U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

29–850PS 2006

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR:

THE SCIENTIFIC AGENDA AND

THE FEDERAL ROLE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

Serial No. 109–61

Printed for the use of the Committee on Science

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/science

(II)

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

HON. SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York, Chairman

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

KEN CALVERT, California

ROSCOE G. BARTLETT, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia

JO BONNER, Alabama

TOM FEENEY, Florida

RANDY NEUGEBAUER, Texas

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

JOHN J.H. ‘‘JOE’’ SCHWARZ, Michigan

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

BART GORDON, Tennessee

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

MARK UDALL, Colorado

DAVID WU, Oregon

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas

BRAD SHERMAN, California

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JIM MATHESON, Utah

JIM COSTA, California

AL GREEN, Texas

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

DORIS MATSUI, California

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

BOB INGLIS, South Carolina, Chairman

LAMAR S. SMITH, Texas

CURT WELDON, Pennsylvania

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota

FRANK D. LUCAS, Oklahoma

W. TODD AKIN, Missouri

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DAVE G. REICHERT, Washington

MICHAEL E. SODREL, Indiana

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas

VACANCY

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

DARLENE HOOLEY, Oregon

DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

BRAD MILLER, North Carolina

DENNIS MOORE, Kansas

DORIS MATSUI, California

VACANCY

VACANCY

BART GORDON, Tennessee

ELIZABETH GROSSMAN Subcommittee Staff Director

JIM WILSON Democratic Professional Staff Member

MELE ́ WILLIAMS Professional Staff Member/Chairman’s Designee

RACHEL JAGODA BRUNETTE Professional Staff Member

AVITAL ‘‘TALI’’ BAR-SHALOM Professional Staff Member

MEGHAN HOUSEWRIGHT Staff Assistant

(III)

C O N T E N T S

September 20, 2006

Page

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 2

Hearing Charter ...................................................................................................... 3

Opening Statements

Statement by Representative Bob Inglis, Chairman, Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................ 8

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 9

Statement by Representative Darlene Hooley, Ranking Minority Member,

Subcommittee on Research, Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives ........................................................................................................... 9

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 11

Witnesses:

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 12

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 14

Biography .......................................................................................................... 38

Dr. Robin Elizabeth Bell, Doherty Senior Research Scientist, Lamont-Doherty

Earth Observatory, Columbia University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 38

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 41

Biography .......................................................................................................... 56

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 58

Dr. Donal T. Manahan, Professor of Biology, University of Southern California

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 59

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 61

Biography .......................................................................................................... 63

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 67

Mr. Mark S. McCaffrey, Associate Scientist and Science Communications

Expert, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences, University of Colorado, Boulder

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 68

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 70

Biography .......................................................................................................... 77

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 79

Dr. Kelly Kenison Falkner, Professor of Chemical Oceanography, Oregon

State University

Oral Statement ................................................................................................. 80

Written Statement ............................................................................................ 81

Biography .......................................................................................................... 86

Financial Disclosure ......................................................................................... 88

Discussion ................................................................................................................. 89

Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions

Dr. Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation ...................... 106

(1)

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR: THE SCIENTIFIC AGENDA AND THE FEDERAL ROLE

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH,

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE,

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in Room

2318 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Inglis [Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding.

2

3

HEARING CHARTER

SUBCOMMITTEE ON RESEARCH

COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

International Polar Year:

The Scientific Agenda and

the Federal Role

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006

10:00 A.M.–12:00 P.M.

2318 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUILDING

1. Purpose

On Wednesday, September 20, 2006, the Research Subcommittee of the Committee on Science of the House of Representatives will hold a hearing to examine

the research planned for the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY) and the U.S.

role in the IPY.

2. Witnesses

Dr. Arden Bement is the Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Dr. Robin Bell is a Doherty Senior Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty

Earth Observatory of Columbia University. She chairs both the Polar Research

Board of the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Committee to the IPY and

serves as Vice-Chair of the International Council for Science (ICSU, based on the

French acronym) Planning Group for the IPY.

Dr. Kelly K. Falkner is a Professor of Chemical Oceanography at Oregon State

University and is a member of the Advisory Committee to the NSF Office of Polar

Programs.

Dr. Donal T. Manahan is a Professor of Biology at the University of Southern

California and runs an NSF-funded program to provide graduate students with research experience in Antarctica.

Mr. Mark S. McCaffrey is an associate scientist and science communications specialist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES)

at University of Colorado, Boulder. He is a member of the ICSU IPY Education,

Outreach, and Communications Subcommittee.

3. Overarching Questions

• What are the most critical unanswered questions that we hope to resolve with

the research conducted during this IPY? What are the societal benefits of this

research? What has been learned from polar research and IPYs in the past?

• What role will each of the federal agencies play in the IPY? What is the U.S.

role in the IPY, and how does the U.S. collaborate with international participants?

4. Brief Overview

• The IPY will consist of an intense, internationally coordinated effort of polar

observations, research and analysis in many scientific fields, including study

of how the Earth’s remote polar regions influence global climate systems. The

IPY also hopes to inspire the next generation of scientists and to educate the

public about the polar regions.

• The IPY will begin in March 2007 and run through March 2009 so that scientists have the opportunity to work in both polar regions during the IPY or

to study the poles during both summer and winter seasons. This is the fourth

IPY, and it celebrates the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical

Year.

4

1Other U.S. agencies and organizations that have sponsored or participated in IPY planning

workshops, are members of the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC), and/or

have interests in the polar regions include the Department of Agriculture, the Department of

Education, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State and the Environmental Protection Agency.

• To date, 38 nations have expressed interest in participating in the IPY. International coordination occurs through the ICSU and the World Meteorological

Organization (WMO). In the U.S., the federal agencies actively involved in

IPY are NSF, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department

of Energy (DOE), the Department of Defense (DOD), the National Institutes

of Health (NIH), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the Department of the

Interior (DOI) and the Smithsonian Institution.1

• The White House has designated NSF, which manages the U.S. Antarctic

Program and chairs the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee, to be

the lead federal agency for the IPY. NSF’s fiscal year 2007 (FY07) budget request includes $62 million for research related to the IPY, including research

on how the Arctic environment is changing, the history and dynamics of polar

ice sheets, and how life forms adapt to harsh polar environments, and funding

for associated logistics, infrastructure, and education and outreach activities.

(NSF has funded research in these areas for many years, but is increasing

its focus on, and funding for them in concert with the IPY.) Overall, the proposed NSF budget for FY07 is $6.0 billion, of which $438 million is for polar

research programs and logistical support; both House and Senate appropriators have provided NSF with the requested overall level for FY07.

5. U.S. Agencies and the IPY

While the IPY is in an international effort, the approval of individual research

projects is left up to each nation. ICSU, an international, non-governmental science

organization, and the WMO are coordinating the IPY through a joint committee and

a program office. That committee has enumerated themes for IPY research. Scientists wishing to undertake IPY research can submit their proposals to the committee, which then decides, based on the topic, whether the research can be considered an IPY activity. The application process is essentially over, and the committee

has endorsed about 225 projects and is reviewing another 900 or so. Committee approval is not based on a review of the quality of the project, and few applications

are rejected. (The committee also establishes guidelines for sharing of data and

other aspects of research conduct.)

Federal research agencies in the U.S. have begun to solicit research proposals for

the IPY (primarily through existing research programs), and it is not clear how the

review process will take into account whether a project has already been designated

as an IPY project through the ICSU–WMO process.

Of the federal agencies involved in the IPY—NSF, NOAA, NASA and DOE—only

NSF’s FY07 budget request specifically describes funds to be dedicated to IPY activities. These funds will go to expand support for ongoing research in areas related

to the IPY. NSF has proposed spending $62 million on IPY activities in FY07, an

increase of $8.3 million over FY06 levels for research in those areas.

NSF will distribute IPY funding both through ongoing programs and via IPY-specific solicitations seeking project proposals in high-priority research areas, such as

Arctic climate monitoring, and IPY-related education and outreach activities. The

first such solicitation was released in January 2006 (to distribute $12 million in

FY06 funds), and NSF is expected to announce this fall which projects were selected

for funding. Proposed projects must include a description of their relevance to the

IPY, but they are not required to have been endorsed by the ICSU–WMO process.

6. Background

History of IPY

Over the past 125 years, there have been three occasions when scientists from all

over the world gathered together to concentrate on research in the polar regions.

Each occasion was marked by significant breakthroughs in scientific knowledge, provided benefits to society, sparked continued collaboration among participants, and

set the stage for several political accords.

The first IPY took place in 1882–1883 when it was agreed that one nation alone

could not adequately study the geophysical attributes of the polar regions. Twelve

countries participated, with 13 expeditions to the Arctic and two expeditions to the

Antarctic. The international legacy of this first IPY was that it set a precedent for

5

2Of the $100,000 U.S. investment in the second IPY, $30,000 was federal funds from the Department of State. Other funding came from university and private sources. 3 In the early years, IGY was a significant piece of NSF’s budget; in 1956 nearly half of NSF

funding was dedicated to IGY. 4Other agencies providing support for IGY in some capacity included the Department of Defense, the State Department, the Commerce Department, the Atomic Energy Commission, and

the Office of Defense Mobilization. 5 A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007–2008, National Academy of Sciences, 2004;

available online at http://newton.nap.edu/html/ipr2007-2008/0309092124.pdf.

international science cooperation. For the U.S., an immediate result was the creation of a permanent science station at Point Barrow, Alaska, the northernmost

point of the U.S. To support this first IPY, Congress appropriated $33,000 to the

Army Signal Corps of the War Department.

In 1932, a second IPY was proposed by the forerunner of the World Metrological

Organization (WMO) in an effort to study the implications of the newly discovered

jet stream. Forty nations participated in this IPY, which led to advances in meteorology, atmospheric sciences, and understanding of the Earth’s magnetic field. Research findings on the nature and structure of the ionosphere surrounding the

Earth also enabled significant improvements in radio communications. Part of the

U.S. contribution to this IPY was the Byrd Antarctic expedition, which created the

first inland research station (a winter-long meteorological station) in Antarctica. In

addition, 40 permanent observation stations were established in the Arctic. The

total U.S. investment for the 1932 IPY was approximately $100,000.2

Perhaps the most notable of the IPYs, and what the upcoming IPY hopes to build

on, was the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year (IGY). Originally referred to

as the third IPY, organizers expanded the research opportunities beyond the polar

regions and changed the named to the IGY in an effort to garner more international

participation. Sixty-seven nations and over 80,000 scientists participated in the IGY.

Part of the impetus for the IGY came from World War II physicists who wanted to

redirect newer technologies from the war (radar and rockets) toward research applications, specifically the study of the upper atmosphere. Among the scientific successes of the IGY were the first informed estimates of the total size of Antarctica’s

ice mass, the confirmation of the phenomenon of continental drift, and the discovery

of the Van Allen Radiation Belt surrounding Earth. Politically, the relationships developed during the IGY and the successes of the scientific collaborations helped lead

to the ratification of the Antarctic Treaty in 1961. Much of today’s polar research

builds upon discoveries made during the IGY.

In the U.S., federal support for IGY primarily flowed through NSF, which was established in 1950. Between 1955 and 1961, NSF spent $59 million on IGY activities.3 Additional funds were spent by other government agencies,4 universities, and

private laboratories.

Upcoming IPY (2007–2008)

In A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007–2008,5 the U.S. National Committee for IPY, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, identified five scientific

challenges for the U.S. to address:

1. Assessing large-scale environmental change in the polar regions, with questions looking at both the physical and human dimensions of change and its

impacts.

2. Conducting scientific exploration of new frontiers, whether these are once inaccessible places such as the sea floor, or areas of inquiry that are now open

because of advances in technology, such as how the tools of genomics now

allow exploration of previously unanswerable questions about biological adaptation.

3. Observing the polar regions in depth, with adequate coverage of the vast and

challenging landscape, to provide a description of current conditions and

allow for better future understanding of variability and change.

4. Understanding human-environmental dynamics in a region where the connections are intimate and where the impacts of change are clear.

5. Creating new connections between science and the public, using these regions that are inherently intriguing.

Education and outreach is a key focus of the upcoming IPY. IPY participants plan

to share the research experiences with K–12 students, people who live in the polar

regions, decision-makers, and the general public. Specific activities planned include

6

6For details about the exhibit and its travel schedule, see http://www.sites.si.edu/exhibitions/exhibits/wondrous/main.htm.

web sites, workshops, newsletters, press kits, classroom remote participation and

interactive programs, and polar theme contests and class lessons.

NSF Polar Research Programs

NSF is the lead federal agency supporting research at the North and South Poles.

As an example, a recent survey of polar ice sheet’s drainage basins provided a

wealth of data for scientists studying the process of and reasons for the disappearance of glaciers. Ongoing research also includes studies on how the Antarctic mountain ranges formed and seismic and geochemical monitoring of Mt. Erebus, the

world’s southernmost active volcano.

In addition to projects that study the polar continents themselves, NSF also supports research in a variety of fields that can be conducted only at the poles. For example, the cold, dry climate and high altitude at the South Pole provide an excellent

environment in which to make certain astrophysics measurements (such as looking

at faint signals of radiation from when the universe was young). Finally, NSF also

provides logistical and infrastructure support for polar research, including permanent and temporary research stations at the poles, research vessels, interagency

leadership for research planning, and management of all U.S. activities in Antarctica. For FY07, the NSF budget request for polar research programs and logistical

support is $438 million, $49 million over the FY06 level.

For the IPY, NSF will continue and expand ongoing polar research activities as

well as provide logistical support. Specifically, research programs on how the Arctic

environment is changing, the history and dynamics of polar ice sheets, and how life

forms adapt to harsh polar environments have been identified as priorities for IPY

and beyond. In FY06, the NSF budget for IPY planning activities was $12.4 million,

and the FY07 NSF budget request includes $61.6 million to begin funding IPY research.

Projects to gather data on and model the Arctic climate will be part of the interagency Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) program, a long-term program in which NSF, NOAA, and NASA are building a network of observing sites

to monitor environmental change in the Arctic and supporting research on causes

and impacts of the change. During the IPY, NSF will support the development of

an international network to measure climate throughout the Arctic and to tap the

knowledge of indigenous peoples about their environment.

Research on glaciers will occur under the Polar Ice Sheet Dynamics and Stability

Program and is aimed at better understanding the ice sheets’ impact on global climate change. A primary focus will be drilling projects to obtain samples from deep

within the Antarctic ice sheets, mountain ranges, and ocean floors to improve our

understanding of Antarctic climate over the past 40,000 years and gather data that

can be compared to changes that occurred in the Arctic.

Studies on how life forms are able to adapt and survive the harsh temperatures

and darkness of the polar regions are supported under NSF’s program on Life in

the Cold and Dark. Research projects will focus on studying how organisms have

changed at the cellular and genomic levels and include investigations of human adaptation and how infectious diseases evolve due to climate change. During IPY, NSF

will support research in this area at Toolik field station in Alaska, at Summit,

Greenland; and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys of Antarctica.

In addition to these priority areas, other NSF initiatives planned for the IPY include efforts to improve climate modeling and upper atmosphere studies to better

understand space weather. NSF’s education and outreach plans include support for

museum exhibits and film, television and radio documentaries; development and

distribution of classroom materials for teaching about polar research; and polar research field experiences for undergraduate and graduate students and K–12 educators. One museum exhibit of photographs by the recipient of an NSF Antarctic

Artists and Writers Program grant, Wondrous Cold: An Antarctic Journey, has already been displayed at the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History and is currently traveling around the country.6

Other Federal Agency Polar Programs and IPY Activities under Science Committee

Jurisdiction

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NOAA’s FY07 proposed budget does not include new funds specifically for the IPY, but it does include $9.27 million for ongoing NOAA activities in the polar regions. These activities are consistent with the international goals for the IPY, and

7

NOAA plans to coordinate their projects with other U.S. and international IPY activities. The planned NOAA projects include exploration of polar oceans, research

on how to improve prediction and modeling of polar climates, polar atmospheric and

stratospheric observations, studies on causes and impacts of Pacific Arctic change,

and surveying of Antarctic marine life.

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

In addition to ongoing activities in support of the SEARCH program, NASA has

a variety of education and outreach plans for during the IPY. For example, NASA

is collaborating with NSF and NOAA on three IPY education and outreach

symposia. These symposia are designed for educators and will focus on ways to

teach about polar topics, such as the fragile ice, life in the cold and dark, and the

effect of the water and energy cycle on polar regions and climate change. Existing

NASA funds will be used for these activities.

Department of Energy

While no federal funds have been specifically requested for IPY activities at DOE,

the DOE Office of Science has committed to deploy an Atmospheric Radiation Measurement mobile facility to the Arctic during the IPY to study the impact of clouds,

aerosols and surface characteristics on the Arctic climate. The FY07 budget request

for this activity is $3.5 million.

7. Witness Questions

The witnesses were asked to address the following questions in their testimony:

Questions for Dr. Arden Bement and Dr. Robin Bell:

• What has been learned from polar research and the IPYs in the past, and

what do we hope to learn during this IPY?

• How will research conducted during this IPY relate to ongoing polar research

programs at NSF?

• What is the U.S. role in the IPY, and how does the U.S. collaborate with

international participants? What role will each of the federal agencies play in

the IPY?

• What are the most critical unanswered questions that you hope to resolve

with the research conducted during this IPY? What are the societal benefits

of this research?

Questions for Dr. Kelly Falkner and Dr. Donal Manahan:

• What has been learned from polar research and the IPYs in the past, and

what do we hope to learn during this IPY?

• What are the most critical unanswered questions that you hope to resolve

with the research conducted during this IPY? What are the societal benefits

of this research?

Questions for Mr. Mark McCaffrey:

• What has been the impact of polar research and the IPYs on students and

the public in the past?

• What education and outreach activities are planned for this IPY? What are

the goals and expected societal benefits of these activities?

8

Chairman INGLIS. Well, good morning, everyone. I would like to

call this hearing to order. And we are very excited about hearing

from our panelists, and I would recognize myself for the purpose

of an opening statement.

I want to welcome everybody here and thank you for joining us

for this hearing on the International Polar Year: The Scientific

Agenda and the Federal Role.

The International Polar Year does not begin officially until

March 2007, but the immense planning and coordination for it

began more than three years ago. The purpose of this morning’s

hearing is fairly simple: to learn all we can about the International

Polar Year, what role the United States will play in the upcoming

one, and how this will be a benefit to the Nation.

Most of us in this room are familiar, at least somewhat familiar,

with the International Polar Year and its immediate predecessor,

the International Geophysical Year. But I wonder how much of the

general public knows about all of the incredible scientific discoveries and advances that were made during the IGY. I am pleased

to see that education and outreach is a major component of the upcoming International Polar Year. It is also important that we take

this opportunity to instill excitement about science in our students

and motivate future generations of scientists, much like the results

of the IGY inspired those who we will be hearing from today to

enter the fields that they did.

I have recently learned of one such educational program in my

home State of South Carolina. As you could imagine, we are not

necessarily known as the epicenter of polar studies. It is a little bit

warm in South Carolina for that, but USC geologist, Dr. Doug Williams and his team at the EdVenture children’s museum in Columbia, South Carolina, created a ‘‘Go Polar!’’ program that is quite impressive. While not IPY-specific, this program has made a variety

of arctic research accessible and easily understandable to children

under the age of 12 and their families. It has provided opportunities for children to meet and hear directly from scientists working

in the arctic about their experiences. This kind of interaction inspires children and serves as a good model for how IPY research

can be incorporated informally at our nation’s museums, zoos, and

aquariums.

I am looking forward to hearing what our witnesses have to say

to us about the U.S. role in the IPY and some of the neat work that

is being—that has been planned or will be enacted over the next

two years and beyond in the polar region.

I am also reminded that in January, Ms. Hooley and I and others

had the opportunity to travel to Antarctica, and what an experience it was. I went, knowing that we would see incredible scenery.

I expected that, and that happened. I knew we would see impressive science, and that happened. The thing that was sort of surprising was the people. The people were absolutely fascinating. And

with the help of the NSF, we met a lot of wonderful people down

there.

One of them is before us today: Dr. Manahan. I must say—I have

sent him a note afterwards saying this is a master teacher, somebody who held us all in rapt attention. I think that if I had had

a teacher like that in seventh grade, Darlene, I might have stuck

9

with science. As it was, you know, political science sort of came

easier than those formulas and things like that.

But it is wonderful to have you with us. It is also wonderful to

have the rest of the panel with us. Dr. Bement, especially, it is

wonderful to see you. We are excited about hearing from each of

you. I will introduce you in a moment, but I just want to share

with you my excitement and enthusiasm for the International

Polar Year. And it comes, in large measure, from the opportunity

to have been in Antarctica and to see that incredible science that

is being done there and to see the very impressive people that are

so committed to what they are doing. If we could—what I think I

wrote to Kathie and Dr. Bement and others is if we could just bottle up that enthusiasm that I sensed in Antarctica among the scientists and bring it to Congress, who knows what we could accomplish in this place.

So one of those people that saw that is Ms. Hooley, the Ranking

Member of this subcommittee, and I would yield to her for an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Chairman Inglis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN BOB INGLIS

Good morning. I want to welcome everyone, and thank you for coming to this

morning’s hearing on International Polar Year: The Scientific Agenda and the Federal Role.

