IN ANTARCTICA, the Sun set for the first time this year on 21 February. After months of continuous daylight, the continent is bracing itself for the long, cold winter. At the same time, the American Antarctic research programme could also be heading for a dark, deep freeze. But in this case, there is no guarantee that light will return after the winter.
For decades, the vibrant American research programme was motivated by more than just scientific curiosity. It had a geopolitical purpose. It was a way of asserting American rights on the continent.
But now that the Cold War is over, American politicians are becoming restless about writing big cheques for research at the bottom of the world. The Republican-controlled Congress has commissioned a review of American research on the continent 鈥� to pinpoint programmes that can be cut. The review is due to go to Congress later this month.
Advertisement
Ironically, American ambivalence about Antarctic research has emerged at a time when international interest in the continent has never been greater. During the International Geophysical Year (1957-58), 12 nations were carrying out research in Antarctica. Now there are 27. In a recent survey, the National Science Foundation 鈥� which is in charge of the American research programme -found that other nations are expanding their Antarctic research. South Africa is rebuilding its Antarctic station. Chile has just bought a new icebreaker. And Japan plans to renovate its main station.
The American research programme dwarfs those of other nations. Most only operate in Antarctica during the comparatively benign summer. But the US keeps three research stations throughout the year: McMurdo Station on McMurdo Sound, Palmer Station on the Antarctic Peninsula and the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. The NSF also has two research ships in Antarctic waters.
However, comparatively few of the 2500 Americans in Antarctica during the summer are researchers. At McMurdo Station, for example, all but a few hundred of the 1100 people are support workers 鈥� the lorry drivers who move equipment, the kitchen workers who feed the lorry drivers, and the medical workers who treat the kitchen workers who feed the lorry drivers.
Expensive overheads
Of the $198 million (about 拢129 million) that the US is spending in the Antarctic this year, only $29 million goes on scientific research. The majority goes on overheads, such as maintaining buildings and paying support staff. This works out at $5.83 of support for every $1 of research, a figure that last year caught the attention of the Senate committee in charge of the NSF鈥檚 budget.
In the autumn, the committee warned that it was 鈥渧ery concerned鈥� that Antarctic research might be getting too expensive for the NSF. It commissioned the review, which is co-chaired by Harold Varmus, head of the National Institutes of Health, and France Cordova, NASA鈥檚 chief scientist. Near the top of the list of possible targets is the policy of keeping American stations open throughout the year. 鈥淏udget-saving options should include greater international cooperation, less than a year-round human presence, and closing of one or more of the stations,鈥� claimed the Senate committee.
One Senate staff member, who wishes to remain anonymous, says the committee was galvanised into action by the NSF鈥檚 plans for a new $200-million station at the South Pole to replace the ageing Amundsen-Scott base, which is rapidly becoming unsafe. The plan is an anachronism, he says. NSF鈥檚 grand plans for a new South Pole station were conceived during the late-1980s, when President Reagan and Congress were talking about doubling the NSF鈥檚 total budget within four years.
鈥淣obody is talking about that now,鈥� says the staff member. He argues that the plans for a new pole station 鈥� and, indeed, the entire Antarctic programme 鈥� should be rethought. He asks: 鈥淎re the facilities and the presence that we have down there the right size, appropriate to the overall NSF budget and its future?鈥�
Members of Congress are also concerned that the NSF may cut grants to individual researchers to save money for capital projects such as the polar station, he says.
But Cornelius Sullivan, NSF鈥檚 director of polar programmes, is confident that the review will back the NSF鈥檚 priorities for Antarctic research. He argues that every previous review has reaffirmed the basic policy of conducting a vigorous, 365-days-a-year research programme in Antarctica.
Nonetheless, many NSF officials believe the writing is on the wall for Antarctic research. They are anticipating the review鈥檚 findings and looking for ways to cut costs, particularly the overheads.
One cost-cutting option being considered by Erick Chiang, head of polar research support section, is to use private companies for tasks which are currently performed by the US Navy, such as forecasting the weather, providing medical treatment and flying the helicopters that ferry scientists to research sites. Chiang says that the Navy employs up to 33 per cent more staff to carry out a given task than a commercial company because it has to provide cover for staff on routine training.
