|
Items in cart [1] |
Questions? Call 888-624-8373 |
| Copyright © 2009. National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Terms of Use and Privacy Statement |
Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 185
12.
Panel Discussion on Antarctic Science
The panel consisted of Robert B. Thomson (moderator),
Lewis M. Branscomb, and Omar bin Abdul Rahman
S~5MARY
The papers presented in this session provided detailed
and informative background on the development of scien-
tific research in the Antarctic. Their subjects ranged
from the earliest days of south polar exploration, through
the exciting days of the Heroic age" at the turn of this
century, to the period of the 1957-1958 International
Geophysical Year (IGY), which established the inter-
national cooperation in the Antarctic that has been
successfully maintained to this day.
All the speakers drew attention to the fact that the
Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) and the
Antarctic Treaty had originated with the IGY. They
described SCAR as a nongovernmental organization composed
of scientists from all countries active in Antarctica and
intent on promoting continuation of the IGY'S inter-
national scientific cooperation. The Antarctic Treaty
was characterized as "operating in the world of inter-
national diplomacy," and the treaty nations as the U.N.'s
"antarctic rangers. n
REMARKS BY LEWIS M. BRANSCOMB
Branscomb identified three major phases in antarctic
research and linked them to technological improvements.
The initial phase covered the early explorers' meticulous
recording of observations and collection of materials and
provided an important base of information for those who
followed. The second period began after World War II and
culminated in the IGY of 1957-1958. During this phase,
185
OCR for page 186
186
improved technology for logistics support (especially
icebreakers, tractors, aircraft, and radio communica-
tions) permitted better trained professional scientists
to take part in antarctic science. Nevertheless, field
work conditions still limited the sophistication of
instrumentation and support facilities that could be
employed and thus continued to restrict scientists to
largely descriptive work.
The third, and current, mature phase, according to
Branscomb, has been emerging throughout the years of the
Antarctic Treaty. It draws on the full panoply of sophis-
ticated modern scientific tools permitted by improvements
in antarctic field support capabilities. Branscomb noted
that solar-powered satellite telemetry allows Imre
Friedmann's laboratory in Florida to receive measurements
of the environmental conditions in the Ross Valley sand-
stones, within which the endolithic organisms he is
studying live. (Dr. Friedmann's lecture was one of three
presented later to participants in the workshop. See
below.) Other examples of modern technology include
bringing the insights of molecular biology to bear on
studies of highly complex ecologies in Antarctica,
utilization of specialized telescopes that have been
developed specifically to study longwave solar oscilla-
tions observable only at the South Pole Station, and
inexpensive construction of a 26-mile-long antenna about
a mile above the ground plane at Siple Station, located
at the magnetic conjugate point from a sister station in
Quebec.
In Branscomb's view, these examples illustrate four
aspects of current antarctic science:
(1) That highly sophisticated field work can now
proceed hand in hand with base laboratory science,
assisted by antarctic base capabilities that
supplement support available in home laboratories.
This adds significantly to the depth of knowledge
that can be obtained from any given study.
(2) That much of the most exciting antarctic science
relies on imaginative synergy of the unique
physical circumstances found in Antarctica, such
as the ice sheet (which can be used as a concen-
trator of meteorites), the continuous availability
of an overhead sun, an atmosphere uniquely lacking
in water vapor, the lack of diurnal terrestrial
tides, and the absence of pollution and other
consequences of human modification of nature.
OCR for page 187
187
(3) That the application of modern scientific tools in
Antarctica can reveal the history of the planet in
many of its most important aspects, going back
hundreds of thousands of years and, in geology and
paleontology, millions of years. This history is
recorded in ice cores and in the evolution of
living species in Antarctica; it is waiting to be
analyzed to provide insights about the origin,
survival, and evolution of life. (Living species
are relatively small in number in Antarctica, but
extraordinary in their levels of adaptation to the
unique environment.)