IPY does not begin officially until March 2007, but the immense planning and coordination for it began more than three years ago. The purpose for this morning’s

hearing is fairly simple. . .to learn all we can about International Polar Year (IPY),

what role the U.S. will play in the upcoming one, and how this will be of benefit

to the Nation.

Most of us in this room are familiar, or at least somewhat familiar, with IPY and

its immediate predecessor, the International Geophysical Year (IGY), but I wonder

how much of the general public knows about all of the incredible scientific discoveries and advances that were made during IGY? I am pleased to see that education

and outreach is a major component of the upcoming IPY. It is so important that

we take this opportunity to instill excitement about science in our children and motivate future generations of scientists, much like the results of IGY inspired those

we will be hearing from today to enter the fields that they did.

I’ve recently learned of one such educational program in my home State of South

Carolina. As you can imagine, we are not necessarily known as the epicenter of

polar studies, but USC Geologist Dr. Doug Williams and his team at the EdVenture

Children’s Museum in Columbia, SC, created a Go Polar! program that was simply

impressive. While not IPY-specific, this program has made a variety of Arctic research accessible and easily understandable to children under the age of 12 and

their families. It has provided opportunities for children to meet and hear directly

from the scientists working in the Arctic about their experiences. This kind of interaction inspires children and serves as a good model for how IPY research can be

incorporated informally at our nation’s museums, zoos and aquariums.

I’m looking forward to hearing from our witnesses about the U.S. role in IPY and

some of the neat work that is being planned for the next two years and beyond in

the polar regions.

With the encouragement of the Chairman, I had the opportunity to travel with

the Science Committee to Antarctica in January. I knew the scenery would be awesome, and it was. I knew the science would be impressive, and it was. The thing

I didn’t anticipate was the people. They are impressive folks doing amazing work.

Some of those impressive folks are before us today. We look forward to hearing from

them.

I recognize the Ranking Democratic Member, Mrs. Hooley, for any opening statement she may have.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

10

And I just want to echo what you said and talk about a wonderful teacher. I think all of us could have sat for at least ten hours

and listen to you speak.

So it was an exciting trip. It was sort of an once-in-a-lifetime

kind of experience for me, and it was—it is amazing the work you

are doing there.

And I am excited also about the International Polar Year. And

what I am looking forward to is how do we also spread that excitement to our children, our classrooms, the teachers that are there

every single day with our young students. How do we get the public involved? And those are some of the things I would like to hear

from you today as we are—as we go on with this.

But I welcome all of you to this hearing. I know this International Polar Year will be the fourth in a series of international

cooperative scientific ventures focused on the polar regions that

have occurred in the last 125 years. The last one was almost 50

years ago, and, I mean, there was a real legacy that was made with

the International Polar Year 50 years ago, so I would want to

know, what is our legacy going to be this time. What are we aiming

for? What is going to—what is our legacy?

And then before that, you had—and that resulted—the last one

resulted, as you know, in the Antarctic Treaty System, which has

preserved that continent for peaceful purposes, for scientific research. I think that is a major accomplishment. The first ones were

for exploration of those regions. As we learn more about the role

of the polar regions in affecting such things as global scale, atmospheric, and oceanic processes, it has become clear that understanding the physical mechanisms at work at the poles is important to understanding the evolution of global warming. This lends

urgency to accelerate the research needed to unlock the secrets

that control climate on a global scale.

Research results from the IPY initiative and from other ongoing

polar research is important to help guide public policy choices surrounding the global warming debate. And of course, increased

knowledge and understanding of changes in northern high latitudes are of even greater interest and concern to the people that

live there.

I am pleased the Subcommittee has the opportunity this morning

to hear about the planning process that has been underway for IPY

and about the research and education goals that will be pursued.

I would like to better understand what we may hope to achieve

at this time from an intensified research effort in polar regions and

what legacy we may expect from this IPY.

I would also like to take a moment to extend a special greeting

to Dr. Kelley Falkner. She is a Professor at Oregon State University at the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. An inorganic chemist by training, Dr. Falkner applies her expertise to

problems such as tracking the fate of river water in the Arctic. She

has participated in 24 major seagoing lake and river expeditions,

seven times as chief scientist. Dr. Falkner is a graduate of Reed

College, which is in Oregon, and received her Ph.D. from MITWoods Hole Joint Program in Oceanography while holding an NSF

Graduate Fellowship. She was a recipient of an Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award and the NSF Arctic Service

11

Award. She currently serves on the Advisory Committee for NSF’s

Office of Polar Programs.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing, and

I want to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. And really, I am looking forward to what you

have to say.

Thanks.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Hooley follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF REPRESENTATIVE DARLENE HOOLEY

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to join you in welcoming our witnesses today to this

hearing to review the status of planning for the International Polar Year scheduled

to begin next March.

This IPY will be the fourth in a series of international, cooperative scientific ventures focused on the polar regions that have occurred over the past 125 years. The

last IPY was the International Geophysical Year of 1957–58. It was remarkable in

its success in achieving international cooperation and good will at the height of the

Cold War. It was also significant in laying the ground work for the development of

the Antarctic Treaty system, which has successfully preserved that continent as a

sanctuary for scientific research and other peaceful purposes.

The early IPYs were explorations to provide basic information about the most remote and forbidding regions of the globe. As we learned more about the role of the

polar regions in affecting such things as global-scale atmospheric and oceanic processes, it has become clear that understanding the physical mechanisms at work at

the poles is important to understanding the evolution of global warming. This lends

urgency to accelerate the research needed to unlock the secrets that control climate

on a global scale.

Research results from the IPY initiative, and from other ongoing polar research,

is important to help guide public policy choices surrounding the global warming debate. And of course, increased knowledge and understanding of changes in northern

high latitudes is of even greater interest and concern for the people living there.

I am pleased the Subcommittee has the opportunity this morning to hear about

the planning process that has been underway for the IPY and about the research

and education goals that will be pursued. I would like to better understand what

we may hope to achieve at this time from an intensified research effort in polar regions and what legacy we may expect from this IPY.

In addition, I am interested in how the U.S. IPY activities will be integrated within the international program, and how the U.S. agencies that sponsor IPY-related

research will coordinate their activities. Since NSF is the lead federal agency for

U.S. participation in the IPY, is a major federal sponsor of research in polar regions,

and fulfills a key role in providing research infrastructure and logistical support, I

am happy to welcome Dr. Bement to this morning’s hearing.

Also, I would like to take a moment to extend a special greeting to Dr. Kelly

Falkner. She is a Professor in the College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences at

Oregon State University. An inorganic chemist by training, Dr. Falkner applies her

expertise to aqueous geochemical problems, such as tracking the fate of river water

in the Arctic. She has participated in 24 major seagoing, lake and river expeditions—seven times as chief scientist.

Dr. Falkner is a graduate of Reed College and received her Ph.D. from the MIT–

Woods Hole Joint Program in Oceanography, while holding an NSF Graduate Fellowship. She was the recipient of an Office of Naval Research Young Investigator

Award and the NSF Arctic Service Award. She currently serves on the Advisory

Committee for NSF’s Office of Polar Programs.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for calling this hearing and thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee today. I look forward to our discussion.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Ms. Hooley.

And I have only one correction to what you said, and that is let

us hope it is not an once-in-a-lifetime opportunity about Antarctica.

Ms. HOOLEY. Oh, you are right. Okay. I agree. I am ready to go

back.

Chairman INGLIS. Me, too. I was just saying, it might be fun to

be down there in the winter. What do you think?

12

Ms. HOOLEY. I don’t think so.

Chairman INGLIS. But——

Ms. HOOLEY. I would like to go in the summer again.

Chairman INGLIS. Kathie suggested that maybe I should go in a

dark room and see if it is light, but——

Ms. HOOLEY. She is right.

Chairman INGLIS.—anyway, before I introduce the panelists, let

me apologize in advance. There is a markup going on in the Judiciary Committee with some very contentious bills. They will be very

close votes. And so if you see me leaving quickly, it won’t be that

I got offended by something you said. It is that I am literally going

to have to run to that markup. If we don’t have someone to take

the Chair, we will have to recess the hearing. If that happens, I

apologize in advance for having to do that. It is terribly inconvenient for everyone. Let us hope it doesn’t happen, but just to put you

on notice.

Now may I introduce the panelists?

First, we are going to hear from Dr. Arden Bement, the Director

of the National Science Foundation and who needs no further introduction except to say we very much appreciate his fine work at the

NSF.

We will also hear from Dr. Robin Bell. She is the Doherty Senior

Research Scientist at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at

Columbia University. She chairs both the Polar Research Board of

the National Academy of Sciences and the U.S. Committee to the

IPY and serves as Vice-Chair of the International Council for

Science Planning Group for the IPY.

We will next hear from who I have already called a master teacher. By the way, I am sure the others are master teachers, too. We

will find that out as you speak. And so we very much appreciate

the opportunity to hear from Dr. Manahan. He is Professor of Biology at the University of Southern California and runs an NSFfunded program to provide graduate students with research experience in Antarctica.

Then we will hear from Mr. Mark McCaffrey, an Associate Scientist and Science Communications Specialist at the Cooperative

Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University

of Colorado, Boulder. He is a member of the ICSU IPY Education,

Outreach, and Communications Subcommittee.

And finally, we will hear from Dr. Kelly Falkner. She is a Professor of Chemical Oceanography at Oregon State University and

a member of the Advisory Committee to the NSF for the Office of

Polar Programs.

So we would be happy to recognize each of you in series here for

five-minute statements. And so that you will be reminded, the

green means you have got time, yellow means start summing up,

and red means the guy—the person next to you really wants you

to conclude. So we will look forward to hearing from you.

We recognize you first, Dr. Bement.

STATEMENT OF DR. ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR., DIRECTOR,

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Dr. BEMENT. Thank you, Chairman Inglis and Ranking Member

Hooley, for the opportunity to testify on the upcoming International

13

Polar Year and on how NSF and our sister agencies are addressing

this important opportunity. Our job is to enable U.S. scientists and

educators to realize these opportunities, opportunities that members of today’s distinguished panel will be speaking to in more detail.

Fifty years ago, the Third International Polar Year and International Geophysical Year entranced America’s youth and galvanized America’s innovative powers in ways that created a legacy

that lives on today. That legacy ranges from scientific Earth satellites to the development of a generation of world-class scientists

and engineers whose interest in research was peaked by news coverage of polar research. We intend for the International Polar Year

period to be a time to explore new frontiers in polar sciences, improve our understanding of the critical role of the Earth’s polar regions and global processes, create a legacy of infrastructure and

data for future generations of scientists, expand international cooperation, engage the public in polar discovery, and help attract

and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers.

The impacts of climate change on northern peoples, and more

generally on ecosystems and polar environments, strongly motivate

a broader focus than that of the last IPY. Thus, NSF will focus particular attention on three scientific themes and will couple them to

education and outreach: first, the extremes of polar environments

combined with the new technology of genomics provide unique opportunities to study how organisms adapt to climate extremes, how

they evolved at the genomic level, and how gene expression depends on a physical environment; a Circum-Arctic Observation Network is needed to provide the missing data essential to faithfully

model arctic climate change and to predict it; and multi-national efforts to understand changes in the Earth’s great ice sheets, changes

that could have profound effects on global conditions, including

global sea level.

This emphasis on the relationships between the physical environment and living systems, and especially on people, will be one of

the distinguishing features of IPY. NSF’s Office of Polar Programs

and the Directorate for Education and Human Resources combined

to jumpstart IPY preparations by committing $12 million from the

fiscal year 2006 appropriations for a special IPY proposal solicitation. The solicitation attracted research, education, and public outreach proposals amounting to over $150 million. Approximately

one-third focused on outreach and education. And of these, we were

able to fund nine truly outstanding projects. We are releasing the

details of those projects at today’s hearing.

I truly share Chairman Boehlert’s enthusiasm and your enthusiasm as well, both Mr. Chairman and Ms. Ranking Member, for

these remarkable and creative projects. They will launch our IPY

effort in great style.

Beginning in fiscal year 2007, NSF’s IPY effort will be agencywide, with significant participation by the disciplinary directorates

as well as the Office of International Science and Engineering, the

Directorate for Education and Human Resources, and the Office of

Polar Programs. NSF is working with other federal agencies and

countries to exercise the IPY leadership role assigned to it by

OSTP. We are working with NASA to coordinate our ground-based

14

observations with those from space in order to provide a comprehensive body of benchmark data. NASA has initiated discussions with space agencies around the world to bring the worldwide

satellite fleet to bear on this effort. We are working with NOAA to

integrate their support with ours for the land and ocean-based

Circum-Arctic Observing Network, or AON. Data from AON will

enable scientists working in the U.S. multi-agency program search

and study of environmental arctic change for years to come.

My written testimony contains more comprehensive information

on how these and our other sister agencies are planning to help

provide world leadership in IPY.

The Circum-Arctic system requires active contributions from

countries around the Arctic rim. We have already developed strong

links for coordination with the $30 million European program

called DAMOCLES [Developing Arctic Modeling and Observing Capabilities for Long-term Environmental Studies]. We have joined

with Norway, Sweden, Germany, and Russia to establish an IPY office in St. Petersburg that will help link Russian activities to AON.

And we are working actively with the European Polar Board and

with Canadian officials to build IPY partnerships. Indeed, part of

the IPY impact will be the enduring partnerships established

among scientists in the 35 countries that have formed national

committees for the IPY.

Countries around the world have seized on the 50-year anniversary of IPY–3 and IGY to create a new legacy of scientific understanding and a new generation of scientists and engineers.

Mr. Chairman, earlier I alluded to the education component of

IPY. This effort has the potential to create a legacy for decades, one

that will benefit the Nation as well as the science and engineering

community more specifically.

Thank you, again, for providing an opportunity to highlight

NSF’s role in the coming International Polar Year, and I would be

pleased to answer any of your questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bement follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify before the Committee

concerning the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY) and on how NSF and our

sister agencies are addressing this important opportunity. Our job is to enable U.S.

scientists and educators to realize these opportunities, opportunities that members

of today’s distinguished panel will be speaking to in more detail.

We intend for the International Polar Year period—which has been declared by

the International Council of Science (ICSU) and the U.S. National Academies (NAS)

to be from March 2007 through March 2009—to explore new frontiers in polar

sciences; improve our understanding of the critical role of the Earth’s polar regions

in global processes; create a legacy of infrastructure and data for future generations

of scientists; expand international cooperation; engage the public in polar discovery;

and help attract and educate the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Fifty years ago, the Third International Polar Year and International Geophysical

Year entranced America’s youth and galvanized America’s innovative powers in

ways that created a legacy that lives on today. That legacy ranges from scientific

Earth satellites to the development of a generation of world-class scientists and engineers who drove our knowledge-based economy forward for the next half-century.

Advances in instrumentation and technology, the realization that polar regions

are critical in the changing global climate system, and linkages among international

research organizations offer opportunities for breakthrough developments both in

fundamental disciplinary science and in science for policy during IPY. In addition,

the impacts of climate change on northern communities, and more generally, on ecosystems in polar environments strongly motivate a broader focus than the last IPY

15

had. The NSF tradition of linking research and education offers the further opportunity to engage America’s youth in this period of discovery and awaken them to

the excitement of a career in science and engineering.

In his introduction to the ‘‘American Competitiveness Initiative, Leading the

World in Innovation,’’ President George Bush stated that a ‘‘well-educated and

skilled workforce is the bedrock of America’s competitiveness.’’ U.S. institutions of

higher learning remain the envy of the world, but the global economy has greatly

increased the competition for the best and brightest students. America must ensure

that its best and brightest young people give appropriate consideration to careers

in science and engineering and that they take advantage of the fact that ours is the

most open educational system in the world. NSF, its sister agencies and IPY have

a key role to play in achieving this goal.

NSF has been tasked by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy

to provide leadership for the U.S. in IPY. And, the agency is poised to do exactly

that, both domestically and on the broad international stage. We have worked closely with our colleagues in other federal agencies and with the NAS to that end over

the last two and a half years. Back in July 2004, I was pleased to be invited to deliver the keynote address at a meeting organized by the three Presidents of the NAS

that was devoted to IPY planning. With your permission, I would like to enter my

remarks for the record. As I said then, and I quote:

Both the National Academy of Sciences and the International Council of Science

have made a compelling case for why we should launch an international polar

year in 2007. NSF is in full agreement. In the polar regions, we are discerning

the outlines of environmental change, from sea ice extent, retreating glaciers,

shifting patterns in flora and fauna, to environmental observations by Arctic natives.

What is more, such change—whether environmental, biological or social—has

implications for the rest of the globe. Polar change ripples across the planet on

a spectrum of time scales, through the atmosphere, oceans, and living systems.

We do not yet fully understand the causes of what we are observing. Now is

the time to change this, for new tools make possible the needed observations

and synthesis. They range from satellites to ships to sensors, and from genomics

to nanotechnology, information technology, and advances in remote and robotic

technologies.

The NAS subsequently conducted a year-long study to develop a Vision for the

International Polar Year, one that would take advantage of the broad expertise of

the U.S. scientific community; position the U.S. for world leadership in IPY; and

most importantly, create a long-term legacy that would not otherwise exist. This Vision is providing a framework for IPY planning among the federal agencies. It was

developed under the leadership of Dr. Mary Albert of the U.S. Army Cold Regions

Research and Engineering Laboratory in Hanover, New Hampshire, and I believe

my colleague on the panel, Dr. Robin Bell, will outline its recommendations in more

detail. Robin chairs the NAS/National Research Council (NRC) Polar Research

Board that oversaw the work of Mary’s committee. They both have earned our continuing gratitude and congratulations.

In exercising NSF’s leadership role, I also convened several meetings of the policylevel officials to discuss IPY planning. These activities resulted in a report we provided to the Congress last year and a number of agencies have taken the opportunity to update their sections of the report for this hearing. With your permission,

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit a copy for the record and mention a few highlights.

NASA is holding discussions with space agencies around the world to organize a

coordinated program to map the polar regions using today’s sophisticated satellites.

NSF and NASA are working together to coordinate space- and ground-based observations in order to provide future generations of scientists and others with a comprehensive body of benchmarked data. These data will greatly increase our ability

to discern change on a regional basis—a basis that relates directly to the different

environments in which people work and live.

The Department of Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NSF are developing atmospheric, land and ocean-based environmental monitoring capabilities that will be key components of the planned circumArctic Observing Network (AON), which will significantly enhance our observing capability in the Arctic region beyond that currently available. Data from this AON

will enable the U.S. multi-agency program SEARCH—the Study of Environmental

Arctic Change—developed under the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee

to get a handle on Arctic environmental change.

16

Here, too, the NAS have helped significantly with an NSF-funded study of how

best to implement AON. A circum-Arctic system requires active contributions from

countries around the Arctic rim. We have already developed strong links for coordination with the $30 million European program called DAMOCLES; have initiated

discussions with our Canadian colleagues; and have joined with Norway, Sweden

and Germany and Russia in establishing an office in St. Petersburg to assist with

linking Russian activities to AON. NOAA has led an effort to build U.S.-Russian

Federation collaboration in ocean and polar region studies, as highlighted by the

Russian American Long-term Census of the Arctic RUSALCA program. This will be

a key U.S.–Russian component of the IPY. NOAA in collaboration with NSF, also

leads the U.S. participation in the IPY International Arctic System for Observing

the Atmosphere.

Additional IPY efforts by NOAA, NASA and other sister agencies are described

in the attached document entitled, ‘‘The International Polar Years 2007–2009.’’

NSF’s Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and the Directorate for Education and

Human Resources (EHR) combined to jump start IPY preparations by committing

$12 million from their FY06 appropriations to a special IPY proposal solicitation.

The solicitation drew a very strong response from U.S. scholars; taken together the

proposals requested over $150 million in the four focus areas (three science areas

and education).

We chose to focus on areas that for one reason or another needed extra lead time

for preparation and that would represent a good start toward realizing the NAS/

NRC Vision. The NSF merit review of the education proposals was completed just

a few days ago, and the results exemplify the creativity and the enthusiasm of our

educators and scientists. I expect to be able to announce the results from the three

research areas by the end of October. Meanwhile, the program officers overseeing

the merit review process tell me the quality of the proposals is outstanding.

Building on this excellent FY06 start, NSF Program Officers from the agency’s

disciplinary directorates are working with OPP to formulate how best to respond to

IPY opportunities in FY07 and FY08. On the basis of their work, the Administration

requested $62 million in FY07. And, I’m very happy that both Houses of Congress

have signaled their agreement with our IPY agenda.

The strong partnership created with EHR in developing the FY06 solicitation is

the very first legacy of IPY; it will ensure an effective outreach and education effort

throughout the upcoming two years and well into the future. A strong partnership

with the NSF’s Office of International Science and Engineering (OISE) is enabling

rapid development of new international links as well as a strengthening of existing

ones. IPY planning by the Biological and Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences

Directorates and studies by the NAS/NRC have identified an exciting group of leading-edge research subjects in biology and the social sciences, ones that with strong

IPY support and focus could create 21st century legacies. The Geosciences Directorate and OPP have a long history of joint cooperation for proposals, and IPY provides a strong basis for developing new partnerships in key focus areas such as climate studies. The Mathematical and Physical Sciences Directorate and OPP have

an outstanding partnership in astrophysics at the South Pole, another excellent IPY

building block. Thus, there is great potential for creating legacies through research

achievements, a new generation of American scientists and engineers, and new networks of international collaborations.

