When disaster strikes, the priority for governments and individuals alike is to limit the damage and help the people affected. But also critical is the rapid, coordinated collection of data to document the disaster. Getting a full picture of exactly what happened can be a huge help in planning recovery efforts, minimizing losses in future disasters and, if need be, in holding guilty parties accountable.

In the case of the ongoing oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, researchers have been hampered in their desire to collect more data and have been left feeling ill-informed about what has been done so far.

In theory, the necessary mechanisms for arranging data collection exist. The US Incident Command System, which coordinates federal agencies and first responders during a crisis, has a mandate to collect 'ephemeral' or 'perishable' data. That is also part of the job of the Office of Response and Restoration, run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In addition, academic scientists can apply for up to US$200,000 in quick funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF) to study a disaster's aftermath, through its aptly named RAPID programme. The process is easy — proposals can be as brief as two pages — and decisions are fast: it took the NSF just five days to award the first three RAPID grants after the Chilean earthquake in February 2010. The NSF also works with agencies such as NOAA and the EPA to avoid duplication of effort, to team up research groups that might work well together and, for marine disasters, to ensure available ship time.

In the Gulf, however, these coordination mechanisms don't seem to be working well enough (see page 404). Basic information about the chemical composition of the leaking oil has been slow in getting out to researchers. And, delayed by initial hopes that the spill would be capped quickly, the NSF's first RAPID grants are only now being awarded, a month after the crisis began. NOAA has been slow to respond to public concerns about its ability to track the spill. It was only last week that it announced a task force to assess the spill's actual size — a key and much-debated piece of information. There are many proposals for how it might do this (see page 421 for one example). But researchers still seem to be unclear over exactly what data NOAA is collecting.

Disasters are, by their nature, bound to be followed by disorganization and confusion. It is unrealistic to expect a 'perfect' response. And in fairness, the Gulf oil spill has been particularly difficult in this regard. Unlike earthquakes, hurricanes and most other disasters, which strike suddenly and unambiguously, the oil spill has unfolded slowly. Many days went by before it became clear just how bad the leakage was, and how big a response would be needed.

Nonetheless, aspects of the US approach could be improved. For example, the Office of Response and Restoration currently experiences a boom-and-bust funding cycle from one oil spill to the next. As the 1989 Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound has faded into memory, the office has lost around one-third of its staff, leaving the remainder stretched. One solution would be to rebuild the office and keep it at adequate staffing levels by supplementing its annual budget with money from the federal Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which is supported in large part by a tax on the petroleum industry and is intended to pay for the government's response to oil emergencies. This would allow for basic research into the best response efforts, along with ongoing monitoring. Another useful step would be the establishment of a cross-agency data-sharing plan for disasters, so that information would be open and publicly available, and gaps in the data would be obvious.

Meanwhile, BP, the energy company that owns the well, took a positive step of its own on 24 May when it announced that it would make up to $500 million available over the next ten years for independent research on the spill's long-term environmental impact.

Disasters should not be viewed cold-heartedly as a chance to do some unique research, but neither should they be lost opportunities. Volcanic eruptions, hurricanes, earthquakes and oil spills push the environment to extremes, and can identify the limits of scientific knowledge. Science must not be allowed to miss out.