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 169
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
OCR for page 170
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;
OCR for page 171
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
OCR for page 172
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
OCR for page 173
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
OCR for page 174
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
OCR for page 175
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
OCR for page 176
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
OCR for page 177
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
OCR for page 178
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."
OCR for page 179
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.)
OCR for page 180
-
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.
OCR for page 181
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,
OCR for page 182
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.
OCR for page 183
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
OCR for page 184
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
antarctic treaty