The aforementioned solicitation identified three science themes and a strong education focus as key investment areas for special emphasis during FY06. These

themes will be developed further during FY07 and FY08. A cross-directorate working group is evaluating the extent to which the original focus areas will have been

addressed by the FY06 solicitation and how they can be broadened to address more

of the Vision developed by the NAS. NSF and the Office of Management and Budget

will soon discuss how to address these focus areas in the FY08 budget request to

Congress.

The first of these research themes addresses climate change in the Arctic by contributing to building the Circum-Arctic Observing Network (AON) that I mentioned

earlier. This program was organized under the direction of the U.S. Interagency

Arctic Research Policy Committee chaired by the NSF Director and involves partnership with NOAA, NASA, DOI, DOE, NIH, DOD, USDA and the Smithsonian Institution.

During the past few decades, the Arctic has experienced significant environmental

changes that could have broad-reaching consequences for human and animal populations in the form of impacts on local ecosystems, as well as on global climate. The

AON will provide a network of observations that will facilitate our understanding

of the profound change that is occurring in the Arctic. To achieve this goal,

Cyberinfrastructure (CI) will need to be developed to provide inter-operability beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
17

tween the various elements of the observing network, seamless broadband communications capabilities at the poles, data storage and archive capabilities, and timely

access to data. This initiative will not only support the Foundation’s broader CI interests, it also supports the broader administration goal of developing a Global

Earth Observing System (GEOS). Any CI communications technology that is developed to support the AON could potentially be used to enhance communications capabilities at the South Pole.

A second broad theme addresses research on what we’re calling Life in the Cold

and Dark. Relatively recent developments in instrumentation and technology offer

the opportunity to study the mechanisms by which organisms adapt to the climate

extremes they face in polar environments, how they have evolved at the genomic

level and how gene expression depends on the physical environment. A recent NAS

report, ‘‘Frontiers in Polar Biology in the Genomics Era,’’ outlines the opportunities

and challenges, and describes the ecological relevance and research benefits of these

tools of modern biology. The Life in the Cold and Dark theme also encompasses research on the interactions between living and physical systems at all levels and

brings together researchers trained in the Biological and Social Sciences.

The last International Polar Year in 1957–58 focused almost entirely on physical

science but IPY 2007–2009 will be different. Many northern languages are now spoken by only small numbers of elderly people and NSF will partner with the National

Endowments for the Humanities in the U.S. and with Canada and other countries

in sponsoring work to document those endangered languages in Alaska and throughout the Arctic.

NSF-supported research also will address issues associated with environmental

change that are of critical importance to people living in the North. These studies,

sponsored jointly by NSF and NIH, will seek to determine not only what causes

change and predicting it more accurately, but also how change allows infectious diseases to move into new areas where vulnerability is high because the people and

wildlife will not have developed resistance to the novel pathogens that will be moving into these regions.

The third broad theme addresses changes in the Earth’s great ice sheets, changes

that could have profound impacts on global conditions including global sea level. Recent data indicate that the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the edges but thickening at the center. Some ice streams draining the West Antarctic Ice Sheet have

slowed while at least one other is accelerating. Relatively small changes in the mass

balance of these ice sheets can raise global sea level significantly while complete

loss of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet would raise global sea level by over five meters.

Furthermore, a combination of ground-based, airborne, and satellite observations

shows that surface melt water can penetrate the ice sheet at thicknesses of a kilometer and accelerate flow beyond previously suspected rates. Research supported by

NSF, NASA and other agencies under this theme will combine with work supported

by many other countries to develop a much more complete understanding of the behavior of these ice sheets and how changes in this behavior might evolve. The theme

will also address further studies of ice sheet changes that occurred over geological

time and the causes and effects of those changes.

The overall scientific impact of IPY will only become apparent through synthesis

activity that brings together results from disparate research groups addressing different aspects of these broad themes. NSF recognizes the critical importance of

funding workshops and related activities to that end, and will do so well beyond the

end of the two-year IPY period.

The education focus has the potential to create a legacy for the decades, one that

will benefit the Nation as well as the science and engineering community more specifically. By linking the public’s fascination with things polar to outreach that conveys the excitement of research and discovery, we hope to attract a new generation

of Americans into S&E careers while contributing to a more informed public.

With the jump start provided by the EHR/OPP FY06 solicitation NSF will enter

the IPY period well-placed to make major impacts during the ensuing two-year period. A multi-year outreach and education strategy will have substantially greater

impact than one limited to a single year, while the international collaborations that

can greatly enhance the reach and impact of NSF-supported research will also hinge

on continued support.

While our outreach and education strategy will be focused on U.S. students, parents and families, we recognize that IPY also brings the opportunity to demonstrate

to them how research and understanding can result when people from many nations

work together on problems of global interest. The many international scientist-toscientist collaborations now developing will help us carry that story to our public

and to others around the world.

18

Indeed, part of the IPY impact will be the enduring partnerships established

among scientists in the over 30 countries that have signaled their intention to provide funding for IPY activity. Countries around the world have seized on the 50 year

anniversary of IPY–3/IGY to create a new legacy of scientific understanding and a

new generation of scientists and engineers. We understand that Canada has committed $150 million over six years to its IPY effort, Korea—$150 million, Japan—

$460 million for a new icebreaker, China—$60 million for infrastructure and research. Among the EU commitments one exceeds $30 million for a project closely

linked to the U.S. IPY centerpiece addressing climate change in the Arctic.

The 1957–1958 International Polar Year culminated in an international meeting

in Washington called by the State Department to frame what became the Antarctic

Treaty. As President Reagan noted in 1970, ‘‘. . .the Antarctic is the only continent

where science serves as the principal expression of national policy and interest.’’ The

State Department plans to host the annual meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties in 2009, which will spotlight the historic diplomatic achievement by

the Treaty Parties 50 years ago. We expect this new IPY to create a further legacy

of international partnerships in the interest of advancing scientific research and understanding.

The U.S. research community is poised to provide worldwide leadership throughout IPY, and NSF is committed to enabling that to the best of our ability.

The International Polar Years 2007–2009

Report on U.S. Federal Agencies’ Planning

SEPTEMBER 18, 2006

The years 2007–2009 will mark the 50th anniversary of the International Geophysical Year (IGY) and of the third International Polar Year. This period has been

designated the fourth International Polar Year (IPY) by the National Academies of

Sciences (NAS), the International Council of Science (ICSU), the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), the Arctic Council and by many other international organizations. The National Science Foundation (NSF) was designated by the President’s

Office of Science and Technology to be the lead U.S. agency in organizing IPY activities.

Preparations are underway worldwide to make IPY a period of intense activity

that promises, in the words of the NAS publication A Vision for the International

Polar Year, to ‘‘further our understanding of physical and social processes in the

polar regions, examine their globally-connected role in the climate system, and establish research infrastructure for the future, (and). . .serve as a mechanism to attract and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with the versatility

to tackle complex global issues’’ (see http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11013.html).

The 1957–1958 IGY and IPY activities greatly increased our knowledge of the

world around us and provided profound legacies that continue to benefit research

and researchers today. These activities also resulted in the 1959 Antarctic Treaty,

which ‘‘promotes international scientific cooperation including the exchange of research plans and personnel and requires that results of research be made freely

available.’’ The U.S. played a leading role in shaping and implementing the 1957–

1958 IGY activities and plans to do so again in 2007–2009. IPY activities planned

for this period are consistent with Agency missions and the NAS report of an implementation workshop (Planning for the International Polar Year: Report of the Implementation Workshop, http://books.nap.edu/catalog/11110.html). U.S. activities during IPY 2007–2009 will focus on research, education and public outreach efforts, and

will be coordinated among the federal agencies and international partners that support research in polar regions.

NSF is creating a website as part of its work to coordinate IPY activities among

the agencies: http://www.us-ipy.gov/. This site includes updates on the various

agencies’ programs, as well as information on IPY for a general audience and for

scientists interested in obtaining IPY funding from the U.S. Government.

The following is an updated (since May 18, 2005) discussion of federal agency

planning for the International Polar Year.

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

The upcoming International Polar Year is a unique opportunity to continue the

legacy of international science years of the past, including IPY 1882–1883, IPY

1932–1933, and the International Geophysical Year of 1957–1958. Each of these

bursts of internationally coordinated research and exploration opened the polar regions for exploration and science, led to significant discoveries about our planet, and

19

left a long-term legacy of data and observations for future generations. In particular,

the IGY of 1957–58 brought a tremendous increase in our ability to predict weather

worldwide, to measure the thickness of the antarctic ice sheets, and to understand

the dynamics of the Earth’s magnetosphere. However, there are still significant gaps

in our understanding of the polar regions and the processes that structure polar environments. For example, the relationships between processes that drive long-term

and short-term climate change in the Arctic are not well understood, nor do we have

empirical observations sufficient to sort them out. In the Antarctic and in Greenland, the ice sheets that contain 70 percent of the fresh water on Earth are moving

and thinning. In both polar regions, many organisms are adapted to withstand prolonged periods of darkness and extreme cold, yet we do not understand how these

adaptations evolved or how these organisms may respond to increased variability in

the polar environment.

The National Science Foundation has initiated support for the International Polar

Year in a variety of ways, emphasizing three major research areas and also education and outreach in an Announcement of Opportunity that was released in January 2006. These areas of emphasis will help implement the goals developed by ICSU

and the U.S. National Academies. They have evolved within the research community as high-priority topics derived from workshops and existing science programs.

Education and outreach are also areas where NSF, with its partners in other agencies, can make a significant impact on the understanding of how polar regions influence society and the global environment. Thus, NSF has a particular interest in conducting activities in the polar regions that will leave a lasting legacy of data, observing capabilities, and educational resources for scientists and educators of the future.

Within NSF, the Office of Polar Programs will take the leadership role in implementing these activities. Partnerships for IPY will occur at many levels - within

NSF, through interagency collaborations, and in the international arena. All the

NSF directorates and the Office of International Science and Engineering have expressed interest in collaborating with OPP on IPY activities. Federal agencies such

as NOAA, NASA, NIH, USGS, DOE, EPA, and the Smithsonian Institution, as well

as the national science agencies of other countries, have closely related interests.

Thus, maximizing the value from partnerships is a key overarching theme for NSF

as we plan for IPY.

NSF and IPY in FY06

The Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and the Directorate for Education and

Human Resources (EHR) committed over $12 million in FY06 to initiate activities

in four major areas:

Establishment of a multi-national circum-Arctic observing system, with emphasis on

the Study of Environmental Arctic Change (SEARCH) Program

SEARCH is a broad interdisciplinary, multi-scale interagency program with the

core goal of achieving a predictive understanding of recent and ongoing changes in

the arctic environment. In addition to understanding how changes in the Arctic are

interrelated, SEARCH will investigate the links between arctic change and global

processes and will assess the impacts that arctic change may have throughout the

Northern Hemisphere. SEARCH will evaluate the possibility that observed changes

in the Arctic can be used to anticipate changes elsewhere on the globe.

For the period of the IPY, NSF’s principal interest related to SEARCH is the implementation of an Arctic Observing Network (AON). The purpose of AON will be

to understand environmental change in the Arctic System and its interplay with

global oceanic and atmospheric circulation. AON will employ an arctic-wide coverage

of standard integrated measurements, long-term observations, and modeling and

analysis.

Research related to the Bering Ecosystem Study (BEST) is underway under the

IPY umbrella. The Bering Sea supports one of the most productive fisheries in the

world, contributing about 40 percent of all finfish and shellfish landings in the

United States, yet it is one of the least-studied areas of U.S. waters. In recent years,

it has become evident that this seasonally ice-covered sea is subject to decadal

changes in climate that have resulted in abrupt and unexpected changes in the ecosystem. Of particular concern is the possibility that the combined effects of climate

change and fisheries removals may shift marine ecosystems into alternate stable

states that may have a lower yield of species valuable to people. Identifying the

mechanisms driving ecosystem change, including social and cultural factors, in the

Bering Sea is a key research need.

20

Ice Sheet Stability, Dynamics and History

The global ice sheets are dynamic features that contain unprecedented records of

climate over the past several hundred thousand years. Future changes in the ice

sheets of both polar regions will affect sea level, and this is one of the major uncertainties in Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) climate models. In

Antarctica, we expect to emphasize studies of the stability and history of the major

ice sheets. How do they work, how fast are they changing, and what will they be

like in the future decadal to century time frame? Inquiry into these questions involves direct studies of ice sheet dynamics but also includes work to understand

processes important for interaction of ice sheets with the lithosphere, oceans, and

atmosphere. The combination of space-based and surface-based studies is critical to

success in this area.

A detailed study of changes in the behavior of the Antarctic and Greenland ice

sheets is also a topic of IPY research. One component of this comparative work includes obtaining a high-temporal resolution ice core in West Antarctica for comparison with the climate records obtained from the Greenland ice cores. There will likely

be an opportunity to leverage logistics support to the ice core camp with support

for other ground-based activity in West Antarctica and to couple detailed groundand space-based observations. The work in West Antarctica might include traversebased studies, or other types of work that will be possible from our logistical hubs,

that could be linked to related work in East Antarctica as well as study of change

in the Ross Sea region.

Because of the long lead time required for developing and implementing ice coring

programs, NSF is also looking at the IPY as an avenue to create an international

collaborative framework to facilitate international ice coring projects beyond the

IPY. The Center for Remote Sensing of Ice Sheets (CReSIS), a Science and Technology Center led by the University of Kansas and supported jointly by NSF and

NASA, will conduct and foster multi-disciplinary research that will result in technology and models necessary to achieve a better understanding of the mass balance

of the polar ice sheets (e.g., Greenland and Antarctica) and their contributions to

sea level rise. The focus areas for CReSIS relate closely to the goals of IPY.

The Antarctic drilling program (ANDRILL) is a multi-national ocean drilling program currently underway that is focused on extracting sediment cores from the Antarctic continental shelf. This activity will also contribute to the broader IPY goal

of understanding ice sheet dynamics.

Frontiers In Polar Biology: Life in Extreme Cold and Prolonged Darkness

Ecologically important biogeochemical processes begin before the traditional operational season in polar regions and continue beyond the end of the traditional field

season. Living organisms are known to continue functioning at temperatures well

below freezing and during periods of prolonged darkness. New technologies

(genomics, proteomics, etc.) offer the opportunity to gain a deep understanding of

how organisms have adapted to these extreme environments. The Long Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites at Toolik Field Station in Alaska, at Palmer Station

on the Antarctic Peninsula, and in the McMurdo Dry Valleys, as well as research

platforms operating in the Arctic and Southern Oceans, offer the opportunity to

bring these new technologies to bear in research on the polar regions. A recent NAS

report, Frontiers in Polar Biology in the Genomics Era (http://books.nap.edu/catalog/10623.html) describes potential research benefits of these new tools. Within

NSF, there is interest in OPP and in the Biological Sciences and Geosciences Directorates in this area of research. OPP has examined the technical feasibility of extending antarctic operations into the austral fall and early winter and may be able

to implement this capability by 2007. Supporting winter work elsewhere in the polar

regions will require evaluation of options on a case-by-case basis.

Education and Outreach

OPP has maintained strong support for linking research in the polar regions with

formal education and outreach to the public. NSF has fostered U.S. scientists’ interests in sharing their research with broad audiences. Many polar researchers have

been successful in seeking support from education programs for more directed efforts, such as NSF’s IGERT and GK–12 programs as well as Arctic Research and

Education and Geosciences Education. Strong international partnerships in educational activities have developed in association with research programs in both

polar regions. In the Arctic, such partnerships include U.S. collaboration with

groups from Russia, Greenland, Iceland, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and

21

Finland. In the Antarctic, partnerships include U.S. collaborations with many nations that participate in the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR).

OPP sponsored a workshop in June 2004 (www.ldeo.columbia.edu/∼mkt/

PolarED¥Web.htm) to bring together educators, researchers, media and museum

outreach experts, agency representatives, and others to discuss effective mechanisms to conduct education and outreach in support of the IPY. The workshop highlighted many of the education and outreach efforts that have already been supported by OPP, including Teachers Experiencing Antarctica and the Arctic (TEA),

which was co-funded with NSF’s Elementary, Secondary and Informal Education Division, Teachers and Researchers Exploring and Collaborating (TREC), Antarctic

Artists and Writers Program, various journalists in the field, museum exhibits, and

Research Experiences for Undergraduates (REU).

There is significant interest within NSF’s Education and Human Resources (EHR)

directorate in utilizing the inherently interesting features of the polar regions, including their remoteness and extreme conditions, to direct attention to scientific research and the importance of the polar regions to the global system. Other agencies

such as NASA and NOAA have robust polar research and education programs interested in supporting IPY efforts. NSF is developing the foundation for international

and interagency partnerships to bring together support and expertise from the community of researchers and educators. Another area where NSF can have a significant IPY impact is in research on distant education, both in terms of technology and

in terms of the science of learning as it applies to different cultures. The aim of

these efforts is to develop highly visible, long-lived education and outreach products

for IPY research and to provide opportunities for educating the next generation of

polar researchers, the public, and policy-makers.

As this document goes to print, OPP and EHR are set to make the education

awards resulting from the FY06 IPY solicitation. The science awards from the FY06

solicitation are on track to be announced before the end of October.

NSF and IPY in FY07

The Directorates of Biological Sciences, Geosciences, Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, and the Office of International Science and Engineering have joined

OPP and EHR in expanding the four foci established for FY06. The Agency has requested $61.57 million in its Budget Request for this purpose.

NSF is preparing a second solicitation that will support IPY science and education

proposals in FY07. This solicitation will build on the momentum of the FY06 solicitation and broaden the science themes. For example, research on life in the cold and

dark will expand to address human and biotic systems, providing opportunities for

scientists to address fundamental questions about social, behavioural, and/or natural systems that will increase our understanding of how humans and other organisms function in the extreme environments of the polar regions. Studies on environmental change will specifically take advantage of the Arctic Observing Network

developed during FY06 to support research that advances the understanding of the

physical, geological, chemical, human, and biological drivers of environmental

change at the poles, their relationship to the climate system, their impact on ecosystems, and their linkages to global processes.

In addition to large-scale projects such as those mentioned above, NSF plans to

support IPY activities that address the ICSU and NAS guidelines in a broad spectrum of areas, particularly research that addresses opportunities in the social

sciences, systematic and biotic diversity surveys (e.g., the ongoing Census of Marine

Life), implementation of observing systems, and research in the Southern Ocean on

the transport and fate of nutrients and carbon.

One example of research in the social sciences is the study of endangered languages in arctic cultures, where we have the opportunity to create a legacy of

knowledge that will inform future generations of scholars while at the same time

strengthening local cultures. The Documenting Endangered Languages (DEL) program is a multi-year funding partnership between NSF and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) to support projects to develop and advance knowledge concerning endangered human languages. This program is made urgent by the

imminent death of an estimated half of the 6000–7000 currently used human languages. Working with the SBE Linguistics Program, the OPP Arctic Social Sciences

Program has identified DEL as a natural IPY project. The unfortunate situation of

the estimated 52 arctic indigenous languages is no exception to the international

prognosis. Following the first DEL Announcement of Opportunity, over 10 percent

of the proposals were to research arctic languages and the DEL Management Group

anticipates over 10 percent of the recommended proposals to be for research in the

arctic region. NSF and NEH have agreed to funding for DEL for three years with

an evaluation and possibility for renewal in 2008. Thus, IPY provides an opporVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
22

tunity to bring publicity and resources to the pressing issue of endangered languages in the Arctic.

With regard to the implementation of observing systems, the National Ocean

Partnership Program, through the Ocean-U.S. office, is pursuing the establishment

of an Integrated Ocean Observatory System (IOOS). The IOOS is planned to include

three ‘‘Regional Associations’’ in Alaska, including the Chukchi Sea and North

Slope, Bering Sea, and NE Pacific. NSF is working with the National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration and local groups to identify and to support these regional associations. NSF is working with the research community in Barrow, Alaska, to develop a plan for a major observatory to be located in that community, with

an emphasis on research that contributes to SEARCH and other high-priority arctic

programs. Within NSF, participants in these activities include OPP, CISE, and

ENG. To enable the IOOS and to provide for a new generation of polar research,

NSF is committed to supporting work in developing and deploying novel instrumentation. New work is especially needed in chemical and biological sensors (for example, nutrients and plankton). In addition, a new set of platforms that must be developed for making and transmitting observations from under the ice pack, including

both gliders and autonomous underwater vehicles. Finally, NSF’s experience in deploying the first shore-based polar observatory off Palmer Station in January 2006

will be invaluable in planning other polar coastal observatories.

Strong emphasis is again placed on education and outreach, which will support

stand-alone education proposals that specifically invigorate science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) education in the context of the IPY: formal

science education projects at the K–12, undergraduate, or graduate level; informal

science education projects for the broader public; and coordination and communication for IPY education projects. IPY provides a timely opportunity to advance the

goals of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI).

