The operator of an experimental submersible that imploded while seeking out the sunken Titanic was at the center of a recent Coast Guard hearing. The tragic incident brought up questions of whether the company Stockton Rush and OceanGate Expeditions, who headed the ill-fated expedition, had put profits over safety or took calculated risks in the name of human exploration and the advancement of scientific knowledge.
The hearing laid out two conflicting narratives of what transpired during the critical hours leading up to the June 18 implosion that took the lives of five innocent civilians.
The first perspective, supported by data, portrays a picture of reckless greed, suggesting OceanGate Expeditions emphasized corporate interests over the life or death of human subjects. Evidence reveals, though possibly accidental, the company appears to have employed questionable risk assessments of pressure and air supply during such operations. Rush had been quoted, emphasizing profit margins and sales by any means necessary, which implies corner-cutting actions during the operations themselves.
Another view emerges that defends Rush and his company, calling them explorers passionate about contributing to humanity’s pursuit of knowledge. Their apologists stress that danger is inherent in experiments of the magnitude that Titan’s expeditions sought to uncover and that calculated risks, such as testing submersibles against grueling environments, represent forward progress, even if challenges arise. Weighing against what many dubbed commercial motivation is their persistent plea for a human and groundbreaking movement towards learning. However, still a point to grasp is their disregard for standard submersible procedures which may be unjust to deem merely “calculated risks.”