Eh.....I agree and disagree.... Just like in every other aspect of life, there are and will always be extremists, and people to whom no logical arguments or evidence can sway their belief and/or opinion. Many of the extreme environmentalists fall into this category. But these people should not be lumped into a broad ranging category that includes "scientists" (who I assume you're referring to when you mention grant money/tenure/researcher).
Science is objective, that should be clear as day. The insinuations, conjectures, and arguments non-scientists draw from the scientifically proposed hypotheses and conclusions is extremely subjective. 99.9% of the time, it's not the researchers/scientists who make these subjective arguments. It's is almost always, the lay person, politician, or for this argument, the environmentalists. The thought that a researcher's academic standing (tenure track standing), or funding ( application for grant money) sways them to politicize or frame their scientific work towards one shade of the spectrum or another is frankly, insulting. Does it happen, sure--maybe rarely--but it is in no way the norm, and would not be tolerated by most peers or funding agency when done.
The difference between someone in the pro-Nautilus mining community, and someone who is anti-Nautilus and in the scientific community is a difference of priorities and valuation. Many in the scientific world value the potential unknown discoveries at these relatively unknown (and briefly studied) locations more than they do the known material and economic gain obtained from mining them. This isnt everyone though, and there are people like me, who are in the academic world but still support Nautilus. (I have multiple MS's as well as a PhD in geology/geophysics/oceanography).
I think the best comment on the subject is from that article seabed posted the other day, where Cindy van Dover from Duke University said; "I really do think we need to understand what we might lose,” van Dover says. “The cumulative impacts are what’s really hard. Solwara-1, yes, go ahead and mine S-1, and let’s see what happens. But what about the next one? What’s the tipping point? How many of these sites could you destroy? And at what tempo, before it doesn’t come back? I think S-1 would come back if nothing else is touched. If you touch something else in that basin, how much is too much? Two? I don’t know.”"
It's naive to think that while Nautilus may be initially very aware and conscience of minimizing the environmental damage, all other companies would follow a similar path. As you started this article with, all we have to do is look at conventional land mining to see how negligent and destructive big mining can be.