Logistics Support

Arctic and Antarctic Research Support and Logistics are supported through contracts and other agreements. These arrangements provide flexible mechanisms that

are capable of supporting a wide range of potential science and educational activities. NSF also works with the U.S. Coast Guard, NOAA, University-National Oceanographic Laboratory System (UNOLS), the Canadian Coast Guard and others to

provide shipboard facilities for marine research in both polar regions. Other support

is available in the Arctic through a cooperative agreement with the Barrow Arctic

Science Consortium (BASC) in Barrow, Alaska, to provide research support and logistics for researchers working on the North Slope of Alaska and a cooperative

agreement with the Institute of Arctic Biology at the University of Alaska Fairbanks

to support operation of the Toolik Field Station, an NSF LTER site. Cooperation

with other national polar research programs offers an avenue for supporting international projects.

One aspect of logistics support that is being explored is the feasibility of supporting year-round research or extending the research season at additional locations

in the polar regions (currently only South Pole, McMurdo, and Palmer stations in

the Antarctic and Summit, Greenland are staffed for year-round research activities).

Year-round research and research in remote areas is complicated and expensive to

execute, yet is necessary to provide adequate spatial and temporal coverage to address research questions. Evolving technology has made it possible to collect many

measurements remotely through instrumentation or through the use of remotely operated vehicles. There are many improvements to be made to the technology to ensure consistency of data collection under extreme conditions and make use of renewable energy sources. Sensors could be integrated into a network that upload data

via satellites in real-time. Upgrades and improvements of existing infrastructure include: improvements in the information technology infrastructure at research hubs

such as Barrow, Alaska; development of unmanned sensor networks in the Arctic

and Antarctic; development of remote power for sensors, particularly using renewable resources; and improvements in field research facilities (e.g., laboratory space

and equipment, living quarters, communications and safety).

Data Management

The legacy of data created during IGY was instrumental in enabling many of the

scientific advances in the decades following the IGY. Likewise, comprehensive management of the volumes of data to be generated during the IPY will be critical to

ensuring that it is useful and available to future researchers and educators.

Archival and distribution functions for data required for support of arctic and antarctic IPY research are distributed among all the U.S. national data centers. These

data are held in global archives at the National Climatic Data Center (climatology

23

and meteorology), at the National Oceanographic Data Center (oceanography), at

the National Geophysical Data Center (seismology, geomagnetism, marine geology

and geophysics, solar and ionospheric studies, ecosystems, topography, and

paleoclimatology), and at the National Center for Atmospheric Research (upper atmosphere and ionospheric studies). Data sets for a vast array of cryosphere-specific

variables in the Arctic (sea ice, snow cover, permafrost, etc.) are archived and distributed through the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and the World

Data Center for Glaciology in Boulder, Colorado (http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/wdc/

). These also include satellite-derived measurements, in-situ observations, and ancillary information from the Antarctic and the Arctic that have been supported by

NASA, NOAA, and NSF. NOAA/NESDIS/NCDC in Asheville, NC holds the global

satellite data archives for polar-orbiting satellites.

For data management, a new focus on ‘‘Virtual Observatories’’ is being developed

and promoted by the ‘‘Electronic Geophysical initiative Year’’ (http://www.eGY.org).

As more researchers provide their data on individual or institutional Web or FTP

sites, rather than submitting to data centers, the current ‘‘push data’’ approach

(where the data must be submitted to the National and World Data Centers System) is now becoming more difficult to implement. Therefore, the worldwide data

management community is focusing on providing more effective access to globally

distributed data sets via the ‘‘pull data’’ concept. The eGY group and the ICSU

World Data Centers Panel are working toward a convergence of data centers into

‘‘data clearinghouses,’’ while the Virtual Observatories are developing a network of

interconnected data holdings and retrieving/visualizing software that constitutes the

worldwide ‘‘data fabric.’’ NSF is supporting, under the broader umbrella of

CyberInfrastructure, the concept of Virtual Observatories as a means of managing

relevant data for IPY.

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE)

DOE is planning to support the International Polar Year in a variety of important

ways through the following programs:

• Atmospheric Radiation Measurement Program

• Climate Change Prediction Program

ATMOSPHERIC RADIATION MEASUREMENT PROGRAM (ARM)

The ARM Program will continue its year round operation at the North Slope of

Alaska (NSA) site. This site is providing data about cloud and radiative processes

at high latitudes. These data are being used to refine models and parameterizations

as they relate to the Arctic. The NSA site is centered at Barrow and extends to the

south to the vicinity of Atqasuk, and to the east to Oliktok Point. DOE will also

support IPY-related proposals to conduct experiments using either the NSA site

and/or the ARM Mobile Facility.

CLIMATE CHANGE PREDICTION PROGRAM (CCPP)

The CCPP will continue research to develop coupled climate models. The CCPP

is developing ocean and sea ice models that are components of the Community Climate System Model (CCSM). In addition to coupled climate simulations, researchers

apply the ocean and sea ice models to a variety of ocean and sea ice problems, including eddy-resolving ocean simulations, studies of the thermohaline circulation,

and polar ice feedbacks. CCPP also supports analyses of the causes and consequences of biases in the mean climate and circulation of the Arctic.

ACTIVITIES OF THE NATIONAL OCEANIC AND ATMOSPHERIC ADMINISTRATION (NOAA) THAT SUPPORT THE OBJECTIVES OF THE

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR (IPY) MARCH 2007–MARCH 2009

NOAA began planning for IPY activities in the fall of 2004. Initial ideas were

packaged into 11 broader themes and submitted to the IPY International Program

Office in January 2005 as ‘‘expressions of intent.’’ Over the next few months, the

IPY International Program Office encouraged scientists to prepare more collaborative proposals, resulting in around 200 ‘‘integrated projects’’ that now define the

international effort for the IPY. All of NOAA’s original submissions are included in

these integrated projects. This document summarizes the initial plans and provides

an update to expected IPY activities during FY 2007 to FY 2009.

EXPLORATION

1. Ocean Exploration in Polar Regions

24

NOAA’s Office of Ocean Exploration (OE) may support multiple projects in both

the Arctic and Antarctic in conjunction with the International Polar Year (IPY). OE

solicited specific projects for IPY via Federal Register announcements in calendar

years 2005 and 2006. OE also expects to solicit IPY-related projects during the calendar year 2007 Federal Register notice. Ocean Exploration together with the NOAA

Arctic Research Program and the Russian Academy of Sciences plan to facilitate an

expedition to the Pacific Arctic in 2008, as part of the ongoing RUSALCA (Russian

American Long-term Census of the Arctic) program.

OBSERVATIONS

2. Causes and Impacts of Recent Changes in the Pacific Arctic

Unprecedented minima of sea ice area have occurred in the Pacific Arctic during

the four most recent summers. Summer 2003 and 2004 brought record forest fires

and drought to eastern Siberia and Alaska after a decade of warm springtime temperature anomalies. In surrounding seas there has been a northward shift of icedependent marine animals, with pelagic species such as pollock favored over bottomfeeding flatfish. Many Pacific Arctic changes are continuing, despite the observation

that climate indices such as the Arctic Oscillation were negative or neutral for six

of the last nine years. The Pacific Arctic may be having a larger role in shaping

the persistence of Arctic change than has been previously recognized. We will work

with our partners to carry out observations in this area to measure movement of

water through the Bering Strait, gather observations about physical change in the

state of the ocean in the Bering and Chukchi Seas, and study impacts of physical

change on marine ecosystems in this region. Bering Strait mooring programs will

be conducted, as well as mooring and ship-board studies in the eastern Bering Sea.

Limited ship-board studies will be made in ice-free areas in the vicinity of Bering

Strait and Chukchi Sea in association with mooring cruises.

3. Polar Atmospheric Observatories and Field Campaigns

As part of the IPY project ‘‘International Arctic System for Observing the Atmosphere,’’ a system of strategically located, long-term Atmospheric Observatories will

be developed around the Arctic to carry out both routine measurements made at meteorological stations and intensive measurements at the surface and through the

depth of the atmosphere. Measured quantities can include solar radiation, aerosols,

air chemistry, trace gases, cloud properties, water vapour, ozone, temperatures,

winds, precipitation, surface albedo and stratospheric properties. These measurements are essential to calibrate and validate satellite sensors and to improve the

reliability of climate models. The Atmospheric Observatory partnership includes the

United States, Canada, Russia, Norway, Finland, and China. NOAA’s existing baseline observatories at Barrow Alaska and South Pole will continue to focus on measurements of trace gases and aerosols. The flask-sampling program has 15 polar stations that collect atmospheric samples for trace gas measurement. The Climate Research Program supports investigations of atmospheric processes that affect climate

in polar regions. In the Arctic, a new observatory at Eureka Canada will operate

during the IPY and the observatory at Barrow Alaska will continue. The observatory at Tiksi Russia will be partially operational. These three observatories will

focus on measurements of clouds, radiation, and trace gases. Both Barrow and

South Pole will offer logistic support to scientists for IPY projects if they can provide

their own science support. The flask-sampling program will continue and research

efforts will be supported on ozone, haze and aerosol/cloud/climate interactions in the

Arctic.

NOAA/NCDC plans to install a Climate Reference Network (CRN) site configuration at the Russian Arctic observing site in Tiksi (dependent on final FY07 budget).

Preliminary planning has already begun in concert with the IPY’s International Arctic Systems for Observing the Atmosphere (IASOA), and installation is tentatively

planned for the summer building season in the August/September 2007 timeframe.

This installation is not only in support of the IPY, but is also in line with a longer

term effort on the part of the U.S. GCOS Program Office to install reference surface

observing sites in unique high elevation and high latitude location environments.

4. Polar stratospheric Ozone Depletion Observations

As a part of the International Geophysical Year in 1957, column ozone measurements were initiated at South Pole, Antarctica using Dobson spectrometers. In 1985,

the annual stratospheric ozone depletion over Antarctica—the ‘‘Antarctic Ozone

Hole’’—was identified. In less than five years it was proven that the ozone hole was

caused by human emitted fluorochlorocarbons (CFCs) and the ozone hole has become a globally recognized ‘‘poster child’’ for showing how humans can cause global

25

scale changes. The Arctic stratospheric ozone changes, though lesser in magnitude

than the Antarctic ozone hole, are by no means of lesser importance. Key studies

will be undertaken in the Arctic to monitor these changes. Routine observations of

ozone will continue at Barrow and South Pole during the IPY.

5. Antarctic Living Marine Resource (AMLR) Survey

The principal objective of the NOAA AMLR research program is to collect the scientific information needed to detect, monitor, and predict the effects of harvesting

and associated activities on target, dependent, and related species and populations

of the Antarctic marine living resources and the ecosystem(s) of which they are a

part. A 35-day ship-based research program is planned for FY07.

PREDICTION AND MODELING

6. Short-term Arctic Predictability (STAP)

This scientific study will explore the variability, and associated predictability of

weather, sea ice, ocean wave, and land surface processes in the Arctic region in the

3–90 days time range, with special emphasis on improving forecast guidance for

high impact events in the 3–14 day lead time range. NOAA will complete a study

of northwest Alaskan coastal waves during the IPY. NOAA will also participate in

sea ice studies at both poles aimed at improving measurement of ice thickness and

forecasting. The NOAA THORPEX program is expected to make observations and

introduce forecast products to improve weather and intraseasonal forecasts for the

Arctic.

7. Advances in Satellite Products and Their Use in Numerical Weather Prediction

Spatially comprehensive observations of the atmosphere in the data-sparse polar

regions significantly and positively impact high latitude numerical weather predictions. In addition, errors in model forecasts for the high latitudes often propagate

to the mid-latitudes, implying that improvements to high latitude forecasts will result in better mid-latitude forecasts. These findings provide the motivation to improve our ability to measure the state of the polar regions with satellites and to expand the use of these data in Numerical Weather Prediction systems. NOAA will

participate in IPY projects to improve the application of satellite sensors to environmental problems in the polar regions.

8. Arctic Climate Modeling

The general goal of this project is to improve predictions of the Arctic environment

on timescales ranging from seasonal to climate change. Thus, our research will focus

on analyzing and modeling the physical processes and connections between the Arctic and the rest of the globe. NOAA’s Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory will

continue to improve global climate models that including polar processes.

9. Arctic System Re-analysis (ASR)

A concerted effort during the IPY (2007–2008) to construct pan-Arctic atmosphereocean-ice-land data sets, and to assimilate and enhance these with a high-resolution

(coupled) reanalysis system optimized for the Arctic region, will provide researchers

with an unprecedented description of the Arctic environment over the past several

decades. The operational analysis system (post 2008) expected to be a legacy of this

activity would provide constantly updated depictions of the Arctic environment, and

foster improved short- and medium-range weather forecasts as well as seasonal climate outlooks. Improved understanding of Arctic climate processes resulting from

development of the ASR will lead to better global climate models, in turn reducing

uncertainty in projected future climate states of the Arctic. The ASR will also serve

as a vehicle for diagnostic evaluation of ongoing changes in the Arctic system.

DATA, OUTREACH AND DECISION SUPPORT

10. NOAA’s Data, Information, and Change Detection Strategy for the IPY

NOAA’s fundamental data management responsibilities will be to securely archive

IPY datasets and ensure that these and relevant polar data are easily accessible for

current and future users. NOAA will utilize the existing World Data Center (WDC)

System and NOAA’s National Geophysical Data Centers in order to serve as a clearinghouse and facilitator for data-management issues and will work with IPY participants to ensure that International Council of Scientific Unions/World Meteorological

Organization (ICSU/WMO) IPY Data Committee guidelines are followed. NOAA will

26

also ensure that international standards such as the Open Archival Information

System Reference Model and the ISO19115 metadata standards are met.

NOAA intends to build and maintain a pan-Arctic view of climate variability and

change that will serve decision-makers with information products. These range from

baseline atlases against which future assessments can be carried out, to the Near

Realtime Arctic Change Indicator Website, where information on the present state

of Arctic ecosystems and climate is given in historical context. NOAA data centers

will assist NOAA scientists to archive their IPY data. NOAA will continue to acquire historical data and present it on the Arctic Change Indicator Website to describe the state of the Arctic climate over the past 150 years, allowing a better context for new data collected during the IPY.

11. Decision support for increasing adaptive capacity to climate change

and variability in Alaska and the Arctic.

The cornerstone of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA)

Regional Climate Decision Support program for Alaska and the Arctic is to establish

an integrated program spanning stakeholder-influenced research and development

of decision-support tools for the sustained delivery of customer services. This includes establishing in Alaska a Regional Integrated Sciences & Assessments (RISA)

and a Regional Climate Center (RCC) with formal liaisons to NOAA’s National

Weather Service and the State Climatologist Office to foster growth of climate services.

NOAA is part of the U.S. presence in the Arctic Council (AC). The AC plans to

conduct several assessments during the IPY period, including the Arctic Marine

Shipping Assessment, an assessment of the Arctic carbon cycle, and others. NOAA

will provide expertise and financial support within available resources. NOAA plans

to initiate the Alaska RISA soon through the Univ. of Alaska, and as a five-year

effort, it will operate during the IPY, but not at the full-performance level. Through

the Regional Climate Centers program, an ‘‘Alaska desk’’ may be established in association with the Alaska RISA. NOAA expects to contribute staff time and limited

financial support to the Arctic Council climate-related assessment tasks during the

IPY.

The National Ice Center (NIC) is a U.S. Government agency that brings together

elements from the Department of Commerce—NOAA , the Department of Defense—

NAVY, and the Department of Homeland Security—U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) to

support coastal and marine sea ice operations and research globally. The mission

of the NIC is to provide the highest quality strategic and tactical ice services tailored to meet operational requirements of U.S. national interests. Over the Arctic,

particularly, the NIC provides operational strategic basin-scale sea ice charting with

the production of a hemispheric and over 30 individual regional charts, sea ice tactical ice navigation support, Chukchi Sea and Beaufort Sea ice seasonal forecasts,

support for the development of a sea ice climatology for the Arctic, and management

of the U.S. Interagency Arctic Buoy Program (USIABP). NIC is participating directly or indirectly in an increased number of research and application cooperative

projects with other national and international groups as part of International Polar

Year (IPY) activities throughout 2007 and 2008.

NOAA’s National Data Centers handle a wide variety of Arctic data. An affiliated

data center, the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC), CIRES, University

of Colorado, has a NOAA NESDIS supported program (nsidc.org/noaa/) to produce

and manage selected data sets. Significant data sets are the Online Glacier Photograph Collection of over 3000 photographs dating to the late 1800s; upward looking

sonar data from submarines, providing estimates of sea ice thickness; and the Sea

Ice Index, a site that shows, with graphical products, trends and anomalies in sea

ice cover. Overall, the NOAA@NSIDC program emphasizes data rescue and in situ

data. This emphasis helps collect and maintain the long time series with broad spatial coverage that is necessary to track and attribute arctic change. The program

complements the activities of the Distributed Active Archive Center, a NASA funded

center at NSIDC that supports the bulk of NSIDC’s activities. In addition to data

activities, NOAA supports approximately half of the operating cost of the World

Data Center for Glaciology, Boulder, library. The archival activities of this library

are becoming more visible as preparations for IPY gather momentum.

12. Formal and Informal Education

The Climate Program Office is leading a NOAA-wide effort with respect to the

IPY. The Climate Literacy Working Group (CLWG), based at the Climate Program

Office, is coordinating NOAA-wide IPY education and outreach activities with the

NOAA Office of Education. The NOAA IPY effort is part of the NSF led interagency

IPY education effort and will collaborate and coordinate their efforts with agencies

27

participating in the forth IPY. Several formal and informal education initiatives are

focusing primarily on teacher professional and science center or museum exhibitions, however several formal lesson plans will be developed as part of our IPY efforts. Several current example IPY efforts are listed below:

IPY/NSTA Symposia: These are exciting Symposia designed for grade 5–8 educators in celebration of the International Polar Year (IPY), will delve into

science content and educational activities developed by NASA, NOAA, and NSF.

These symposia will happen at the NSTA national conference in March 2007.

http://institute.nsta.org/fall06/ipyice/symposium.asp

IGLO is a project of the Association of Science-Technology Centers, an international organization of science centers and museums dedicated to furthering

the public understanding of science. IGLO’s goals are to raise public awareness

about the impact of global warming and the state of climate science, position

science centers globally as recognized leaders in public engagement with science

and support the aims and objectives of the IPY. NOAA, NASA and NSF are

sponsors of the initiative.

http://www.astc.org/iglo/

Climate Change in the Arctic Ocean is a teacher professional development

and mass media project aboard the NABOS 2006 Arctic Expedition aboard Icebreaker Kapitan Dranitsyn.

http://www.naturalsciences.org/education/arctic/

13. Public Outreach—

NOAA’s Climate Program has expanded its Regional Integrated Sciences and Assessments (RISA) program to Alaska. The Alaska RISA is a five-year program designed to address regionally important climate issues to aid policy- and decisionmaking. The Alaska RISA program could contribute significant results to our understanding of key climate related challenges facing the state and would allow for innovative partnerships with neighboring countries.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE AND DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN

SERVICES (DHHS)

Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI)

The Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI) will advance the joint research agenda of the Arctic Council, an eight-nation inter-governmental forum for sustainable

development and environmental protection, in the areas of infectious disease monitoring, prevention, and response; the effects of anthropogenic pollution, UV radiation, and climate variability on human health; and telehealth innovations. Specifically, the leaders of these research programs will build on their years of circumpolar

collaboration to extend the International Circumpolar Surveillance network of hospitals and public health facilities into Russia and include additional infectious diseases of concern, to continue monitoring contaminants in human blood and tissues

to reveal temporal and spatial trends and to combine experiences from the rapidly

expanding disciplines of biomarker research and molecular epidemiology with these

monitoring programs, and to extend circumpolar cooperation on telehealth, particularly to Arctic regions in the Russian Federation. In addition, the AHHI will draw

on the outstanding leadership of the Arctic Council member states’ national and

international research programs in the areas of human genomics, hypothermia/hibernation, and health impacts of climate change (including spread of zoonotic and

arboviral diseases in the Arctic).

Fogarty International Center (FIC) has been the designated focal point for Arctic

issues at the National Institutes of Health (NIH). One of FIC’s key roles is advancing bilateral and multilateral ties between and among governments, institutions,

and scientists working on circumpolar issues. In this, FIC has been collaborating

with other NIH Institutes and DHHS agencies in the development of symposiums

and research programs, as well as actively exploring other opportunities for transNIH and interagency collaboration (e.g., with NSF, NASA, etc.), such as mental

health. As an example, two major conferences on inhalant abuse and suicide were

spearheaded by FIC with partnership from National Institute of Drug Abuse (NIDA)

and National Institute on Mental Health (NIMH) in 2004 and 2005. With mental

health being one of the most significant concerns for the AHHI, FIC has been working with the Polar Research Board at the National Academies of Science in the development of a study focused on mental health in the Arctic. In addition to these

activities, in FY05, NIH spent 22 million on research programs in the Arctic. Some

of the major areas of research included interactions of genetics and environment,

28

cancer, cardiovascular and mental health disease burdens. Overall, across DHHS,

multiple agencies have been engaged in working on the improvement of health and

health care in the Arctic. For example, SAMHSA spent 21.2 million in FY05, as it

continues to provide services directed at the prevention and treatment of mental

health and substance abuse problems in the Arctic. The U.S. Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention (CDC), one of the leading agencies at DHHS has been developing partnerships and collaborations in the Arctic focused on improvement of public health and healthcare provision. In addition, CDC has been the leader of the

AHHI steering group, which has been working with the International Union for Circumpolar Health (IUCH), FIC and other stakeholders in the development of outreach and public education programs focused on the promotion of good health for

Arctic residents and better integration of the findings of Arctic health research.

