Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
The Role of Science in the Antarctic Treaty System E. Fred Roots A distinctive feature of Antarctica is that for the past 70 years most human activities, both on the continent and in the surrounding ocean waters, have been dedicated directly to scientific research. In no other large part of the world is the pursuit of science such a dominant activity. For the past 25 years, science in Antarctica has been carried out under the terms of the Antarctic Treaty, and national and international scientific research programs have been the most conspicuous visible expression of the workings of the treaty. It is therefore pertinent to examine the relation of science to the poli- tics of Antarctica and the role of scientific research in the Antarctic Treaty System today. BACKGROUND In 1959, amid the tensions and conflicts of claims, disputes, and the contrasting goodwill and enthusiasm generated by the successful international scientific cooperation of the International Geophysical Year (IGY), the nations that had IGY programs in Antarctica were invited to a meeting in Washington. They were asked to conclude a treaty designed to preserve the antarctic continent as an international laboratory for scientific research and to ensure that it be used only for peaceful purposes. Thus, from the beginnings of discussion leading toward the Antarctic Treaty, science, international coop- eration, and maintenance of peace were inextricably linked. However, the recognition of the value of science in the polar regions and the essential need for inter- national cooperation to achieve worthwhile scientific 169
170 results in these areas did not originate with the IGY; the IGY was a direct descendant of the International Polar Year (IPY) of 1882-1883. The IPY had marked an enormous step forward, not only in the gathering of systematic knowledge through the organized cooperation of many nations but also in the realization and acceptance of the concept that careful study of natural processes in the polar regions would be of direct benefit and relevance to nations in all parts of the world. Although like all major international scientific events it would not have come about had not the state of science been ready for it and had not many people in many coun- tries endorsed the idea, it grew from the inspiration. conviction, and persuasiveness of one man, Karl Weyprecht of Austria. Weyprecht was a physicist and naval officer, interested in the aurora and magnetism, and he had a pas- sion for polar exploration. During the German North Polar Expedition of 1872-1874, of which he was coleader, he became convinced that geographic exploration for its own sake or for national glory should be replaced by international science carried out according to a coop- erative plan. On his return he campaigned vigorously in academies of science and prestigious scientific institu- tions throughout Europe for a new approach to the study of polar regions. He stated that traditional polar exploration had been nothing more than an international steeplechase to reach the poles, where "immense sums were being spent and much hardship endured for the privilege of placing names in different languages on ice-covered promontories, but where the increase in human knowledge played a very secondary role". Weyprecht claimed that the polar regions offered opportunities unparalleled anywhere on the planet for scientific studies of the Earth's physical and natural processes. He drew up a set of principles for research in the polar regions that would integrate polar science with the science of the rest of the planet. Some of those principles, enunciated 110 years ago, are very pertinent in the light of present discussion on Antarctica: The earth should be studied as a planet. National territories, and the Pole itself, have no more and no less significance than any other point on the planet, according to the opportunity they offer for the phenomena to be observed;
171 Science is not a territory for national possession; Small nations must be able to take part in polar research; Scientific knowledge of lasting value can result from coordinated and cooperative studies undertaken according to an agreed plan, with the results of the observations freely shared without discrimination. The ideas of Weyprecht and his friends led to the creation of the 11-nation International Polar Commission, which drew up a coordinated and synchronized program of observation and study in meteorological and geophysical subjects in the north and south polar regions. This program became the IPY, in which 11 nations sent 14 separate but simultaneous expeditions to the Arctic and the sub-Antarctic. The IPY marked a new approach to polar investigation: instead of going where no one had been before, the sites for study were selected in advance for their expected ability to provide particularly useful observations of meteorology, magnetism, and aurora. About 20 special observing stations were also set up in subpolar regions, which cooperated in taking simultaneous observations with 39 permanent observatories already established in 25 countries around the world. Research in many other fields, from anthropology to biology and oceanography, was carried out by the expeditions as afforded by opportunity and location. In southern latitudes, the IPY was represented by a German expedition to South Georgia and a French expedition to Cape Horn. An important feature of the IPY was that all data from the basic program were standardized and reduced to a common format as far as practicable. They were published promptly by the International Polar Commission. Starting with the idea of international cooperation to achieve effective study of the polar regions, it became truly the first coordinated multidisciplinary study of the whole planet. Its direct contribution to new scientific knowledge was impressive; but what is perhaps more important in the context of current discussions on Antarctica is the influence that this one, coordinated activity, focusing on science in the polar regions, had on international cooperation and in bringing about a chance in the character of science. From being an