There has also been a big push to reduce the research programme鈥檚 鈥渇ootprint鈥� 鈥� the number of workers and consequently the amount of power and supplies they demand and the amount of environmental disruption. This not only cuts costs, it also placates environmentalists who object to the messy record of the US on the continent (This Week, 20 January, p 10).
Reducing the number of staff would also allow the NSF to shut down some electricity generators and close some ageing buildings at McMurdo that use energy inefficiently, belching heat into the cold Antarctic air. Already, Chiang says, closing some buildings and making improvements in others this year has allowed the NSF to save nearly 7 million litres of fuel.
Cutting support staff does not mean cutting the amount of scientific research, he promises. 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to do more science, not less.鈥� The slimmed-down Antarctic staff will 鈥渨ork smarter鈥� and will therefore be able to help more scientists, he says.
But some Antarctic workers wonder whether the NSF can squeeze more work out of fewer workers. Jim Mastro, a diver who has worked in Antarctica since 1982 and looks upon McMurdo as his home, says that the stress of life in the Antarctic means that experienced people are constantly leaving and being replaced by novices. Cutting staff will only accelerate this trend.
鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a mistake. Sooner or later the cost of replacing these people will manifest itself,鈥� he says. 鈥淵ou lose valuable knowledge and experience. In 15 years, I鈥檝e seen the wheel reinvented here countless times, and it鈥檚 extremely frustrating.鈥�
One way the NSF could improve morale is to give support workers day trips to see the dramatic sights that the continent has to offer. For most workers this is a rare treat, and depends on an empty seat being available on a pole flight.
This year for the first time, the NSF allowed three flights from McMurdo to the South Pole solely to give McMurdo workers an hour-long sightseeing trip. But the trips were criticised. 鈥淚 think our taxpayers鈥� money is being wasted somewhat,鈥� complains Rudy Dichtl, a scientist with Antarctic Support Associates, the Denver-based company that runs the NSF bases. 鈥淭hat costs $4000 an hour in fuel.鈥�
Happy staff work harder
Chiang defends the practice. 鈥淭he increase in cost is really, really small,鈥� he says. And bolstering morale allows more science to get done. 鈥淯ltimately, it makes people feel that it鈥檚 worthwhile to have them here. Then they just work harder.鈥�
Meanwhile, some scientists worry that the budget concerns may have distorted priorities for Sullivan and other NSF officials. They think Sullivan is emphasising style over substance in Antarctic research to impress the public and politicians.
Disgruntled scientists point to the attempt in 1993 to demonstrate a robot designed for exploring other planets on the Mount Erebus volcano. The robot broke down. 鈥淲hy did that have to be done in Antarctica?鈥� wonders one scientist.
Ralph Harvey of Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, is also worried about the change in emphasis. Every summer, Harvey and his colleagues search for meteorites. They have collected several hundred over the years, including chunks of the Moon and Mars, which have been distributed to scientists around the country. 鈥淭his is the only source of planetary material right now,鈥� he says. But he is worried that NSF officials will not impressed by the seemingly mundane job of rock collection. 鈥淭hey want some razzle-dazzle.鈥�
杏吧原创s also argue among themselves about priorities. Atmospheric scientists complain that the NSF has a love affair with astronomers. Even though atmospheric researchers are engaged in the vital search for evidence of global warming and depletion of the ozone layer, the NSF still devotes a disproportionate amount of scarce resources to astronomy. For example, a key meteorological instrument at the South Pole station was broken for much of the summer season because the huge contingent of astronomers at the base left no room for a repair worker to fix it.
Sullivan is unrepentant about the emphasis on astronomy. He is particularly proud of AMANDA, the Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array, an instrument that polar astronomers are using to spot neutrinos from space. He believes this research could spawn a whole new branch of astronomy. 鈥淚鈥檇 like to give them a chance to win a Nobel prize,鈥� he says.
And he is equally adamant about supporting 鈥渉igh visibility鈥� projects, saying that they build public enthusiasm for the scientific venture in Antarctica. 鈥淚t is a simple fact that we scjentists as a community haven鈥檛 conveyed a sense of the importance and excitement about what we do in science. In large measure, that鈥檚 why we鈥檙e in the trouble that we are now.鈥