U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY (USGS)

The U.S. Geological Survey serves the United States by providing reliable scientific information to

• Describe and understand the Earth

• Minimize loss of life and property from natural disasters

• Manage water, biological, energy, and mineral resources; and

• Enhance and protect our quality of life.

The USGS will participate in the IPY through extension and enhancement of programmatic activities in research, assessment, and monitoring in the polar regions

that support the scientific mission of the organization and address the themes and

goals of the IPY. These activities span the biologic, geologic, hydrologic, geographic,

and information sciences. While planning is still ongoing, we anticipate our major

IPY activities will include:

Products to be released by the USGS during IPY:

• Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of Asia, Alaska, and Iceland (http://

www.glaciers.er.usgs.gov/html/chapters.html)

• State of the Earth’s Cryosphere at the Beginning of the 21st Century: Glaciers, Snow Cover, Floating Ice, and Permafrost

• Petroleum Resource Assessment of the Arctic

USGS World Petroleum Assessment of 2000 estimated that approximately

25 percent of the remaining oil and gas resources of the world reside in the

Arctic. This follow-on study will examine Arctic basins in more detail and

report on oil and gas resource potential of unexplored basins, and the initial

results should be completed during the IPY.

• Landsat 7 Image Map of Antarctica (LIMA)

The LIMA will create three high-quality remotely-sensed mosaics of Antarctica from more than 1200+ Landsat scenes in cooperation with the British

Antarctic Survey, funded by the National Science Foundation.

Analysis of long-term monitoring from the polar regions:

The USGS has been monitoring permafrost temperature in the Arctic, three

Benchmark Glaciers for climate change, glacier geometry, glacier mass balance, glacier motion, and stream runoff, and marine mammals for many decades. The results

of those monitoring efforts will be examined, analyzed and reported on during the

IPY.

• Permafrost Temperature Monitoring

• Benchmark Glaciers

• Marine Mammals: polar bears and walruses

• Sea Ice

Initiation of new study:

Yukon River Basin—Rates and Effects of Permafrost Thawing in the Arctic.

The USGS is working with a consortium of U.S. and Canadian Federal, State, and

Provincial agencies, university scientists, and tribal organizations to initiate a major

project to understand and predict climate-induced changes to the air, water, land,

and biota within the Yukon River Basin (YRB). This collaborative scientific effort,

using the YRB and adjacent coastal ocean as a representative landscape unit, will

29

provide a benchmark for tracking and understanding changes occurring throughout

the Arctic and Sub-arctic region.

USGS will be highlighting our Facilities and Resources for Arctic and Antarctic Research

• U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory, USGS, Denver, CO

The U.S. National Ice Core Laboratory (NICL) stores, curates, and facilitates

study of ice cores recovered from the polar regions of the world. It provides

scientists with the capability to conduct examinations and measurements on

ice cores, and it preserves the integrity of these ice cores in a long-term repository for current and future investigations. Ice cores contain an abundance of

climate information—more so than any other natural recorder of climate such

as tree rings or sediment layers. http://nicl.usgs.gov/

• U.S. Antarctic Resource Center, USGS, Reston, VA

The U.S. Antarctic Resource Center (USARC) is the Nation’s depository for

Antarctic maps, charts, geodetic ground control, satellite images, aerial photographs, publications, slides, and video tapes. These resources are items produced by Antarctic Treaty nations in support of their activities in Antarctica

and provided to the USARC in compliance with a standing resolution of the

treaty providing for exchange of information. usarc.usgs.gov

• USGS Alaska Science Center, Anchorage, AK

A Center of Excellence for the Department of the Interior to address important natural resources issues and natural hazards assessments in Alaska and

circumpolar regions through long-term data collection and monitoring, research and development, and assessments and applications. Their mission is

to provide scientific leadership and accurate, objective, and timely data, information, and research findings about the Earth and its flora and fauna to federal and State resource managers and policy-makers, local government, and

the public to support sound decision-making regarding natural resources, natural hazards, and ecosystems in Alaska and circumpolar regions. http://alaska.usgs.gov/index.php

• McMurdo Long Term Research (LTER) Program

The USGS provides cooperative support to the McMurdo Long-Term Research

program for water resources data collection and related activities. The support provided is in the form of field assistance, guidance, and review of surface-water data collection by INSTAAR and University of Colorado researchers in the McMurdo Dry Valleys (Taylor Valley and Wright Valley) of Antarctica. Cooperation is also provided in the form of guidance and support for and

access to USGS databases and streamflow-records processing applications.

• Antarctic Seismic Data Library System (SDLS)

The SDLS is an Antarctic-Treaty-mandated effort under the auspices of the

Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR) to collate and make openly available for research purposes all marine multi-channel seismic reflection

data (MCS) acquired in Antarctic regions (i.e., south of 60 degrees South).

The SDLS was implemented in 1991 under USGS sponsorship, but since

about 1996, the SDLS has been run jointly by USGS (with NSF–OPP and

USGS funding) and Osservatorio Geofisico Sperimentale (OGS, Trieste, Italy).

The seismic library has branches in 10 countries, with two branches in the

U.S. MCS data are sent to the SDLS by data collectors, are put onto CD–

ROM and distributed to SDLS branches where they can be viewed and used

under the SDLS guidelines specified in SCAR Report #9 (and addendums).

To date, 60 CD–Roms holding more than 120,000 km of stacked MCS data

have been produced for SDLS branches.

• Web-enabling the US Antarctic Photography Collection from the USGS Earth

Resources Observation Science (EROS) Center

For more the 30 years, it has been USGS’s privilege to archive and serve the

U.S. Antarctic Program, the international Antarctic research community, and

the public with access to the U.S. Antarctic aerial photography collection held

at the USGS Center for Earth Resources Observation and Science (EROS)

center at http://eros.usgs.gov/. This collection consists of an estimated

400,000 frames of historical aerial photography dating back to the 1940s.

This collection is the best collection of Antarctic aerial photography held by

30

any country and that its value to the Antarctic research community will only

increase with time as work and research continues in Antarctica.

However, neither online metadata, browse images, photographs nor film

products are available via the Internet for the USAP Antarctic aerial photography collection. New technology and improved digitizing methods have made

it possible to digitize the original aerial film rolls creating browse and medium resolution images of each frame. We propose to link the digitized USAP

aerial photography browse and medium resolution image files to the USARC

paper map-line plots and web-enable the digitized collection in such a way

that users could download images over the Internet at no cost to the user.

Implementation of the proposal will result in an integrated on-line query,

browsing and delivery capability for all historical USARC photography in the

USGS EROS Center.

• Antarctic Geographic Placenames

The USGS operates the U.S. Board on Geographic Names in conjointly with

other federal agencies. In accordance with recommendations of the Advisory

Committee on Antarctic Names (ACAN), United States Board on Geographic

Names (USBGN) approves all new names to be used in government use in

Antarctica by the United States.

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION (NASA)

NASA’s contributions to IPY likely will involve ongoing activities (operating satellites, continuing ground networks, and scientific research), some episodic activities

(satellite snapshots and field campaigns), new efforts related to the development

and deployment of sub-orbital capabilities (aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles),

and coordination of remote sensing observations with in situ measurements supported both by NASA and other agencies—primarily the National Science Foundation.

Currently, NASA operates nearly 20 satellites that collect information about the

polar regions. The Ice Cloud and Land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) was specifically

designed to measure changes in the elevation of the Earth’s great ice sheets and

the ice sheet processes that are manifest in the surface topography in unprecedented detail. In addition, the mission has revealed new information about recent

thickness characteristics of sea ice in the entire Arctic and Antarctic regions. Other

recently-launched Cloudsat and Calipso missions are providing 3-dimensional information on the structure of the Earth’s atmosphere, and as with all near-polar orbiting satellites, coverage will be maximum in the polar regions.

NASA has demonstrated success in the past in developing comprehensive polar

observations through international collaborations with the Canadian Space Agency

(CSA) to carry out the Antarctic Mapping Mission and the Arctic Snapshot of Arctic

sea ice characteristics at very high spatial resolution. We expect to continue to develop these international efforts through a coordination of activities with our colleagues at space agencies in other countries.

NASA also has polar missions that reach beyond Earth, including the PHOENIX

Mission that will land near Mars North Pole in 2008, the Lunar Recon Orbiter that

will map lunar polar regions for the first time in 2008, and the Mars Recon Orbiter

(MRO) that will explore Martian polar regions from orbit. Polar analogues in Mars

exploration are vital; for instance, scientists have used Earth’s polar regions to simulate Mars for over 30 years. For instance, the Dry Valleys of Antarctica are the

best ‘‘Mars analogue’’ known on Earth, and activities in support of human exploration of space have been conducted in the Canadian Arctic. These polar environments continue to serve as important test-beds in support of activities related to

NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration.

NASA issued a solicitation for IPY research proposals in 2006. Specific research

topics solicited were:

1. Integrated analysis of multiple satellite data sets, enhanced validation of

NASA satellite data sets in polar regions needed for improving their interpretation by models, and/or the integrated analysis of satellite and related

sub-orbital data addressing the scientific questions defined by NASA in its

Earth Science Enterprise Strategy (at http://earth.nasa.gov/visions/

ESE¥Strategy2003.pdf) that can be addressed in the context of IPY;

2. Individual U.S. investigator participation in field activities carried out as

part of IPY, especially U.S. participation in multi-national field campaigns

to take place in the primary IPY timeframe from March 2007–March 2009.

3. Integrated regional modeling of the polar regions (including the terrestrial,

oceanic, atmospheric, biospheric, and cryospheric components of these reVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
31

gions and their interactions) that takes advantage of synergies between the

enhanced international observational capabilities that will be available during the IPY time frame and NASA satellites;

4. Definition studies for potential U.S.-led, focused IPY activities that integrate

field work (typically using NASA-provided sub-orbital platforms), satellite

data analysis, and modeling to address IPY-related science questions and

provide enhanced validation for NASA satellite data products in the unique

geophysical and/or biogeochemical conditions found in the polar areas. At

this point in time, proposals for conduct of and/or participation in significant

multi-investigator, U.S.-led field-based activities beyond these definition

studies are not solicited; and

5. Development of remote-sensing instruments suitable for implementation on

uninhabited aerial vehicles (UAVs) such as are likely to be available for use

during the IPY time frame (March 2007–March 2009). Such instruments

would make contributions to IPY contributing to our knowledge of the

unique geophysical and/or biogeochemical conditions found in polar regions

in one or more areas, including: (a) providing early demonstration of instrumental approaches that may be suitable for use on future satellites, (b) providing enhanced calibration/validation information for NASA satellites (and/

or those of our international partners), (c) providing more comprehensive information about polar regions that complements that available from satellite

sensors to be operating in the IPY time frame, or (d) any combination of the

above. Given the limited time and funding available, it is expected that such

development would be based on currently available airborne instrumentation

with significant heritage aboard onboard-piloted platforms, but for which

modification to meet the requirements of potential UAVs would be required.

Proposers should identify potential UAV platforms as part of their proposals,

but need not make arrangements for their use. If proposals in this area are

selected, NASA would provide and pay for any flight opportunities involving

the use of the newly developed instrument during the IPY time frame.

The evaluation of proposals submitted in response to this solicitation is still underway, but proposals selected from responses to our IPY solicitation will form the

basis of a significant portion of our IPY research portfolio. In the context of The Vision for Space Exploration, other areas of investment may include:

— Utilizing polar regions as a stepping stone to exploring other planetary environments

— Understanding poles of other planets and similarities and differences to

those on Earth.

NASA continues to study the Earth as a system through the unique sampling capability afforded by remote sensing. During the IPY and beyond, we will continue

to develop this capability to understand polar processes, the role of the polar regions

in the Earth’s environment, and the nature of poles on other planets in our solar

system.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA)

The U.S. Department of Agriculture plans to continue its mission related activities in the Alaska region through its various mission areas, in particular through

the Research, Extension and Economics Mission Area and the Natural Resources

and Environment Mission Area.

The Agricultural Research Service (ARS) will continue its work towards preserving Alaskan plant diversity through its preservation and archiving of high latitude plant germplasm through traditional seed collocation and modern molecular

methods. The U.S. Forest Service through the Pacific Northwest Research Station

is responsible for the management of the Alaskan boreal forest and will continue

its commitment in support of the Bonanza Creek LTER, which takes place at the

Bonanza Creek Experimental Forest. The Natural Resources Conservation Service

(NRCS) will continue to provide assistance to state, Native Alaskan, and private

landowners through the USDA Farm Bill. The Forest Service and NRCS will continue their joint activities in permafrost and wetland soil research. The Cooperative

State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES) will continue its research support for the Agricultural Experimental Research Stations and educational

support for the University of Alaska, the Alaska land-grant institution. Legislated

funding for research, education and extension activities through the Hatch Act,

Evans-Allen Act and the McIntire-Stennis Act will continue to be administered by

CSREES. Competitive funding for research through the National Research Initiative

and for education such as the Alaska-Native and Native-Hawaiian Educational

32

Grants Program will be offered by various CSREES programs. CSREES will also

continue its extension activities through the Alaska Cooperative Extension Service.

CSREES is currently contributing to the interagency Study of Environmental Arctic

Change (SEARCH) by providing resources to a 2006–2007 joint solicitation with

EPA and NASA for proposals on climate change, land use and invasive species.

SEARCH is one of the primary activities of NSF for the IPY and the USDA will

continue to work with the interagency working group of SEARCH to promote joint

interests in Alaska.

SMITHSONIAN INSTITUTION (SI)

The Smithsonian is prepared to engage in a variety of research, education, and

outreach programs in support of IPY–4. Some of the following plans—all of which

have been developed with interagency collaboration—are already underway; others

need further discussion and are offered here as ideas for consideration.

1. Of all U.S. Governmental agencies, the Smithsonian probably has the longest

record of association with IPY activities, because of its critical role in the

First U.S. IPY field expeditions of 1881–1884, in caring for its collections,

and publishing its proceedings. Hence SI participation in IPY 2007–8 will include both historical and contemporary dimensions.

2. The SI contribution will be based upon the Institution’s time-tested

strengths: (1) the research of its scientific personnel; (2) special value of its

museum collections as national treasures; and (3) its broad public outreach

program, coupled with the unique position of Smithsonian museums on the

National Mall and their special attraction to the general public and the Nation.

3. On the scientific side, the SI is already playing the leading role in framing

the U.S. socio-cultural and Native studies programs based upon staff expertise through the NMNH Arctic Studies Center and the value of its ethnological collections (see below). An ASC Arctic ethnologist is playing a key role

for planning the IPY 2007–2008 socio-cultural agenda as a member of both

the U.S. National IPY Committee and the main ICSU–WMO Joint Committee for the International Polar Year. The ASC will continue its leading

role in the socio-cultural planning through its meetings, symposia, publications, exhibits, coordination activities, and other means.

4. Smithsonian scholars are also active in other fields of Arctic and Antarctic

research, particularly in biology, paleontology, ocean, and astrophysics studies that will be included in the Institution’s IPY program. SI is also curates

the U.S. National Antarctic Meteorite collection.

5. The Smithsonian offers to organize and host a national IPY symposium at

the beginning of the IPY 2007–2008 activities, with the participation of the

leading SI scientists and representatives of other agencies and research institutions.

6. SI is eager to offer its Arctic and Antarctic collections (ethnological, botanical, zoological, mineral, films and archival materials, etc.) and to facilitate

all types of IPY collection research as its contribution to the interagency IPY

2007–2008 program. Of particular value are the ethnological and biological

collections from Barrow, Alaska and Ellesmere Island (Greeley Expedition)

Arctic Canada from the First IPY 1881–1884 expeditions, as well as scientific

instrument collections and records of the early IPY stations; and the instrument collections from the IGY at the Air and Space Museum.

7. SI offers its space and personnel resources to serve as the key IPY interagency hub for Education, Outreach, and Public Communication during

2007–2008 (and even earlier), through its museum programs, outreach, and

exhibit ventures.

8. Proposed IPY Events for the National Mall:

a) The first event will be the opening of the new Smithsonian exhibit, The

Arctic: A Friend Acting Strangely (June 2005), focused on the current

impacts and science of arctic environmental change. This exhibit has

been produced with financial support from NOAA and NSF will be a

part of the NMNH ‘‘Global Links’’ Exhibition Program.

b) As noted above, we propose organizing a national IPY symposium at the

beginning of the IPY period (2007).

c) As part of this symposium, SI will organize a small exhibit on the history of the early U.S. IPY efforts based upon its collections, instruments,

and photographic and documentary records. We invite other agencies to

33

join us in exhibiting objects or graphic materials related to their own

contributions to the U.S. IPY efforts.

d) In collaboration with the University of Colorado (INSTAAR) we propose

mounting a special exhibit called Artifacts On Ice: The Emerging Archeology of Glaciers, featuring the 8000 year old evidence of humans, artifacts, animals, and climate science being recovered from melting highaltitude glaciers in the Pacific Northwest.

e) The fifth—and the major—Smithsonian public contribution could be a

much larger exhibit, such as Science at the Poles: IPY 2007–2008, to

publicize its preliminary results and major accomplishments. This might

take place in early or mid-2010, and as a major public venture, would

have to be supported by substantial agency contributions.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (EPA)

EPA plans to support other agencies’ IPY efforts through its Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), and its involvement in the Global Earth

Observation System of Systems (GEOSS). For 15 years, EMAP has developed costeffective and policy relevant probabilistic sampling approaches for freshwater and

marine resources. EPA has supported monitoring of coastal resources in South Central and Southeastern Alaska, as well as freshwater monitoring in Central Alaska.

The state of Alaska has submitted an IPY ‘‘Expression of Intent’’ for Arctic and Bering Sea Coastal Assessments. EPA will give non-budgetary support to this proposal.

Other agencies also may wish to support this effort, and perhaps support a larger

potential effort of developing a circumarctic or even circumpolar coastal monitoring

program using EMAP approaches, to obtain baseline conditions. This larger effort

could be done in the context of IPY 2007–2008.

EPA is involved in GEOSS as a data collector, integrator, and user. Also, EPA

is co-chair of the GEO Secretariat’s User Requirements and Outreach Subgroup.

EPA is interested in how the oceans observing network is expected to be included

under GEOSS, and how all the other Earth observations overlap with IPY. EPA

looks forward to collaborating with other agencies in GEOSS activities related to the

IPY.

34

35

36

37

38

BIOGRAPHY FOR ARDEN L. BEMENT, JR.

Arden L. Bement, Jr., became Director of the National Science Foundation on November 24, 2004. He had been Acting Director since February 22, 2004.

He joined NSF from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, where

he had been Director since Dec. 7, 2001. As head of NIST, he oversaw an agency

with an annual budget of about $773 million and an on-site research and administrative staff of about 3,000, complemented by a NIST-sponsored network of 2,000

locally managed manufacturing and business specialists serving smaller manufacturers across the United States. Prior to his appointment as NIST director, Bement

served as the David A. Ross Distinguished Professor of Nuclear Engineering and

head of the School of Nuclear Engineering at Purdue University. He has held appointments at Purdue University in the schools of Nuclear Engineering, Materials

Engineering, and Electrical and Computer Engineering, as well as a courtesy appointment in the Krannert School of Management. He was director of the Midwest

Superconductivity Consortium and the Consortium for the Intelligent Management

of the Electrical Power Grid.

Bement came to the position as NIST director having previously served as head

of that agency’s Visiting Committee on Advanced Technology, the agency’s primary

private-sector policy adviser; as head of the advisory committee for NIST’s Advanced

Technology Program; and on the Board of Overseers for the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award.

Along with his NIST advisory roles, Bement served as a member of the U.S. National Science Board from 1989 to 1995. The board guides NSF activities and also

serves as a policy advisory body to the President and Congress. As NSF director,

Bement now serves as an ex officio member of the NSB.

He also chaired the Commission for Engineering and Technical Studies and the

National Materials Advisory Board of the National Research Council; was a member

of the Space Station Utilization Advisory Subcommittee and the Commercialization

and Technology Advisory Committee for NASA; and consulted for the Department

of Energy’s Argonne National Laboratory and the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory.

He currently serves as a member of the U.S. National Commission for UNESCO

and serves as the Vice-Chair of the Commission’s Natural Sciences and Engineering

Committee.

Bement joined the Purdue faculty in 1992 after a 39-year career in industry, government, and academia. These positions included: Vice President of technical resources and of science and technology for TRW Inc. (1980–1992); Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (1979–1980); Director, Office of Materials Science, DARPA (1976–1979); Professor of nuclear materials, MIT (1970–

1976); Manager, Fuels and Materials Department and the Metallurgy Research Department, Battelle Northwest Laboratories (1965–1970); and senior research associate, General Electric Co. (1954–1965).