172 exclusive or elitist pursuit, often jealously guarded for reasons of national or institutional prestige, science developed into an open activity, in which everyone quali- fied could take part and in which the results belonged to the whole world and the quality of the science was judged by criticisms of other knowledgeable scientists, not by patrons or clients. The IPY also marked the beginning of the practice of governments to sponsor scientific research in a number of fields using public funds, even if the research was not carried out in the sponsoring country and the results would not be the sole property of the sponsor. Sponsor- ship was justified on the grounds that basic knowledge of natural phenomena in polar regions, particularly in subjects relevant to a country's own issues and research, was useful in itself and that pursuit of such knowledge was a good investment for the country concerned. The conviction that openly shared scientific knowledge of the polar regions, obtained through international cooperation, was a good investment for the sponsoring country independent of any economic return from the region was confirmed through the second IPY in 1932-1933 and the IGY in 1957-1958 and became a philosophical cornerstone of the Antarctic Treaty. The IGY, as Dr. Rutford has pointed out in his presentation, brought systematic, international, multidisciplinary science to the antarctic continent. Articles II and III of the Antarctic Treaty make it clear that among the principal purposes of the treaty are the guarantee of freedom to conduct scientific research, the encouragement of international cooperation in research, and the open exchange of scientific information and research results. But science and the world have changed in the 25 years since the treaty was first drawn up. In light of these changes, how has the treaty served scientific activities in Antarctica? Is open sponsorship of scientific activities in Antarctica, whose results are available to all, a good political and economic investment for the sponsoring countries? How well, in the present context, do scientific activities serve as the principal vehicle to carry out the objectives of the treaty; or do the present scientific programs make more difficult the achievement of other objectives of the treaty, such as resolution of international conflict and maintenance of nonmilitary status? To answer these questions, it may be useful to examine frankly the need for and importance of antarctic science in world affairs, the expectations that
173 countries or scientists may have of antarctic research, and the use made of the results of antarctic research within the spectrum of interests and concerns of various countries. THE POLITICAL ROLE OF SCIENCE IN ANTARCTICA If science, as the open and organized pursuit of knowl- edge, is a cornerstone of the Antarctic Treaty, for what reasons do member countries endorse antarctic science? Do the adhering countries value the scientific knowledge sufficiently to justify their adherence to the treaty and their investment in antarctic programs, or is the cooper- ation in science a front or cover for some other commer- cial or strategic interest or perhaps merely a way of maintaining some involvement in the region in case some other opportunity may become apparent in the future? It is clear that the involvement of 30 nations in antarctic activities under the treaty over a period of 25 years cannot be purely altruistic or a response to the enthusiasm or persuasiveness of a few individuals. Nor can it be simply a gesture of endorsing international goodwill or the national worship of pure science as an end in itself. Over this period of time, with all the political and economic vicissitudes that occur in differ ent countries, the reason for sustained scientific activity by many nations in Antarctica has to be national self-interest. And, to justify continuing political as well as scientific attention, the national benefits must not only have outweighed the costs but also have pre veiled against other competing uses for resources or expertise. - Scientific studies and their results in the form of new knowledge are the main products that emerge from the political attention and economic resources devoted to Antarctica under the treaty. It is thus the science itself that must justify the political and national interest and investment. And if, as was pointed out by Weyprecht 100 years ago and amply confirmed by subsequent activities in both polar regions, science is not a territory for national possession, and the knowledge of most lasting value is obtained through international cooperation and open sharing of information, the con- tribution of science in Antarctica to the political self-interest of the individual countries involved must be through nonexclusive, cooperative actions and inform
174 mation that is available to all. How can states maximize their self-interest by participating in an activity in which others are equal beneficiaries and by accepting an obligation to share the results of their own efforts freely with everyone else? There appear to be three ways in which open, freely shared science can serve the political interests of the member states in Antarctica: (1) by delivering a product, in the form of publicly available scientific knowledge or information, that contributes in some identified way to national issues, contributes to national wealth, or helps overcome recognized national problems; (2) by serving to increase domestic scientific and technical expertise and capacity; (3) by providing a vehicle for international contact and influence. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO SCIENCE IN ANTARCTICA Over the years, the political and public justification for scientific activities in Antarctica must be in terms of its contribution to the economy; to social, cultural, and domestic development; or to foreign policy or strate- gic objectives. It is therefore useful to examine the antarctic science program, as summarized in Chapter 9 by William Budd, to see how the results of the program con- tribute to those objectives. AS was pointed out by W. Ostreng in connection with science in the Arctic regions, the contribution of science to national objectives tends to be viewed, by the public and the politicians, in three ways: (1) In a functional sense, which views science as a tool or a means to achieve some previously agreed objective, such as scientific prospecting to find mineral deposits, to make money; (2) In a pragmatic or opportunistic sense, in which the objective is to increase scientific knowledge or capacity in areas of national interest and then to use that knowledge to solve problems or develop opportunities, for example, studies of climate change, which could lead to knowledge of immense economic or social importance but in ways as yet unknown; (3) In an ideological or academic sense, in which every opportunity to increase genuine knowledge or understanding should be taken because all
