral student in genetics at the University of North Carolina, told AFP. The discussion was thrust into the spotlight after Yale philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a specialist in fascism, announced he was taking a new post in Canada over the Trump administration's "authoritarian" bent. "I made the decision when Columbia folded," he told CBS News. "I made it in a split second." Columbia University, which the Trump administration has threatened with major funding cuts, said it agreed to take steps to rein in pro-Palestinian protests, among other actions. "It is not the time to cower and fear," said Stanley, who added there was "absolutely no doubt that the United States is an authoritarian country." With similar threats lodged by Trump against other universities, many researchers are worried about the future of academic freedom in the United States. Coupled with the administration's broad cuts to federal funding, some fear the country's research field, once viewed as the envy of the world, may be losing its luster. More than 75 per cent of scientists are now considering departing the country over Trump's policies, according to a survey of over 1,600 people published in late March by the journal Nature. "The trend was particularly pronounced among early-career researchers," the journal said. 'Surreal' "People are just so scared," Daniella Fodera, a Columbia PhD student whose research grant was cancelled, told AFP. Amid the uncertainty, several academic institutions in recent weeks have announced a hiring freeze and a reduction in the number of graduate student positions. "That's definitely messing up the academic pipeline," said Fodera, a biomechanics student. Karen Sfanos, head of a research lab at Johns Hopkins University, said: "It's kind of a surreal time for scientists because we just don't know what's going to happen with funding." "There's not a lot of clarity, and things are changing day by day," she said, noting it is hitting the "youngest generation" relatively hard. Fodera, who studies uterine fibroids -- benign tumors affecting many women -- said she has begun to "actively look at positions in Europe and abroad for continuing my post-doctoral training." 'Generational loss' With mounting concerns among US researchers, several European and Canadian universities have launched initiatives to attract some of the talent, though they may not need to try too hard. "I know researchers already that have dual citizenship, or who have family in Canada, in France, in Germany, are saying, 'I think I'm going to go live in Germany for the next, you know, five years and do research there,'" said Gwen Nichols. The physician, a senior leader at a blood cancer research group, warned the possible exodus could make the United States "lose our dominance as the biopharmaceutical innovation leader of the world." "We'll see the problem 10 years from now, when we don't have the innovation we need," she added. Genetics researcher Flores agreed, saying "it has become quite clear that there's gonna be a major brain drain here in American research." One young climate researcher, who requested to remain anonymous, said she had started the process of attaining EU citizenship and that colleagues in Europe "have all been extremely sympathetic to the situation." But she noted that those with limited resources, like many recent graduates, would be the least likely to be taken on by European institutions and may decide to drop out of science altogether. "This is a generational loss for science across all disciplines," she warned.