He has been a director of Keithley Instruments Inc. and the Lord Corp. and was

a member of the Science and Technology Advisory Committee for the Howmet Corp.

(a division of ALCOA).

Bement holds an engineer of metallurgy degree from the Colorado School of

Mines, a Master’s degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Idaho,

a doctorate degree in metallurgical engineering from the University of Michigan, an

honorary doctorate degree in engineering from Cleveland State University, an honorary doctorate degree in science from Case Western Reserve University, an honorary doctorate degree in engineering from the Colorado School of Mines, and a Chinese Academy of Sciences Graduate School Honorary Professorship. He is a member

of the U.S. National Academy of Engineering and a fellow of the American Academy

of Arts and Sciences.

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Bement.

Dr. Bell.

STATEMENT OF DR. ROBIN ELIZABETH BELL, DOHERTY SENIOR RESEARCH SCIENTIST, LAMONT-DOHERTY EARTH OBSERVATORY, COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY

Dr. BELL. Good morning. Thank you very much for inviting me

to speak on International Polar Year. I consider it the scientific opportunity of a generation for our nation, our society, and our planet.

39

I am Robin Bell, and I am from Columbia University’s LamontDoherty Earth Observatory where I run programs looking at the

stability of the ice sheets and sub-glacial links using geophysical

techniques, so I am a geophysicist. I also chair the Polar Research

Board of the National Research Council, which acts as the national

coordinating committee for IPY, and I have been active internationally in the planning process pretty much since the beginning.

[Slide.]

You might wonder why, in this day of connectivity, scientists are

so excited about this concept, a concept that was developed when

this is what the map of the world looked like. And at that point,

the big white spot in the middle, we didn’t know whether that was

a continent or the ocean—or an ocean. There were still truly unknown frontiers. And the cutting-edge communication was the telegraph.

So today, our maps are much richer. We actually know that one

pole is a continent and one is an ocean, but there is still a fundamental need to push our limits of knowledge, particularly because

environmental change and variability are part of the natural pattern of the Earth, but environmental change at the poles is much

more pronounced than what is going on at the tropics. We know

that arctic sea ice is decreasing. Some of the ice shelves, as you see

on the left, in Antarctica are retreating and thinning. The glaciers

are shrinking, and the ecosystems are changing. In some places,

the plants are flowering significantly early.

These changes do have human impacts, both locally and globally.

Alaskan villages have been moved to higher ground. Buildings in

northern communities have had to be moved. And rising sea level

continues to be a global concern. Understanding the poles is important for understanding the inclinations of environmental change.

So one motivation is environmental change.

But although we have made tremendous progress in science, and

although the maps I showed you are much richer than they were

100 years ago, the maps aren’t blank, and the—but the frontiers

and the unknowns have actually gotten broader. We now know

that there are frontiers from the molecular scale, like Donal’s studies, to the continental scale, like I study. Questions like how can

certain nematodes survive at -2 degrees Fahrenheit? How is it that

polar fish evolve antifreeze proteins in their cells? And what will

happen to the under-ice ecological communities as we see the environment change? And what happens to the water beneath these

large lakes in Antarctica? There are still fundamental limits to our

knowledge. These are the frontier questions that the science community is planning to address during the International Polar Year.

The planning process identified five major challenges.

First is the one I have alluded to, the large-scale environmental

change. What is happening at the ends of our planet, and how does

it affect the rest of our planet?

The second is looking at conducting scientific exploration of these

new frontiers, molecular to continental.

Third is observing the polar regions in depth.

Fourth is looking at the human dimensions of the environment,

recognizing that now, we, as humans, are a discreet part of this environment.

40

And finally, looking for those new connections, looking at how we

can reach out to the public to build new connections between the

science and the public.

So one of the distinct differences of this polar year is the inclusion of the human face. We will, in fact, as a science community,

be looking more at how human beings are part of the global community and how the communities in the north are part of the global system.

So what is going to be the outcome?

I think, in essence, we should be thinking about what the societal benefits of the International Polar Year are. As it is emerging,

the science programs are multi-faceted and multi-disciplinary, and

so the results and the benefits will be both multi-faceted and multidisciplinary. So it is going to advance our fundamental understanding of the planet. It is going to—whether it is the polar ecosystems or sub-glacial terrains. It will improve our understanding

of the processes of change that are—and how they are influencing

society, especially the inhabitants of the north. It will inspire the

spirit of discovery across all ages and help us develop the next generation of our leaders in science, engineering, industry, commerce,

and government. It will also demonstrate that, even in the most

difficult times, science can be a very powerful arena for international cooperation.

So why should the vast majority of us who live in warmer parts

of the Earth, whether it is New York or South Carolina, care about

IPY? The poles are physically distinctive, but they are critical

links. So I would like you to think about this. I am going to do this

experiment, but I would like you to think about what happens. If

you hold an ice cube in your hand, you know, just imagine holding

it. What you start to feel is you start to feel the melting at the

ends. While your fingers are melting at the ends, you can actually

feel the water dripping down across the ice cube and down your

arm. The changes from the warmth of your fingers are actually

being conducted to the ice cube.

The relationship between the poles and the rest of the planet is

very similar to that ice cube. The relation—the polar oceans play

a critical role in maintaining ocean currents that keep coastal Europe warm and the ice cover that covers both continents reflects

much of the solar energy and is a critical part of the equation of

how our planet remains habitable. Melting ice sheets will raise sea

levels and threaten the global communities around the world. Polar

regions are the integral component of the Earth system that respond to and drive changes elsewhere.

So, in conclusion, from assessing long-scale environmental

change in the polar regions, to pushing the frontiers of science, the

International Polar Year really is a scientific opportunity for everyone.

Thank you very much, and I am more than welcome to address

questions.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Bell follows:]

41

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROBIN ELIZABETH BELL

INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR 2007–2008:

THE OPPORTUNITY OF A GENERATION

Good Morning. Thank you very much for inviting me to speak about International

Polar Year 2007–2008. The International Polar Year (IPY) is the scientific opportunity of a generation for our nation, for our society, and for our planet.

My name is Robin E. Bell, Ph.D. from Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty

Earth Observatory, where I am a Doherty Senior Research Scientist. I am a geophysicist by training and at Columbia I lead major geophysical programs on the stability of ice sheets including subglacial lakes. I also direct Columbia’s NSF sponsored ADVANCE program, aimed at recruiting and retaining women in science. I

was the first women to lead a major aerogeophysical program from the Antarctic

continent, and this has been the focus of much of my research for the past two decades.

In addition to my research, I chair the National Research Council’s Polar Research Board, which acts as the national coordinating committee for IPY. The Research Council is the operating arm of the National Academy of Sciences, National

Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine, chartered by Congress in

1863 to advise the government on matters of science and technology. I served as

the Co-Chair of the International Council for Science’s (ICSU) initial IPY Planning

Group, which developed the first major international IPY planning document, ‘‘A

Framework for International Polar Year.’’ I currently serve on the ICSU–WMO Joint

Committee for IPY, the main international planning group.

Today I will provide an overview of why IPY is happening and why it’s important

to us here in the United States. What has motivated more than 5000 scientists from

some 63 nations to decide to participate in a year devoted to polar studies and education? I’ll highlight the major science questions that will be addressed, outline the

role that U.S. scientists and science managers have been playing developing IPY,

and conclude with thoughts on the many societal benefits that can result from the

IPY.

In this era of instant communications and global connectivity, it might seem surprising that the global scientific community is so excited by a scientific strategy that

was developed more than 100 years ago. Because it was indeed back in 1882–1883

that the idea of holding a focused, internationally-coordinated year of polar research—an International Polar Year—was first developed. At that point in history,

the poles were blank white spaces on maps and the cutting edge communications

technology was the telegraph. The decision to coordinate with other nations rather

than compete, and to focus on research to understand polar phenomena rather than

acquisition of territory, was something new and exciting. That first IPY in 1882–

83 and subsequent ones in 1932–33 and the International Geophysical Year (IGY)

in 1957–58, drew great minds and generated great leaders; these ‘‘international

years’’ set a precedent of cooperation in science that, while innovative at the time,

is considered the norm today.

Today’s scientists are similarly motivated by society’s need for integrated global

knowledge. There is still a fundamental human need to push the limits of our understanding about polar phenomena. The polar regions are integral components of

the Earth system. As the heat sinks of the climate system they both respond to and

drive changes elsewhere on the planet. While environmental change and variability

are part of the natural pattern on Earth, the environmental changes currently witnessed in the polar regions are in many cases more pronounced than changes observed in the mid-latitudes or tropics. The Arctic sea ice cover is decreasing; some

ice shelves in Antarctica are retreating and thinning; glaciers are shrinking; and

ecosystems are changing, for instance, with plants flowering at earlier times. These

changes are having human impacts: some Alaskan villages have been moved to

higher ground in response to rising sea levels, and thawing of permafrost is undermining roads and buildings in northern communities around the world. We must

understand the implications of environmental change for the future of our global society.

Although we’ve made tremendous progress in all science over the past 100 years,

the polar regions are still at the frontiers of human knowledge. The maps aren’t

quite as blank, but the frontiers and unknowns have actually increased, and range

from the molecular, to the ecological, to the continental. How is it that certain microbes can survive at minus two degrees Fahrenheit, that certain nematodes live

even when ice forms in their cells, that polar fish species have evolved with an antiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
42

freeze protein in their blood? What will happen to the unique under-ice ecological

communities of the Arctic, which are the base of the Arctic food web, as ice conditions change and new species arrive from southern waters? In just the last 10 years

we discovered more than 150 subglacial lakes that exist under the ice in Antarctica.

These range in size from something similar to the reflecting pool on the Mall to a

lake the size of Lake Ontario. Why are these lakes important? They are thought

to contain exotic ecosystems; the water in these lakes is part of the subglacial

plumbing system that can be thought of as the lubricant that makes the ice sheet

flow faster.

At its most fundamental level, IPY 2007–2008 is envisioned to be an intense, coordinated field campaign of polar observations, research, and analysis that will be

multi-disciplinary in scope and international in participation. IPY will provide a

framework to undertake projects that normally could not be achieved by any single

nation. It allows us to think beyond traditional borders—whether national borders

or disciplinary constraints—toward a new level of integrated, cooperative science. A

coordinated international approach maximizes both impact and cost effectiveness,

and the international collaborations started today will build relationships and understanding that will bring long-term benefits. Within this context, IPY will seek

to galvanize new and innovative observations and research while at the same time

building on and enhancing existing initiatives. IPY will serve as a mechanism to attract and develop a new generation of scientists and engineers with the versatility

to tackle complex global issues.

In addition, IPY is clearly an opportunity to organize a range of education and

outreach activities designed to excite and engage the public, with a presence in

classrooms around the world and in the media in varied and innovative formats.

The IPY will use today’s powerful research tools to better understand the key roles

of the polar regions in global processes. Automatic observatories, satellite-based remote sensing, autonomous vehicles, Internet, and genomics are just a few of the innovative approaches for studying previously inaccessible realms. IPY 2007–2008 will

be fundamentally broader than past international years because it will explicitly incorporate multi-disciplinary and interdisciplinary studies, including biological, ecological, and social science elements.

IPY 2007–2008 is an opportunity to deepen our understanding of the polar regions

and their global linkages and impacts, and to communicate these insights to the

public. IPY planners have identified five broad scientific challenges to be addressed:

• Assessing large-scale environmental change in the polar regions, with questions looking at both the physical and human dimensions of change and its

impacts.

• Conducting scientific exploration of ‘‘new’’ frontiers, whether these are once

inaccessible places beneath the ice sheet, or areas of inquiry that are now

open because of advances in technology, such as how the tools of genomics

now allow exploration of previously unanswerable questions about biological

adaptation.

• Observing the polar regions in depth, with adequate coverage of the vast and

challenging landscape, to provide a description of current conditions and allow

for better future understanding of variability and change.

• Understanding human-environmental dynamics in a region where the connections are intimate and where the impacts of change are clear.

• Creating new connections between science and the public, using these regions

that are inherently intriguing.

One of the major differences between the first two IPYs and IGY and our upcoming IPY 2007–2008 is the recognition that the physical world and the biological

world and human society are intimately interrelated. This upcoming IPY is inherently about not just science, but science in support of human interests. It includes

work in engineering, medicine, sociology, and human-environment interactions. The

present map of 225 IPY projects highlights the geographic and discipline breadth

of the IPY 2007–2008. Each cell represents a major program with an international

team of scientists working together to advance our knowledge of our planet—producing a tremendous multiplicative effect. The net result will be a huge leap forward in our understanding of polar processes—physical, biological and social—and

their global connections.

Previous IPY efforts were characterized by very top down planning and generally

driven by the military. For example, under the oversight of Abraham Lincoln’s son,

Robert Todd Lincoln, then head of the Department of War, the U.S. participation

in the first IPY in 1882–83 was led by the Army. The science priorities for our upcoming IPY, on the other hand, emerged from grass roots planning, international

43

scientific groups, U.S. agency input, and help from the U.S. National Academy of

Sciences and National Academy of Engineering.

Beginning in 2002, with the support of more than two dozen members, the National Academies invested some of its own endowment funds to launch the IPY planning process within the U.S. The chair of that first effort was Dr. Mary Albert of

the Army’s Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. She led a committee

that sought wide input on whether the U.S. should participate in IPY and, if so,

what we should hope to accomplish. The committee led a series of web discussions,

gave talks at numerous professional meetings, met with agency leaders, hosted a

multi-day workshop, and compiled contributions from 13 federal agencies into an

initial planning document. The report, ‘‘A Vision for International Polar Year 2007–

2008,’’ was released early in 2004 and came to be the foundation for much of the

international planning as well. (A summary of this report is attached to my testimony.) This early investment of financial and intellectual capital put the U.S. in a

position to play a leadership role in planning the IPY internationally.

Today, four years after the planning for IPY began, over 225 projects have been

proposed as part of IPY around the globe. Of these, the U.S. plays a leadership role

in 52 projects (20 percent) and is participating in 80 percent. This ‘‘honeycomb diagram’’ provides an illustration of the breadth of activities, with projects at both

poles, across disciplines, and across nations. Right now, everything is still conceptual—what will actually happen on the ground is still being determined, both here

and in other nations. There is an international IPY Programme Office, staffed by

Dr. David Carlson and hosted in Cambridge, England, by the British Antarctic Survey. There is also an international planning committee, called the Joint Committee,

of which I am a member, and various subcommittees devoted to data management,

observation systems, and education and outreach. It’s a very lean administrative organization for such a complex undertaking.

While planning for IPY started with the scientific community, all the federal

agencies with cold regions responsibilities are having roles in implementation. When

the National Academies hosted a workshop to encourage agency coordination in

2004, 13 agencies participated. At the request of the White House, the National

Science Foundation is serving as the lead federal agency. (In Alaska, the University

of Alaska Fairbanks has stepped forward as the state-wide leader.) NSF has shown

real leadership in its role, holding interagency planning meetings, initiating a multiagency web site, and establishing mechanisms so that science and education/outreach proposals are in the process of being funded. The National Academies continues to provide coordination through the Polar Research Board, which acts as the

U.S. National Committee for IPY. The Polar Research Board hosts an IPY web site,

distributes an IPY e-newsletter, communicates information to and from the international Joint Committee, and holds meetings as needed to accomplish IPY planning and coordination. Continuing to serve in this coordinating role, in early October, the Polar Research Board will be hosting a meeting of the IPY secretariats so

the staff working on IPY behind-the-scenes have an opportunity to coordinate.

In conclusion, I want to think ahead about the societal benefits of the International Polar Year. Just as the IPY and the emerging science programs are multifaceted and multi-disciplinary, the benefits of the IPY will be multifaceted and

multi-disciplinary. The IPY will advance our fundamental understanding of our

planet—from the polar ecosystems to the subglacial terrains. The IPY will improve

our understanding of the processes of change and that complex double-edged sword

of how society is influencing change and how change is influencing society—especially the inhabitants of the north. The IPY will inspire a spirit of discovery across

all ages and help us develop the next generation of our nation’s leaders in science,

engineering, education, industry, commerce, and government. At the international

level, IPY will again show that even in the most difficult times, science can be an

arena of international cooperation. IPY will foster the continued peaceful use of the

polar regions, engage new partners in the global science community, and leverage

precious scientific and logistical resources so that, in essence, we get more from our

investments.

Why should the vast majority of us, who live in the warmer regions of the Earth,

care about IPY? The polar regions, while physically distant, are critical links in the

global climate system. Does this matter for the rest of the planet? Imagine holding

an ice cube between your thumb and your forefinger. Beneath your fingers a pool

of water forms quickly. The water will drip down your arms and down the ice cube.

The changes at the end driven by the warmth of your fingers are transferred across

the entire ice cube. The relationship between the poles to the rest of the globe are

the same. The polar oceans play a critical role in maintaining ocean currents that

keep coastal Europe much warmer than it would be otherwise, and the sea ice cover

modifies Earth’s surface temperature by reflecting solar energy. Melting ice sheets

44

will raise sea levels, threatening coastal communities around the world. The polar

regions are integral components of the Earth system that both respond to and drive

changes elsewhere on the planet.

The polar regions also hold unique information of Earth’s past climate history,

and they are growing in economic and geopolitical importance. They are a unique

vantage point for studies that will help scientists understand environmental

changes in the context of past changes, which in turn will help us make informed

choices for our future. The exploration of new scientific frontiers in the polar regions

also will lead to new discoveries, insights, and theories potentially important to all

people.

In summary, International Polar Year 2007–2008 will leave us important legacies:

— an improved understanding of environmental status and change,

— more comprehensive data and the ability to understand trends in the future,

— improved observation systems to capture future environmental change,

— a continued spirit of exploration into new frontiers of science,

— a new and inspired generation of scientifically literate citizens and leaders,

— an enhanced level of international cooperation to address global scale issues.

Thank you for your time. I’d be happy to answer any questions.

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

BIOGRAPHY FOR ROBIN ELIZABETH BELL

Born: May 29, 1958, Keene, New Hampshire, U.S. Citizen

(A) PROFESSIONAL PREPARATION:

1977–1980 Middlebury College, B.A. (magna cum laude), Geology, 1980

1982–1989 Columbia University, M.S., M. Phil, Ph.D., May 1989

2006 Honorary Doctor of Science Degree Middlebury College

(B) APPOINTMENTS:

1999–present Doherty Senior Research Scientist, Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University (LDEO); Director, Columbia University Earth Institute’s Center for River and Estuaries (2003–present); Director, Earth Institute ADVANCE Initiative (2004–present)

1994–2000 Co-Director, Support Office for Aerogeophysical Research, (SOAR), Institute for Geophysics, University of Texas at Austin

1996–1999 Research Scientist, LDEO

1991–1996 Associate Research Scientist, LDEO

1989–1991 Post-Doctoral Research Associate, LDEO

1982–1989 Graduate Research Assistant, LDEO

1980–1982 Geophysicist, U.S.G.S., Marine Office, Woods Hole, MA.

(C) PUBLICATIONS:

Related Publications:

2006 Bell, R.E., M. Studinger, M.A. Fahnestock, and C.A. Shuman, Tectonically

controlled subglacial lakes on the flanks of the Gamburtsev Subglacial Mountains, East Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett. 33 (2) L02504 10.1029/

2005GL025207.

2005 R.E. Bell, M. Studinger, A. Tikku, J.D. Castello, Ancient Ice and Subglacial

Lake Environments: Lake Vostok as an Example. In: Life in Ancient Ice Proc.,

edited by J.D. Castello, and S.O. Rogers Princeton University Press, ISBN: 0–

691–07475–5, pp. 251–267.

2004 Studinger, R.E. Bell, A.A. Tikku, Estimating the depth and shape of subglacial Lake Vostok’s water cavity from aerogravity data, Geophys. Res. Lett. 31,

doi:10.1029/2004GL019801.

2003 M. Studinger, R.E. Bell, G.D. Karner, A.A. Tikku, J.W. Holt, D.L. Morse, T.G.

Richter, S.D. Kempf, M.E. Peters, D.D. Blankenship, R.E. Sweeney and V.L.

Rystrom, Ice cover, landscape setting, and geological framework of Lake

Vostok, East Antarctica, Earth and Planetary Science Letters 205(3–4), pp.

195–210.

2004 M. Studinger., Bell, R.E., Buck, W.R., Karner,G.D., and Blankenship, D.D.,

Sub-ice geology inland of the Transantarctic Mountains in light of new

aerogeophysical data, Earth Planet. 220, pp. 391–408.

Other Significant Publications

2005 Bell, R.E., Studinger, M., Karner, G.D., Finn, C.A., and Blankenship, D.D.,

Identifying Major Sedimentary Basins Beneath the West Antarctic Ice Sheet

from Aeromagnetic Data Analysis, in Antarctica, Contributions to Global

Earth Science, Proceedings of the 9th ISAES, Springer Verlag, pp. 117–121.