175 knowledge is ultimately of value and the practical utility of even a portion of the new knowledge will be sufficient to justify the total investment.] All three points of view are valid as ways at looking at the contribution of science to national objectives. All science is, of course, a gamble, in that the results of research cannot be predicted in advance and the prac- tical economic or political payoff, if any, may be very protracted in its effect or may benefit someone other than the sponsor. Experience has shown that science undertaken in a functional sense, while it can contribute most directly to identified goals, tends to be marginal in its net payoff, for when it is successful it tends to be increased to the point of nonsuccess. If you find one gold mine, you or others are tempted to use up all the profit looking for the next one. Academic research, in the best sense, usually requires smaller investment and has a larger net payoff, although the individual bene- ficiaries are rarely identifiable in advance. The scientific work done to date in Antarctica has shown few positive results from the so-called "functional" approach to science except, and this is still unproven, with regard to marine living resources. But the payoff from science in a pragmatic or academic sense has already been great. It has sustained antarctic activities in terms of national self-interest since at least the IGY, and the future looks even more exciting. WHAT RESULTS CAN ANTARCTIC SCIENCE DELIVER? Seen from a nonscientific national or international interest viewpoint, the results of scientific research in Antarctica may provide a number of services: (1) Prediction of environmental and geophysical con- ditions and changes. Obvious examples are weather observing and forecasting activities and, on a longer scale, the studies that lead to better estimates of what might happen to the climate because of natural or human- induced influences. Other areas in which antarctic science is vital to predictions with important socio- economic effects lie in the fields of oceanic circulation, geomagnetism, ionospheric variations, earth tides, and geodesy. In each of these examples, it should be noted
176 that it is not what is happening within the antarctic regions themselves that is of prime importance to inter- ested nations, although what is happening there may be of outstanding scientific importance. It is that the infor- mation from Antarctica is important, or in some cases absolutely vital, to improved scientific predictions about phenomena that affect the home country and other parts of the world. (2) Monitoring of environmental, biological, or geo- physical conditions. Many of the scientific programs in Antarctica take advantage of the unique location and conditions of Antarctica in order to make continuing observations of a kind that could not be made anywhere else on the planet, to detect and keep track of regional or global changes in natural or human-induced conditions or characteristics. Such monitoring may range from timely information on short-term effects due to human activities, such as fallout of radioactive particles in the atmosphere or the spread of persistent chemical pesticide residues around the world, to more subtle but potentially enormously important changes in the thickness and stability of the large ice sheets or the position of the antarctic convergence in response to climate changes (The antarctic convergence defines the northern boundary of the Southern Ocean, where cold, southern surface waters are pushed below warmer, northern waters moving south. It fluctuates between 47°S and 63°S latitude) Many features of Antarctica make it ideal and unique as a monitor of global conditions and changes. Some of these features are Its remoteness from significant human population . and centers of industry and large-scale conversion of energy; · The circumstance that much of the air descending onto the interior of Antarctica has traveled at higher levels from lower latitudes and thus has a long "residence time" in the atmosphere, while that near the surface over the Antarctic Ocean is thoroughly mixed in one of the most turbulent zonal circulation belts in the world; · The thick cover of material of uniform composition and physical properties (ice) that blankets most of the continent and provides continent-scale laboratory cleanliness and measurable near-homogenous background to observations ranging from reception of low-frequency radio waves to the
177 sampling of microbes and the history of atmospheric chemistry for the past 30,000 years; · The circumstance that Antarctica covers the geo- graphical South Pole and the south magnetic and geomagnetic poles, so that variations and events connected with rotation of the Earth and the nearly vertical magnetic-field lines can be observed directly This is the only place from which observations of these phenomena can be made, because many of the counterpart locations in north polar regions are on the Arctic Ocean, where fixed observing stations are not possible. In many subject areas, Antarctica thus serves as a unique world sentinel of global environmental and geo- physical changes. Its value to the world is much greater than the value of the information about Antarctica itself; measurements from Antarctica provide information about what is happening in the rest of the world that cannot be obtained from anywhere else in the world. (3) Knowledge