(4) That antarctic science deals more and more with
the interdependence of the geological, biological,
and climatological history of the continent,
drawing on interdisciplinary studies and the
increasingly complete mapping and classification
of all antarctic regions. This requires increased
cooperation among scientists working in the differ-
ent regions and thus among active participants in
the Antarctic Treaty. Since the enhancement of
science programs depends on modern logistics and
communications, this would also suggest that
increased cooperation among respective national
programs will pay dividends in the future to all
participants.
These trends led Branscomb to conclude that antarcti
research had become a carefully structured activity,
integrated into the world knowledge base and the main-
stream of world science. To illustrate how diverse its
applications are, he remarked that the study of the
glycopeptides in antarctic cod--that prevent the cod from
freezing--could well find its first application in the
use of synthetically produced compounds to make smoother
ice cream.
With respect to resources in Antarctica, Branscomb
commented that while exploration of biological and
geological resources may reveal resources of value there,
the greatest likelihood of practical reward from such
studies is in the generation of useful knowledge that
will facilitate the search for valuable resources in much
more accessible parts of the world. In his view, the
peoples of Third World countries will gain more benefits
from antarctic science, at least in the near future, if
they focus their attention on the knowledge benefits
rather than on potential raw materials exploitation.
OCR for page 188
188
Finally, he advocated that countries with well-
established support facilities and active programs of
scientific investigation in Antarctica be encouraged to
invite the participation of interested and qualified
scientists from Third World countries. In this way they
could establish firsthand relationships with the world
community engaged in these studies.
RElLARKS BY OMAR B IN ABDUL RAHMAN
Rahman confessed that as a neophyte to antarctic science
he has been greatly impressed by the amount of excellent
scientific work carried out in Antarctica. He identified
the various factors motivating those conducting scientific
research there as follows:
For countries close to Antarctica, their proximity
requires that they learn as much about this "back yard"
as they know about their front yard because it has direct
bearing on their everyday life.
The wealthy, developed countries that can afford to
devote substantial economic resources to scientific
research are involved in Antarctica for the same reasons
that they are involved elsewhere: their scientists are
pushing back the frontiers of knowledge.
reasons as well, including that ot presence, wn~cn
could mean many different things.
Countries in equatorial regions are directly affected
by the cold continent with respect to their weather,
oceanic currents, and the nutrients in adjacent seas. He
They have other
. . . . ..
ˇ . _ . . . . . .
cited India as an example of a developing country that
feels the need to be involved in antarctic science
because of the direct influences of Antarctica on the
Indian subcontinent.
For small developing countries such as Malaysia, there
are more important priorities closer to home; Antarctica
is remote or at least is not of pressing interest. This
does not mean that their concern for what goes on In
Antarctica is less sincere or less genuine. Malaysia's
scientists, according to Rahman, few in number though
they may be, view themselves as part of the worldwide
community of scientists and are interested in what goes
on in Antarctica. He noted that what happens in the name
of science in Antarctica can have global ramifications
and that Malaysians are inhabitants of that globe.
Moreover, Rahman pointed out that research is not
always carried out for the sake of acquiring knowledge;
OCR for page 189
189
it may be exploitative in nature or merely a front, as
suggested in Dr. Roots' presentation (Chapter 11). He
noted that it has also been said that in antarctica
scientists are proxies of the big powers and carry out
work of interest to the powers concerned.
While the speaker acknowledged that the international
nature of antarctic science is generally accepted, he
stressed that what was being questioned was the adminis-
tration of Antarctica, the political/legal aspects of
Antarctica. The recent response to this questioning from
those in control had been initially patronizing, if not
downright condescending. He characterized the reactions
of those powers controlling the well-funded, high-
technology programs as reminiscent of the old "go play
with your colored beads; leave big magic well alone."
Rahman concluded by commending the exemplary inter-
national cooperation in Antarctica and expressing his
wish that this same singlemindedness of purpose could be
applied to solving such urgent world problems as the
control of desertification in Africa.