2002 R.E. Bell, M. Studinger, A. Tikku, G.K.C. Clarke, M.M. Gutner, C. Meertens,

Origin and fate of Lake Vostok water frozen to the base of the East Antarctic

ice sheet, Nature 417, pp. 307–310, 2002.

2001 M. Studinger., Bell, R.E., Blankenship, D.D., Finn, C.A., Arko, R.A., Morse,

D.L., and Joughin, I. Subglacial Sediments: A Regional Geological Template

for Ice Flow in West Antarctica, Geophys. Res. Lett. 28(18), pp. 3493–3496,

2001.

1998 R.E. Bell, D.D. Blankenship, C.A. Finn, D. Morse, T. Scambos, J.M. Brozena,

and S.M. Hodge, Influence of Subglacial Geology on the Onset of a West Antarctic Ice Stream from Aerogeophysical Observations, Nature 394, pp. 58–62.

1993 D.D. Blankenship, R.E. Bell, S.M. Hodge, J.M. Brozena, J.C. Behrendt, C.A.

Finn, Active volcanism beneath the West Antarctic ice sheet and implications

for ice-sheet stability, Nature 361, pp. 526–529.

57

(D) SYNERGISTIC ACTIVITIES

(i) Committees:

2004–present Member, ICSU WMO IPY Joint Committee

2003–2004 Co-Chair for the ICSU International Polar Year 2007/8 Planning Group

2002–present Chair, Polar Research Board, National Academy of Sciences Polar

Research Board (member 2001–present)

1999–present Steering Committee, SCAR Committee on Subglacial Lake Exploration

1998–present U.S. representative to the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research Geophysics Section.

(ii) Recent Invited Talks:

Antarctic Treaty Meeting in South Africa—IPY, IPY Keynote Speakers for XXVIII

SCAR Meeting Bremen, Germany, Interagency Working Group for IPY—Guest Lecturer, American Museum of Natural History-Biodiversity, New York State Department of Dredging and Disposal, SCAR Lake Vostok Meeting, AAAS—Frontiers in

Polar Science, New York State Department of Conservation, Institute for Ecosystem

Studies, National Maritime Historical Society, NY League of Conservation Voters

Hudson Forum.

(iii) Instructor:

Barnard College, ‘‘Exploring the Poles,’’ Columbia, ‘‘Geophysics.’’

(iv) Other Activities:

Reviewer—Geophysics, NSF, NASA and JGR.

(E) COLLABORATORS

(i) Collaborators: M. Bain (Cornell), D. Blankenship (UTIG), J. Brozena (NRL), S.

Cande (SIO), R. Cerrato (SUNY), G. Clarke (UBC), S. Findlay (IES), C. Finn

(USGS), R. Flood (SUNY), C.A. Raymond (JPL), M. Siegert (Bristol), D. Strayer

(IES), U. ten Brink (USGS).

(ii) Advisors: A.B. Watts (Oxford).

(iii) Advisees: Vicki Childers (NRL).

58

59

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Bell.

Dr. Manahan.

STATEMENT OF DR. DONAL T. MANAHAN, PROFESSOR OF

BIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA

Dr. MANAHAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member

Hooley. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you

today. And thank you, too, for your fine comments about my efforts

as a teacher. I hope I won’t let you down here this morning in a

couple of moments.

Chairman INGLIS. The pressure is on, isn’t it?

Dr. MANAHAN. Indeed, yes.

My name is Donal Manahan. I am a professor of biological

sciences at the University of Southern California. I have conduced

research as a chief scientist and field-team project leader in Antarctica for over 20 years. What I am going to talk about today is

the upcoming IPY, the International Polar Year. And I am going

to do that under the context of four questions: what are the most

critical unanswered questions that we need to resolve during this

IPY, why educational and research activities during IPY are important to us here in the United States, and the general societal benefits from IPY. I will focus most of my comments on Antarctica, as

other colleagues on the panel here today will discuss other aspects

and regions of polar research.

Think of this. Even after centuries of geographic exploration of

the human spirit, it was really only about 50 years ago that we

came to grapple with the seventh continent, as illustrated here by

this National Geographic front page of this magazine published in

the 1960s where it says, ‘‘We are filling in the blank spaces in Antarctica. The map we are showing is a revolution in understanding

this seventh continent.’’ And that, frankly, 40 to 50 years ago was

in—within my lifetime. That is a remarkable issue that Antarctica

has taken us this long to really get a handle on. And this is just

describing its geography.

Shoot forward 40 years later, and what we are learning from this

continent and for polar regions in general, is illustrated on this

front page of Science Magazine published a few years ago, and it

discusses polar science in general and its importance. and the lessons we have learned from the studies of the pole is two-fold: first,

it has really surprised scientists at how quickly things have

changed down there, the ‘‘ozone hole’’ 20 years ago really dumbfounded and surprised many scientists it occurred so fast; secondly,

issues of rising temperatures collapsing ice sheets. All of these

issues, which have really come to the forefront in the last few years

in a consensus among the scientific community, are of enormous societal benefit, no matter where you live on this planet.

As it is picked up in terms of explaining this to the public in general, I draw to your attention this interesting issue of Time Magazine, which discussed the whole concept and put it very bluntly on

the front page: ‘‘Be Worried. Be Very Worried’’, to use their words.

This threatens your health. It affects you, your kids, and your kids’

kids. And they introduced the concept of a tipping point.

Now when I was in graduate school 20 years ago, I was informed

that these kinds of changes took thousands to perhaps millions of

60

years to occur. Now we know they can occur on timescales of perhaps 10 to 100 years, the lifetimes—life spans of single human

beings. This is the concept of the tipping point. We need to know

more about these tipping points to have any hope of being able to

predict the massive changes that may occur on our planet.

What have we learned in the last 50 years?

Well, if we go back 50 years to the International Geophysical

Year, this illustrates, I think, two points in a nutshell. Firstly, it

was mainly focused on the geosciences, trying to understand Earth

as a system. And it introduced, also, a very important concept.

Look at this beautiful, lonely planet sitting out in dark space.

These things had a huge impact on me as a kid, actually as a kid

growing up in Ireland, with the Apollo programs, seeing America

as the dominant player in science at the time and to this day,

watching to see how this whole concept of understanding planet

Earth was being so pioneered by the scientists here in the United

States when I was a young kid.

When I look at this now where we are going in the future, what

I see IPY doing is building upon that but expanding it in some very

important ways: introducing the concept of cross-disciplinary research; looking at the life sciences, the chemical sciences, the physical sciences, and also, most importantly, the social sciences; and

looking at all of these in the context of complex systems, spanning

all of the way from bio-systems, whether it be a human or organisms where we would look at, perhaps, issues of adaptation at the

cellular and the molecular level, all of the way up through ecosystems of the geosystems. They are all interconnected.

It is very important to emphasize the educational issues here.

And here, if you may allow me to put in a personal note, I am a

father of two young boys in school. I am a scientist. I am a professor. And I am also highly aware of the fact, especially as an immigrant to this country, that I have been treated very well. I have

received taxpayers’ money for a long time to conduct research in

these isolated environments. I feel very passionately about needing

to communicate this back into the general community and the public at large. And here we have a great opportunity. Of the thousands of lectures that I have probably given in a quarter of a century of my time in America, few have the impact on little kids all

of the way up to retired citizens as when I talk about my polar research. I do genomics, molecular biology, biochemistry. ‘‘Yes, yes,

yes, Professor Manahan, but what about your polar research?’’ This

really grabs people, as I think it did when you visited the ice yourself. And that is a big opportunity we have with IPY to educate the

U.S. population in the issues of excitement in science, technology,

and literacy.

But we also have a very large challenge, and that challenge is

how do we train the next generation? It is very easy for me to sit

here and say, ‘‘Think across disciplines: physics, chemistry, biology,

social sciences, and off you go and do your stuff, next generation.’’

Our challenge is to find new, innovative ways to keep Americans

ahead of the international competitive race in science and learning

and education. And one way we are going to do this during International Polar Year is we are going to bring some of the best and

the brightest students in the United States to Antarctica to have

61

the experience that you had, to be there, not just for four days, but

for a month or so, to live and work and understand this environment, to actually do on-the-ice training. And we think this is a very

important component.

[Slide.]

The pictures you see here are some programs we have done in

the past. NSF has taken a remarkable lead in this over previous

years. The first country in the world to offer a graduate-level

course on the seventh continent was sponsored by the leadership

of the National Science Foundation. All of the students you see

here were part of previous courses, with the obvious exception of

the penguins, of course, who were less cooperative.

If I may conclude with a couple of comments.

Firstly, I want to say that, in my opinion, the timing of launching a new International Polar Year is perfect. The reasons for this

go far beyond that it is just merely the 50th anniversary of IGY,

although that, in itself, is a very valued reason. The general public

is certainly highly aware that the study of polar regions is critical

to understanding our Earth. Scientific interest is very high in

wanting to have accurate information about polar regions and their

role in climate stability and global processes. That is the key issue

with respect to societal impact. In addition, of course, we have

unique educational opportunities that are both vast and exciting.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I would be

pleased to address any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Manahan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONAL T. MANAHAN

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the

opportunity to speak to you today as you consider the scientific agenda and the federal role for the International Polar Year.

My name is Donal Manahan. I am a Professor of Biological Sciences at the University of Southern California (USC). I have conduced research as a chief scientist

and field-team project leader in Antarctica for over 20 years. I have previously

served as the Chair of the National Research Council’s Polar Research Board for

three years (1999 to 2002). The National Research Council is the operating arm of

the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, chartered by Congress in 1863 to advise

the government on matters of science and technology. In addition to my teaching

and research experiences at my university, I have served as Director of environmental science programs for both undergraduate education and graduate research;

have been the Chair of the USC Department of Biological Sciences; and Dean of Research for the USC College of Letters, Arts, and sciences.

My comments today will address the upcoming International Polar Year (IPY,

March 2007 through March 2009) in the context of (i) what has been learned from

polar research and IPYs in the past; (ii) what are the most critical unanswered

questions that we hope to resolve during this IPY; (iii) why educational and research activities during IPY are important to us here in the U.S.; and (iv) the societal benefits of IPY. I will focus most of my comments on Antarctica. I believe my

colleagues on this panel will address other aspects and regions of polar research.

Regarding current impact from past IPYs, accurate scientific knowledge and current public awareness of the importance of polar regions to our planet as a whole

is still a fairly recent occurrence. For instance, in 1963 National Geographic released a map of Antarctica that [quote] ‘‘revolutionizes our conception of its geography.’’ Taken in the context of the many centuries of geographic exploration of our

Earth, it is quite remarkable that it was only about 40 years ago that more accurate

maps of Antarctica emerged. Such maps still continue to be refined to this day. Antarctica has long been considered to be the ‘‘last and loneliest of the seven continents’’ (National Geographic, 1963). Following the ‘‘Heroic Age’’ of early exploVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
62

ration of polar regions in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries, the modern understanding of Antarctica began in earnest with the great international effort of IPY3—

The International Geophysical Year of 1957–58. Yet the growth of awareness of the

importance of polar regions by many educators, scientists, and the public in general

(i.e., by those not already living in polar regions) is a fairly recent occurrence. I will

expand further on this point, as I believe it is important in the context and timing

of the next IPY.

Both polar regions of our planet are now known to be capable of undergoing very

rapid change. In the mid-1980s, the rapid opening of the ‘‘Ozone Hole’’ over Antarctica was certainly one of the great surprises in environmental science during the

latter part of the 20th Century. Rapid rates of change for important processes in

polar regions, such as ice sheet stability, ozone chemistry and biological rates, have

surprised many scientists. Announcements of these rapid changes have also surprised the public at large. Today phrases and concepts such as ‘‘Abrupt Climate

Change’’ and ‘‘Surprises’’ regarding our environment are now in common use in scientific publications, in media presentations, and in educational settings. The recent

National Academy Press publication on ‘‘Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises’’ provides an excellent report on this subject of rapid change. There is no

doubt in my mind that further research in polar regions is absolutely essential for

understanding our planet and for being better able to predict environmental change

and its impact on life on Earth.

The specific research questions that will be addressed during this next IPY are

still under review through our own national agencies and through collaborations

with international partners. As I believe will be highlighted by others during this

hearing, the current list of potential educational and research projects is extensive.

Here I would like to compliment NSF, the National Academies’ Polar Research

Board and other polar scientific groups and agencies for doing an excellent job of

coordinating these complex national and international activities and for helping

raise awareness of the importance of polar research.

Regarding the approach to undertaking future research, one important point that

I do want to emphasize is that the next IPY will differ from previous ones in enhancing our understanding of polar regions through novel, cross-disciplinary research. For instance, during the International Geophysical Year in the 1950s, the

focus then was more on the physical sciences. For the next IPY, the scientific focus

will be more cross-disciplinary—involving biological, chemical, physical, and social

sciences to better understand polar regions. In my own area of expertise, the biological sciences, I foresee an exciting interplay between the physical and the life

sciences. An example of such collaboration is that as physical scientists provide a

better understanding and predictability of temperature change, biologists will be

better able to undertake more realistic experiments to define biological responses of

organisms to such changes (e.g., temperature adaptation, timing of life cycles, and

other ecological changes). Research during IPY will certainly span from the scale of

individual molecules and genes to the larger scale of whole oceans and continents.

A point that is not often widely appreciated is that most of the potential habitats

where life might exist on our planet are cold. By volume, the ‘‘Cold Biosphere’’ represents approximately 90 percent of the living biosphere on Earth, with temperatures less that four degrees C (‘‘home refrigerator’’ temperatures). Most of this cold

biosphere is in the deep sea (79 percent by volume of the biosphere: Broad, 1998)

and in polar regions. Further biological research in polar regions will substantially

increase our understanding of the ‘‘Cold Biosphere’’ and its role in the sustainability

of life on Earth. New research themes under consideration for IPY, such as NSF’s

‘‘Life in the Cold and Dark,’’ will be key to understanding critical questions regarding life in polar regions and in the cold biosphere in general.

A major success of past IPYs, and in particular IGY, was the important legacy

that continued into the future from training the next generation of scientific leaders

in the U.S. This legacy of excellent science and training from IGY, started about

50 years ago, is still active today. For the next IPY, we must strongly encourage

the active involvement and advanced training of the next generation of polar scientists. This, of course, must include outreach and educational activities to students

of all ages, and to the general public, to encourage interest and careers in science

and engineering. Additionally, during IPY we need to develop innovative educational and training programs designed to bring young scientists at the Ph.D. level

to polar regions. We need to actively engage these young scientists in polar research

by having them actually work ‘‘on the ice’’ during IPY. To this end, an international

training program in Antarctic science (NSF-funded: ‘‘Integrative Biology and Adaptation of Antarctic Organisms’’) is planned for January 2008 at the U.S. Antarctic

Program’s McMurdo Station in Antarctica. This program (that I have directed in the

past and will continue to direct in IPY 2008) will involve bringing highly-qualified

63

young investigators, selected from universities all over the U.S. and some from

international institutions, to Antarctica for the first time in their scientific careers.

This next generation of potential leaders in polar science will be provided with intense training programs during which they will be exposed to the unique research

opportunities in Antarctica. Training these individuals to conduct science in Antarctica ‘‘on the ice’’ will be a very different experience from learning about polar science

from traditional classroom settings in the U.S.

I believe the societal benefits from undertaking further polar research will be immense. First, Antarctica holds a fascination for the general public. Second, there has

been a dramatic recent increase in the public’s awareness of the importance of polar

regions in impacting events on a global scale (e.g., strong media coverage of ice

sheet stability, with obvious implications for potential sea-level rise globally). Third,

further research in polar regions will yield important insights into the connectivity

of polar regions to the rest of Earth. In fact, the polar regions often drive fundamental processes in other parts of the world (e.g., major ocean currents and oceanic

circulation patterns, with global implications for climate stability).

As a Principal Investigator and polar scientist myself, I will add a few comments

here from my own experiences. In my more than 20 years of working in Antarctica,

I have never before personally experienced such a widespread and intense interest

by the general public in research in polar regions. In addition to increased interest

in polar biology at scientific conferences and professional meetings, I receive numerous requests to speak about polar science at career days of elementary, middle, and

high schools; to speak in a wide range of university settings, including discipline

groups outside of the natural sciences; to address communities of retired citizens;

and to present at natural history and community science museums. I attribute

much of this recent surge in public interest about the state of our environment to

be the result of highly publicized scientific discoveries in physics, chemistry and biology of polar regions.

I will conclude my comments here today by saying that, in my opinion, the timing

is now most appropriate to launch a new IPY. The reasons for this go far beyond

the timing of the 50th anniversary of IGY, although that is a valued reason too. The

general public is certainly highly aware that the study of polar regions is critical

to understanding our Earth. Scientific interest is high in wanting to have accurate

information about polar regions and their role in climate stability and global processes.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. I would be pleased

to address any questions that the members of the Subcommittee may have.

References:

Broad, W.J., 1998. The Universe Below: Discovering the Secrets of the Deep Sea, 432

pp.

National Geographic, 1963. Filling in Antarctica’s Blank Spaces, Volume 123: 297–

298.

National Research Council, 2002. Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. 230 pp.

BIOGRAPHY FOR DONAL T. MANAHAN

Education and Professional Preparation:

Undergraduate Institution: BA, from Trinity College, Univ. of Dublin, Ireland; Area

of Focus: Zoology; Years: 1972–1976.

Graduate Institution: Ph.D., from University of Wales, Bangor, UK; Area of Focus:

Marine Physiology; Years: 1976–1980. Advisor: Prof. D.J. Crisp, F.R.S.

Postdoctoral Institution: University of California, Irvine; Area of Focus: Cellular

Physiology; Years: 1980–1983. Advisor: Dr. Grover C. Stephens.

Academic Appointments:

1983 to present: Assistant, to Associate, to Full Professor. Department of Biological

Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California 90089–

0371.

Sept. 1992 to Sept. 1993: Visiting Faculty, Division of Biology, California Institute

of Technology, Pasadena, California (sabbatical year in the laboratory of Dr.

Eric Davidson).

64

Some Senior Administrative and Service Positions Held:

• NSF, Internal Advisory Committee, Director of NSF’s Office of Polar Programs (appointed February 2006).

• Chair, U.S. National Academies’ National Research Council’s Polar Research

Board (1999–2002) (member of Board, 1995–2002).

• NSF, Decadal Group—Planning Committee for Ocean Sciences 2000 (1998–

2001).

• Dean of Research, USC College of Letters, Arts and Sciences (July 2000–June

2005).

• Chair/Vice Chair, USC Department of Biological Sciences (Sept 1999–July

2000).

• Director, USC Research Division of Marine Environmental Biology (1995–

2000).

• Science Director, USC’s Environmental Studies Program (1995–2000).

Recent Awards:

For Service (2000 to present):

2000—a 6000-foot mountain in Antarctica named ‘‘Manahan Peak’’ for contributions

to Antarctic research, education, and service to the science community.

2001—appointed a lifetime ‘‘National Associate’’ of the United States’ National Academies in recognition of [quote] ‘‘extraordinary service to the National Academies

in their role as advisors to the Nation in matters of science, engineering, and

health.’’

2005—University of Southern California, College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Award for ‘‘Outstanding Leadership and Service.’’

Recent Awards for Research Papers (2000 to present):

Pace, D. and Manahan, D.T., 2000. Genetic variance and feeding rates in bivalve

larvae. National Shellfisheries Association Annual Meeting, Seattle, Washington. Best Paper Award.

Green, A.J. and D.T. Manahan, 2004. Metabolic efficiency in fast-growing bivalve

larvae. Society of Integrative and Comparative Biology. Best Paper Award in

Comparative Physiology and Biochemistry.

Green, A.J. and D.T. Manahan, D.T., 2004. High growth efficiencies in Antarctic larvae. Ocean Science Research Conference, American Society of Limnology and

Oceanography. Outstanding Poster Award.

Yu, P.C., A.L. Moran and D.T. Manahan, 2004. Genetic variation in survival and

growth recovery following prolonged starvation of invertebrate larvae. Ocean

Science Research Conference, American Society of Limnology and Oceanography. Outstanding Poster Award.

Meyer, E., D. Hedgecock, and D.T. Manahan, 2006. Genomic analysis of growth in

larvae of the Crassostrea gigas. Annual Meeting of National Shellfisheries Association, Monterey, California. Best Paper Award.

Recent Grants and Funded Research Projects (active during 2000 to

present):

1. NSF. Larval Dispersal at Hydrothermal Vents. Co-investigators: L. Mullineaux

(Woods Hole, MA), C. Young (Harbor Branch Oce. Inst.). Duration: April 1997 to

Mar 2002.

2. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Improving Pacific Oyster Broodstocks for Aquaculture.

Co-investigators: D. Hedgecock (USC), C. Langdon (Oregon State Univ.). Duration: April 1997 to March 2002.

3. NSF. Integrative Biology and Adaptation of Antarctic Marine Organisms. Duration: March 1998 to February 2006.

4. W.M. Keck Foundation. Experimental Research in Evolutionary Biology. Co-investigators: M. Waterman, N. Arnheim, M. Nordborg (all at USC). Duration: January 2002 to February 2006.

5. NSF. Energetics of Protein Metabolism during Development of Antarctic

Echinoderms. Duration: April 2002 to March 2007.