and understanding of basic geological, geophysical, biological, and oceanographic processes and of human adaptation. As science in Antarctica has matured from exploratory reconnaissance and careful description of what is there, the questions of how it got that way and how its natural processes operate have become more sharply focused. Today, "process" studies, rather than descriptive survey, lie behind much of the most important and challenging research in antarctic regions. The list of disciplinary and multidisciplinary projects to explore the frontiers of human knowledge that can be carried out only in Antarctica is limited only by the imagination and originality of scientists themselves. The pertinence of such studies to world science lies in that, in many ways, Antarctica is positioned quite literally at "one end of the Earth"; it provides one pole or extreme natural example for many living and nonliving natural processes. In addition to the natural conditions that make it singularly useful as a global monitor site (see above), other characteristics of Antarctica make careful research in and around the continent of particular value to world science and its application. Only a few examples will show the scientific significance of this unique region: . The area has a unique geological history. Antarctica was part of the ancient supercontinent Gondwanaland, which included the other Southern
178 Hemisphere continents and India. After the breakup of Gondwanaland, Antarctica remained physically isolated and remarkably free from later geological convulsions until it collided with the "Pacific rim" in comparatively recent geological times. Study of antarctic geology is providing distinctive information of direct value to the geological interpretation of the other fragments of Gondwanaland; and some of the basic geological processes well displayed in antarctic rocks, despite the absence of known mineral deposits, are of value in understanding the processes of mineralization and aid in the search for mineral deposits elsewhere in the world. · The low angle of solar radiation and its marked seasonal variation throughout the year have led to a distinct climatic regime, which in turn has led to distinctive oceanographic, geomorphological, and biological processes and responses. For example, the annual formation and disappearance of sea ice around Antarctica means that an enormous area undergoes an annual change from open water to ice cover and back again. This change causes a drastic change in surface reflectivity and in exchanges of heat and gases between water and atmosphere. It is by far the largest annual cyclic variation of surface conditions anywhere on the planet, with all sorts of biological, physical, and planetary thermal implications that are, at this stage, poorly understood. · Antarctic ecosystems have adapted to the lowest levels of net intertrophic flows of biological energy of any ecosystems known. The processes of this adapta- tion and evolution are seen in genetic, morphological, and behavioral characteristics whose understanding promises to add much to our fundamental understanding of the processes of life itself and thus to the rela- tionships between the biological and the nonbiological worlds, to the stimuli and processes of biological evolution, and to the responses of organisms and populations to physical stress and energy availability. These, and many other examples that become apparent in any review of antarctic research, confirm after 25 years the wisdom inherent in the invitational letter to the 1959 Washington Conference, which promoted the value of an international agreement "to preserve the antarctic continent as an international laboratory for scientific research."
179 (4) Information for management, apportionment, exploitation, and conservation of antarctic resources. - Scientific study is also an obvious component both of the identification and exploitation of living and nonliving resources in the modern context and of their management and conservation. In Antarctica, the use of science in connection with resource exploitation and management applies most directly to marine living resources, where international programs such as the Biological Investiga- tions of Marine Antarctic Species and Stocks provide the essential scientific background to treaty activities under the Convention on the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources. The scientific work carried out to this end has elements of the research noted above related to prediction, monitoring, and understanding of natural processes in Antarctica. In addition, sophis- ticated science is involved in the development of means to acquire an adequate data base for management; for development of technologies for detection, harvesting, and processing of the resources; and for obtaining information pertinent to enforcement of provisions for sustained management and environmental protection. With respect to mineral resources, there is generally a distinct difference in approach and method between geological and geophysical studies carried out for purely scientific purposes, and prospecting or minerals explora- tion carried out to locate mineral deposits. Neverthe- less, almost all good geological and solid-earth geo- physical information is useful to assessment of the potential for mineral deposits. The geological infor- mation obtained to date in Antarctica has not revealed areas of high promise for the discovery of metallic mineral deposits on the continent or of hydrocarbons in the offshore areas. Combined with the estimates of the technological difficulties, the expense of finding, developing, and producing minerals, as well as the distance and difficulty of transport to a major market, has made Antarctica a poor prospect indeed, compared with almost any other place on the planet, to search for mineral or hydrocarbon resources or to hope to extract them profitably if found. This is the case even before the severe problems of producing minerals or oil while preserving the integrity of the vulnerable antarctic environment are taken into account. (For further dis- cussion of potential minerals development in Antarctica, see Chapters 17-20.)