SUMMARY OF THE DISCUSSION
Comments on the presentations emphasized the global
significance of much of antarctic research and the
consequent importance of continuing and expanding
international cooperation in this research. This
cooperation was deemed especially valuable in studying
subjects for which a great deal-of work remains to be
done, such as the understanding of relationships among
the atmosphere, oceans, and ice.
Motives behind the accession of new countries to the
Antarctic Treaty were also discussed. There were those
who believed that at least in some cases accession was
driven by an interest in antarctica's resource potential
rather than in scientific research. Other speakers
tended to dispel this idea, demonstrating a genuine
interest in participating in antarctic research based on
its international importance. They stated that past
actions should not be construed to indicate that these
countries are not interested in antarctic science; they
now wish to become better informed and realize that if
they do not begin to show interest now, it will be more
difficult for them to learn in the future.
There was widespread agreement that the scientific
achievements during and after the IGY could be described
OCR for page 190
190
as immense and that resulting publications have provided
a wealth of scientific information. The point was made
that this information, covering the whole spectrum of
antarctic science, has not been restricted to the
antarctic community, as believed by some; a vast amount
of published material is available to the international
community, in addition to all the data regularly provided
to established world data centers. Antarctic research
is, in effect, already internationalized, and its results
are the "common heritage. n
Nevertheless, in the view of some participants, the
discussion underscored that while many attendees appeared
generally well informed on Antarctic Treaty matters, they
lacked knowledge of the role and work of SCAR and had
little appreciation of the importance of antarctic
research to improved understanding of global phenomena
and problems. They noted that there appears to be a need
for wide distribution of an informative publication on
the real value of science in Antarctica.
One speaker noted that while scientific activities in
Antarctica are likely to go on forever, commercial
activities, with the likely exception of tourism, will
probably occur only for a finite period on the order of
10 to 20 years. Resource activities will be important
for their short-term effects, but they will be far less
significant than science to the future of Antarctica.
Over the long term, Antarctica is an ideal platform from
which to monitor the rest of the globe and to continue
the wide range of research identified by the speakers as
so necessary and beneficial to humankind. Even in the
short term, in discussing various uses of the Antarctic,
science was believed to be the most important and
immediate activity of economic importance to the
international community.
There was some discussion of the types of activity
that have occurred over the years in the north polar
regions. Despite considerable resource development
there, some participants maintained that science continues
to be one of the main industries in the north as well.
It was noted that research is vital to the establish-
ment of effective regimes for the conservation and
management of resources as well as to the identification
. ˇ . . , ~
ot potentially exploitable resources, such as minerals
and icebergs.
One participant suggested that recent developments in
high technology can be of great assistance to many
antarctic programs, particularly those requiring con-
OCR for page 191
191
sinuous monitoring. For instance, he believed that the
increased use of polar-orbiting satellites presents
excellent opportunities for contributions to antarctic
science programs.
The lateness of the hour and the proposed early start
the following morning limited the discussion period. The
chairman closed the meeting, expressing hope that addi-
tional time might be provided the following day to permit
further discussions on the subject of antarctic science.
Unfortunately, time did not allow for a further formal
session to be scheduled, but many references were made to
science during sessions devoted to related topics.
In addition, the U.S. National Science Foundation
arranged for workshop participants to attend three
informative lectures by U.S. Antarctic Research Program
scientists at the Beardmore Camp. Anna C. Palmisan°
spoke on the ecology of sea ice microbial communities in
McMurdo Sound, Imre Friedmann on endolithic
microorganisms within antarctic rocks ("la dolce vita, n
as he characterized it), and William Cassidy on his work
with meteorites discovered in Antarctica. Each scientist
addressed the wider implications of his/her specific
research project.
OCR for page 192
Representative terms from entire chapter:
antarctic research