- 180 At the same time, as noted above, the study of basic geological and environmental processes in Antarctica is contributing to improved understanding of the formation and location of mineral deposits. This can be applied to the search for and development of minerals in other parts of the world. Science in Antarctica is therefore relevant to minerals exploitation because it facilitates a realis- tic but, on the basis of present knowledge, not encourag- ing assessment of commercial minerals potentials there. Worldwide, antarctic science also enhances the prospects for profitable minerals development in other parts of the world. The possibility of development of the ice resources of Antarctica as a practical source of fresh water represents a special case of the application of science to mineral resources development and export. There is no problem of adequacy of supply. But glaciological, oceanographic, meteorological, and engineering sciences will be heavily involved in studies of technical feasibility, economic feasibility, reliability, and environmental effects if current concepts are to be developed to a serious design and economic evaluation stage. (5) Services to Conservation, Awareness, and Communica- tion. Apart from, and also in addition to, the roles that science in Antarctica can play in providing knowl- edge that is pertinent to problems of the world environ- . ment and management and optimum use of resources, scien- tific study and knowledge of Antarctica play an important cultural role in helping to achieve conservation of the region's unique features, characteristics, and ecosystems. Antarctica is in large part bleak, forbidding in human terms, and less supportive of life than any other exten- save region on the surface of the planet. It is also one of the most beautiful parts of the world. Despite its short human history, it has generated powerful myths and holds an impressive -trip on the minds and emotions of several societies. Penguins, whales, icebergs, and even blizzards have an appeal far beyond any rational appraisal of their place in nature. Evidence of this can be seen every year in the high national and international public interest attached to amateur sporting and quasi- scientific exploration ventures to Antarctica, in the popularity and high quality of antarctic picture books in nearly every language, and in the growing industry (and the growing environmental problems) of tourism to the region.
181 Scientific study of antarctic biology, glaciology, geomorphology, and oceanography plays an important role in shaping the worldwide popular interest in Antarc- tica. It also has a heavy responsibility, under the treaty, to ensure that public interest is channeled in constructive directions. The establishment of designated protected areas [Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIS)] reflects an initial and timely response to the recognition that some areas are particularly vulnerable to disturbance, either inadvertently or in the course of narrow minded scientific investigation. The agreement to designate SSSIs under the Antarctic Treaty System is not only a positive act of conservation, however local, and a recognition that some places and parts of the antarctic web of life are particularly vulnerable to disturbance; it is also an international statement that science in Antarctica is of international importance and that special scientific places must be protected, even against distur- bance by scientists themselves. As Antarctica becomes more "popular," its special features will on the one hand be likely to become more highly valued by people in other lands who are concerned about the environment and conservation, as noted by the special chapter on Antarctica in the World Conservation Strategy produced by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP), and the World Wildlife Fund International. At the same time, the emotional and cultural appeals of the region will lead to increased visitation, tourism, and exploitation of its scenery and wildlife in ways that individually appear to be benign or insignificant but that collectively can be very destruc- tive. Scientific study is essential for understanding the effect of human intrusion on the antarctic ecosystem and environment, in order to preserve priceless antarctic values and at the same time to contribute to the cultural and educational benefits that Antarctica can bring to the world at large. In the long run, this popular service by science may be one of the most important proofs of the effectiveness of the Antarctic Treaty System. THE SETTING OF SCIENTIFIC PRIORITIES IN ANTARCTICA If science is important in helping to serve the political needs of the Antarctic Treaty, and the treaty has a basic function to preserve the opportunity to pursue science,
182 how are the priorities for science in Antarctica arrived at? Clearly all interesting or desirable subjects cannot be pursued, even by the most wealthy and ambitious research programs. Each country is responsible for the content and emphasis of its own studies; yet it is apparent that too many studies, each focusing on the same fashionable scientific problem of the moment, are not good for the science or for the working of the treaty. It is in this area that antarctic science and the treaty are singularly fortunate in the existence and activities of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR). SCAR, which was in existence before the treaty was drawn up, has served as an international coordinator and focus of scientific interest in Antarc- tica. Through its various panels and groups of experts, its symposia, and the annual reports of its national committees, SCAR serves as an international peer review group and custodian of the quality and relevance of science in Antarctica. Being a nongovernmental agency and nonpolitical, it has been remarkably free from political pressures. Yet its organization into a national committee trom each consultative party state has enabled it to translate general scientific priorities into recommended national programs that are compatible with the respective priorities and capabilities of participa- ting countries. One of the fortunate aspects of the Antarctic Treaty situation is that a nonpolitical, international, professional scientific body of the International Council of Scientific Unions, SCAR, has made it possible for science to play a strong political role within the treaty without becoming politicized or · . compromising its scientific integrity. Article III of the treaty not only calls for exchange of plans for scientific programs to permit maximum economy and efficiency of operations, and for the exchange of - _ ~ . _ ~ personnel, observations, and sclentl~lc results, DUE ally gives every encouragement to the establishment of coop- erative working relations with other organizations having a scientific interest in Antarctica. This means, inevit- ably, that not only is science in Antarctica linked inexorably with science in the rest of the world but also that the priorities for science in Antarctica will be, to an increasing extent, determined by the priorities for science in the world as a whole.
183 THE FUTURE Throughout the life of the Antarctic Treaty, scientific activities, and the openly shared scientific knowledge resulting from those activities, have become ever more firmly entrenched as the central reasons for the interests of many nations in Antarctica. The support of scientifi activities has been found, over 25 years, to be a good investment by many nations as viewed in their own national and international interests. Antarctic science has proven that its principal value is as a contribution to world knowledge, providing information from Antarctica that is vital to environmental development and resource problems in other parts of the world. A secondary but important aspect of antarctic science is its essential contribution to environmental protection and the management of living resources in the antarctic region. To date, scientific activities in Antarctica have given very little or no encouragement to prospects for commercially exploitable mineral or hydrocarbon resources in Antarctica, with the possible exception of development of ice as a freshwater resource, but they have provided information on which any potential mineral deposits can be evaluated and the tech- nical, economic, and environmental assessments carried out. It can be expected that present trends regarding science in Antarctica will continue. Antarctic science will likely continue to grow more sophisticated and even more closely tied to world science as a whole. At the same time it will also focus on the "local" goals of protection of the environment, conservation of distinctive ecosystems, and management of resources within the antarc- tic region itself. There are a number of major world problems of enormous social and economic importance for the future, such as climate change, the distortion of biogeochemical cycles, and the accelerating disappearance of living species on a worldwide basis, to whose solutions science can make real contributions. But these solutions increasingly call for specialized and compatible informa- tion from all parts of the planet. Antarctica is a dis- tinctive and very specialized part of the planet. What happens in Antarctica, and the physical and biological processes that can be studied more clearly in Antarctica than in any other planet, have an importance to the rest of the world that is only now being realized. Therefore, it can be expected that research in Antarctica will to a .c
184 degree even greater than now become an essential compo- nent of major worldwide science programs. For example, polar atmospheric and thermal transfer processes, and the climatic history recorded in the major ice sheets, are an important part of the World Climate Research Program. The need for research in Antarctica has been identified as a part of the world conservation strategy. Antarctic stations are becoming integrated into the Global Environmental Monitoring System of UNEP. The International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP) now being developed under the International Council of Scientific Unions and in many ways a direct descendant of the IPY and the IGY is raising many questions about the relationships between physical phenomena and biological processes. Some of these relationships can best be studied in the most extreme of all terrestrial environ- ments, Antarctica. It can be expected that in the next few years an increasing amount of important antarctic research will be related to the IGBP. Thus, future science in Antarctica, conducted through the international cooperation and open exchange made possible by the Antarctic Treaty, can be expected to serve the purposes of the treaty. At the same time, it will be increasingly integrated with scientific research in other parts of the world, and its results will be judged in terms of its contribution to the major scien- tific, environmental, social, and economic problems of populated areas. Science in Antarctica is coming of age and affirming the statement made by Weyprecht 110 years ago that "The polar regions offer opportunities unparalleled anywhere on the planet for the study of the Earth's physical and natural processes." REFERENCE 1Ostreng, W. 1985. Report of the Nordic Conference on Arctic Research, N. Aalesund, Svalbard, Norway, August 1-8, 1984. (In Norwegian.) Published by University of Trondheim (Trondheim, Norway), pp. 19-26.