65

6. NSF. Genomic Approaches to Understanding Variation in Marine Larval Recruitment. Co-investigators: D. Hedgecock (USC), E. Hofmann (Old Dominion), E.

Powell (Rutgers). Duration: July 2004 to June 2008.

7. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Crossbreeding Pacific oysters for high yield. Co-investigators: D. Hedgecock (USC), C. Langdon (Oregon State Univ.). Duration: July

2004 to June 2008.

8. NSF. Integrative Biology and Adaptation of Antarctic Marine Organisms. Graduate training grant with co-investigators. Duration: August 2005 to September

2010.

Five Selected Publications (past five years—2001 to 2006):

Pace, D.A., A.G. Marsh, P.K. Leong, A.J. Green, D. Hedgecock, and D.T. Manahan,

2006. Physiological bases of genetically determined variation in growth of marine invertebrate larvae: A study of growth heterosis in the bivalve Crassostrea

gigas. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 335: 188–209.

Pace, D.A. and D.T. Manahan, 2006. Fixed metabolic costs for highly variable rates

of protein synthesis in sea urchin embryos and larvae. Journal of Experimental

Biology 209: 158–170.

Moran, A.L. and D.T. Manahan, 2004. Physiological recovery from prolonged starvation in larvae of Pacific oyster Crassostrea gigas. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 306: 17–36.

Marsh, A.G., L.S. Mullineaux, C.M. Young and D.T. Manahan, 2001. Larval dispersal potential of the tubeworm Riftia pachyptila at deep-sea hydrothermal

vents. Nature 411: 77–80.

Marsh, A.G., R. Maxson and D.T. Manahan, 2001. High macromolecular synthesis

with low metabolic cost in Antarctic sea urchin embryos. Science 291: 1950–

1952.

Five other selected publications (2000 and before):

Marsh, A.G., P.K.K. Leong, and D.T. Manahan, 2000. Gene expression and enzyme

activities of the sodium pump during sea urchin development: Implications for

indices of physiological state. Biological Bulletin 199: 100–107.

Vavra, J.S. and D.T. Manahan, 1999. Protein metabolism in lecithotrophic larvae

(Gastropoda: Haliotis rufescens). Biological Bulletin 196: 177–186.

Hoegh-Guldberg, O. and D.T. Manahan, 1995. Coulometric measurement of oxygen

consumption during development of marine invertebrate embryos and larvae.

Journal of Experimental Biology 198: 19–30.

Manahan, D.T., 1990. Adaptations by invertebrate larvae for nutrient acquisition

from seawater. American Zoologist 30: 147–160.

Manahan, D.T., J.P. Davis, and G.C. Stephens, 1983. Bacteria-free sea urchin larvae: Selective uptake of neutral amino acids from seawater. Science 220: 204–

206.

Teaching and Service Activities:

Research Statement: My work bridges the fields of animal physiology, developmental biology, and molecular biology—all studied in an environmental context.

Most animals have complex life history strategies and early developmental stages

(embryos, larvae) that are, in general, less well understood in comparison to adult

phases of life cycles. I study developmental biology from the perspective of environmental biochemistry and physiology, in particular how developmental stages ‘‘work’’

in contrasting and ‘extreme’ environments. Some of the implications of such research for basic science, include—understanding the molecular biology and physiology of growth and development of cells and animals, and defining the biological

mechanisms that set differences in metabolism. There are also ‘applied’ aspects to

this research—e.g., the search for ways to improve the production of food from the

ocean for human consumption, through the application of ‘‘hybrid vigor’’ to enhance

growth rates of marine animals (cf. ‘‘Green Revolution’’ in agriculture) and the

search for novel biochemical processes in ‘extreme’ environments (Antarctica).

Teaching Statement: I have taught at the university level for over 25 years. The

undergraduate courses for which I specifically developed new curricular materials

include: Animal Biochemistry and Physiology; Biological Diversity and Adaptation;

Cellular Physiology; Humans and their Environment; and Introductory Biology (latter are large courses with several hundred students). Graduate (Ph.D.-level) courses

66

include: Developmental Biology; Integrative Biology and Evolutionary Adaptation;

Physiology and Metabolic Plasticity; Oceanography and Biology; and History of

Science. For over a decade, I have also directed international biology training programs for Ph.D.-level students and postdoctoral-level scientists in Antarctica. These

NSF-funded educational programs have focused on themes of major and current interest in environmental science (e.g., global warming and the ‘‘ozone hole’’ ) and biological adaptations to environmental change, studied from different biological levels

of analyses (from whole-organism to single genes). The individuals who have participated in these training programs were from ∼120 different research institutions,

representing over 20 different countries.

67

68

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Manahan.

Mr. McCaffrey.

STATEMENT OF MR. MARK S. McCAFFREY, ASSOCIATE SCIENTIST AND SCIENCE COMMUNICATIONS EXPERT, COOPERATIVE INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ENVIRONMENTAL

SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, BOULDER

Mr. MCCAFFREY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the

Committee. It is a huge honor to be here.

And my name is Mark McCaffrey. I am an Associate Scientist at

the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member of the IPY

Education, Outreach, and Communication Subcommittee, or IPY

EOC, as we call it for short. And over the next few minutes, I

would like to give you a whirlwind tour of some of the things that

are planned for Education, Outreach, and Communication efforts

with the International Polar Year. I feel like I am a little bit of an

anomaly here, because I have never actually been to a polar place.

I grew up in Colorado, and the closest I have been to the polar experience, I think, is up on the Continental Divide in the middle of

winter, which gives you a little taste, I think, of the polar experience.

But over the next couple minutes, I just want to give you a little

taste of what is in store with our plans for the Education, Outreach, and Communication efforts, particularly at the international

level.

You could write a book about the impact of past IPY and polar

science on society, and actually, Michael Robinson from the University of Hartford has written a book called ‘‘The Coldest Crucible’’

that just came out that I think some of you—some of us in this

room might be interested in checking out.

But I recently did a Google search on ‘‘International Year’’, and

I got 1.6 billion responses. And I had to scroll all of the way down

to number 55 to get to International Polar Year, IPY.org. And of

course, from the IPY.org website, we linked to all of the national

websites, including the U.S. site. But it is good to remember that

the very first international year was the International Polar Year.

We have thousands of international years out there these days, but

IPY was the original, and it was the vision of Karl Weyprecht, who

in the 1870s was frustrated by the fact that international collaborations were not very successful because nations were going off on

their own and maybe doing a little bit of science but it was much

more in the exploratory and territory acquisition mode, if you will.

So Weyprecht had the vision of international cooperation in collecting data, and the first IPY in the United States was actually

led by Abraham Lincoln’s son, Robert Todd Lincoln. And there

were a lot of incredible adventures in research and some mishaps

along the way. But in my mind, I think of IPYs, starting with the

very first one, and then, of course, the second one in the 1930s, and

then IGY in the 1950s as benchmarks that we can look back and

see the evolution of science and technology, particularly in the

polar regions, of course. But the world has changed at each IPY.

And I would like to thank—and I think there is some evidence that

the IPYs have changed the world in small ways and maybe even,

looking back, in some profound ways.

69

The second IPY actually focused a lot on communication, wireless

communication issues, because in polar regions, the ionosphere and

the magnetosphere don’t behave the way they do in other parts of

the planet. And of course, we talk a lot about IGY and the fact that

Sputnik and Explorer programs were a part of that effort, but I

think of it also as the launch of the modern science education

movement, certainly in the United States, efforts led by the National Academies and the films that they produced and the curriculum materials that they helped develop and the magnificent

posters that I think some of you have seen around. These are all

fantastic artifacts that we can actually take—make use of today. In

fact, on the National Academy’s website, they—you can download

one of the curriculum materials from IGY. And these are terrific

resources for teachers and students today.

There are so many education outreach activities planned. How

many of them actually will be funded and deployed is a question

at this point, but there has been a lot of work through a series of

workshops that—the first one, ‘‘Bridging the Poles,’’ that Robin and

Stephanie Ferman organized that was held here in 2004 in Washington. Then the ‘‘Poles Together’’ workshop that we held in Boulder last summer. There have been, also, workshops in Europe that

were inspirited by the workshops here to try to come up with an

integrated approach internationally for some of these education efforts. The International Polar Foundation has been very involved.

And of course, their—they have designed the Belgian station in

Antarctica that is zero emissions, and it will be built during the

IPY. We had an online workshop funded through NSF and NOAA

back in March. And one of the outcomes of the ice workshop was

a series of polar literacy themes that evolved. And I have got more

details on this in the written testimony. But peoples and stories

were something that came up over and over again. There is so

much passion and the whole narrative approach of being able to

share information through stories is an extremely powerful way to

communicate.

I have touched on just a few of the recommendations that have

come out of these workshops in the written comments, but blending

art and science is a very powerful way to communicate to broad audiences. And the use of narrative, as I mentioned before, is extremely powerful. There is—the four themes of research—of education that NSF is funding, we have the honeycomb chart that I

think you all are familiar with, or I hope you will be. And the

United States is involved as leaders on about—over 50 of these 250

projects on here. And then the United States is also a partner on

another 125. So the honeycomb is a powerful outreach tool in itself

that can help teachers find information, learn more about particular projects.

And to sum up here, we have a lot of plans for launch events

during the IPY, the ice hotel up in Sweden has offered to help in

some of the launch events, polar art exhibits. And of course, in

terms of the societal benefits, the polar science is really the tip of

the iceberg. We can foster a scientifically-savvy society, I think,

through IPY efforts and support these international partnerships,

because there is so much power in the polar, if you will, both in

terms of the survival, when you see ‘‘March of the Penguins’’ and

70

‘‘Eight Below’’ and movies like that. There is the emotional resonance that people inherently feel towards polar places. And of

course, the polar perspective challenges us intellectually. These

spectacular images from NASA, the blue marble with a polar perspective, I think, are—they should be on posters in every classroom

in the country with the question: ‘‘What is wrong with this picture?’’ Because as spectacular as these images are, they make it

look like the sun is shining directly down on the poles, which, of

course, is not the case. So I think these can be powerful learning

tools in classrooms.

And with that, I thank you for your time.

[The prepared statement of Mr. McCaffrey follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARK S. MCCAFFREY

POLAR POWER: EDUCATION, OUTREACH AND COMMUNICATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL POLAR YEAR

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Thank you for the

opportunity to speak to you today regarding IPY EOC, education, outreach and communication relating to the International Polar Year. My name is Mark McCaffrey.

I am an Associate Scientist at the University of Colorado at Boulder and a member

of the IPY EOC Subcommittee, which is currently made up of representatives from

eleven of the 66 nations currently participating in IPY. I also have been involved

with organizing several recent IPY EOC-related workshops and will share some of

the findings of these workshops with you in a few minutes. What I’m really here

to talk to you about today is polar power: the potential for IPY and polar people,

places and science, to change the world, as it has in the past.

I am deeply honored to be here today with this esteemed group of polar scientists

and distinguished individuals whose lives were in some way changed by the third

IPY, the International Geophysical Year of half a century ago. But I confess I feel

like an anomaly here. I am not really part of the polar research community. I’ve

never been above the Arctic or Antarctic circles. My background is in environmental

science education, and over the years I have worked with a variety to research scientists to develop strategies and programs to help translate their research for nonspecialists and, hopefully, make it more accessible and meaningful to students,

teachers, and the general public. But I’ve long been fascinated by the power of the

polar realm to challenge us at deep emotional, intellectual, even, spiritual levels.

I am also a child of the IGY, and I remember watching some of the IGY films

that the National Academies produced, and reading about scientists in Antarctica

in my Weekly Reader newsletter in the early 1960s. I also recall it was a somewhat

terrifying time, with ‘‘duck and cover’’ air-raid drills at school, and neighbors up the

street building bomb shelters in preparation for possible Soviet missile attacks. And

in the midst of it all, scientists around the world embarked to the ends of the world,

measuring change, sharing data, developing networks and relationships that led to

massive jumps in our understanding of the Earth as a system, and fostered a robust

international scientific community that, while still dependent on national support,

transcends national agendas and benefits our global society.

In my opinion, the upcoming International Polar Year, if sufficiently funded and

well coordinated at grassroots, national and international levels, will be a revolutionary catalyst for informing, engaging and inspiring a more scientifically savvy

and literate society, forging new and strengthening existing national and international collaborations and partnerships, leveraging the 125 legacy of IPY—the

first, the original international year—and building on the tremendous preparation

and energy that has gone into planning the education, outreach and communication

efforts for IPY.

But with less than six months before the launch of this International Polar Year,

there is no guarantee that the rich potential will be realized. Without appropriate

funding and coordination, the International Polar Year risks becoming yet another

well-intentioned program insufficiently supported, yet another international year in

a sea of other international years that will fail to live up to its potential. For IPY

to make the splash that is could, that it should, for it to trigger a ripple effect lasting for generations to come, it is urgent that the United States, which has played

71

a crucial, integral role in planning IPY research and EOC, steps up and enables this

important endeavor to achieve its vision and goals.

IPY EOC is certainly about explaining what scientists know—and don’t know—

about the accelerated surge of melting snow and ice and its global significance. It

is also all about learning from the experiences and insights of the over four million

people living in the Arctic. And it is about examining the carbon cycle and how it

relates to seasonal cycles, the hydrosphere, the biosphere, the atmosphere, and its

intrinsic role in the global climate system, which is amplified in the polar regions

due to their seasonal extremes.

Fundamentally, IPY EOC is about exploring how polar regions and polar research

is vitally important to all people on Earth. But IPY is also about exploring the role

of technology in our society, and demystifying and articulating how science itself is

conducted, how data are collected, analyzed, modeled, reviewed and communicated.

It is about showcasing the state of the art research and phenomenal technology of

modern scientific research into the planet’s complexities via high-definition television programs, 3D Imax movies, video logs and web casts from teachers at the

poles, radio programs, science center and children’s museum exhibits, and good, old

fashioned lectures from scientists and stories from polar people with their compelling, tales of adventure and insights into what they have learned about our changing planet.

Running from March 2007 to March 2009, the International Polar Year 2007–

2008 will involve hundreds of projects and thousands of scientists and will leverage

billions of dollars of infrastructure and prior research. Organizers of this IPY recognized from the start that ultimate success of the upcoming IPY would depend as

much on effectively communicating the project’s activities and findings to broad audiences as it would on the quantity or quality of the science. Just as IGY is remembered, at least in the United States, for helping to inspire a new generation of scientists through the films, media and posters as much as it is for launching the first

Earth observing satellites and breakthroughs in science and politics, the legacy and

success of the upcoming IPY may be measured in the public realm by its societal

impacts from EOC efforts more than it will its data archives or scientific publications.

I have been specifically asked to address three questions. The first is ‘‘what has

been the impact of polar research and IPYs on students ad the public in the past?’’

Obviously, this is an enormous question which one could write a book about. And

in fact, Michael Robinson, a history professor at the University of Hartford, has recently written a book entitled ‘‘The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture,’’ which explores the phenomenon of ‘‘Arctic Fever’’ that was part of

19th century American culture. I am not a historian, but I do have a few thoughts

about the legacy of the first IPYs. Most significantly, IPY is the original international year, dating back to the first IPY in 1882–83. Today, there are literally

thousands of international years. A recent Google search on the phrase ‘‘international years’’ netted over 1.5 billion results, and down at number fifty-five was

IPY.org, the homepage from the IPY Programme Office in Cambridge, UK, which

links to the U.S. and other national IPY Web sites.

The concept of an international polar year, which has become the model for the

proliferation of international years, was originally the vision of Lt. Karl Weyprecht,

an Arctic explorer and scientist in the Austro-Hungarian navy. The idea was born

out of the frustration that Weyprecht experienced on several Arctic expeditions

when he realized that nationally led efforts to explore and acquire territory were

not the ideal way to collect observational data of polar processes that would help

scientists understand global climate dynamics. In Weyprecht’s view, the only way

to really understand polar regions and their global connections would be through

a coordinated, international effort of at least one full year of seasonal fluctuations

that would include the extremes of winter, when solar radiation was minimal, and

life in the cold and dark the most challenging.

Weyprecht called on nations to put aside their national agendas for the sake of

scientific progress and an improved understanding of the natural world. While international scientific collaboration was not unheard of at the time, the concept of an

intensive, coordinated, year-long research effort was. Participants agreed to share

their data and use compatible formats. They built a network of Arctic stations with

the aim of better understanding of global climate processes, polar geography and

seasonal processes, and phenomenon such as auroras.

Weyprecht died in 1881 before he was able to see his vision of international year

fulfilled, but others, especially Georg von Neumayer, kept the vision alive. In the

United States, Abraham Lincoln’s son, Robert Todd Lincoln, then Secretary of War,

headed the U.S. activities during the first IPY, which included establishing several

stations, one at Point Barrow, Alaska.

72

I mention the history of IPY and its 125 year legacy and lineage not only because

it has become the model for the plethora of international years that have spun-off

from Weyprecht’s vision, but also because we can use the history of IPY science and

technology to support the aims articulated in National Science Standards and other

benchmarks and frameworks that emphasize the importance of inquiry and the history of science. The three past and upcoming IPYs themselves can serve as a conceptual scaffold and timeline to examine at how science and technology, and the world

itself, has changed in a few short generations.

Incidentally, a complete analysis of the meteorological data collected during the

first IPY in the Arctic has not been fully completed until recently when two NOAA

Scientists, Kevin Wood and Jim Overland, completed a thorough analysis which will

be published soon in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Their article, which will be an excellent outreach tool for the upcoming IPY, provides an superb overview of the first IPY and, for the first time, presents a detailed analysis

of the combined Arctic data sets, offering a baseline of Arctic climate at the time.

This analysis will make an excellent ‘‘data story’’ using the data from the first IPY

as a baseline to compare subsequent data. (See Wood & Overland, in press. Also

see Luedecke 2004, The First International Polar Year (1882–83): A big science experiment with small science equipment.)

In the fifty years between the first IPY and the second in 1932-33, the world

transformed in dramatic ways. Alternating current had begun to electrify the world

and radio was an increasingly important communication medium. Internal combustion engines were revolutionizing transportation, including air-travel. The North

and South poles had been reached in races that again drew widespread interest to

the polar regions among young and old alike. The world, with a global population

of two billion, had been through a Great War and devastating influenza pandemic.

And during the second IPY, the United States and other nations were experiencing

severe economic depression. Nevertheless, forty nations managed to participate in

the second IPY and the development of an international network of stations and

community of scientists monitoring weather, auroras and other processes was

furthered.

A significant focus of the Second IPY was the Earth’s ionosphere and

magnetosphere and their relationship to communication and electrical technologies,

an issue that is extremely relevant today with our increased reliance on such technologies. We are currently working with the Stanford Solar Center on a potential

collaboration between IPY and the International Heliophysical Year, IHY (one of

several international years overlapping with the upcoming IPY) to deploy hundreds,

potentially thousands, of ‘‘sudden ionospheric disturbance’’ (SID) monitors to schools

and science clubs around the world. Developed by the Stanford Solar Center, the

SID monitors allow students and amateur scientists to measure the diurnal, seasonal and solar cycle variability of the ionosphere. Such a collaboration would link

IPY history with one of the centerpieces of the upcoming IHY education and outreach efforts.

Twenty-five years after the third IPY, Weyprecht’s IPY model was used in organizing the IGY, which focused on the polar and equatorial regions. Occurring in the

middle of the Cold War, after a second World War and advent of the Atomic age,

IGY not only served as the medium for the scientific and political breakthroughs

previously mentioned, but also marked the beginning of the modern era of science

education. The public read updates of IGY expeditions in newspapers and magazines, while students read about IGY in their Weekly Reader newsletters. During

and after IGY, the National Academies, funded by NSF and the Ford Foundation,

led the development of curriculum and outreach materials about IGY science, including a set of thematic posters, many which are proudly displayed in science institutions around the world, and a series of thirteen educational films shown in classrooms and on educational television throughout the Nation. While behind the scenes

these pioneering efforts were beset with challenges (Korsmo 2004, Korsmo & Sfraga

2003), they left an enduring impression on a generation of citizens and scientists

around the world.

I have also been asked to address what education and outreach activities are

planned for this IPY. Before getting into specifics, I would like to take a moment

to reflect on how the world has evolved significantly in the fifty years since IGY:

the planet’s population and energy usage has more than doubled; new tools, particularly the Internet and wireless technologies, offer revolutionary means of communication that will be harnessed for IPY, although, due to the sheer proliferation of

media, such efforts will be competing for people’s limited attention. Nevertheless,

polar power has the ability to grab people’s attention and hold it.

In recent years, in part due to NSF’s emphasis on integrating research and education and the broader social impacts of science, there has been increased collaboraVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
73

tion between research scientists, educators and various other media and communication experts. But numerous reports and commissions, including the 2001 U.S.

Commission on National Security, warn of the long-term implications of neglecting

our science education programs, and funding for such integrating efforts, including

for the upcoming IPY, remain insufficient to meet the needs of the EOC community

and the citizens they serve. Science educators, vying against each other for limited

funds, face daunting odds in an ultra-competitive environment.

Planning to make EOC an integral part of IPY began at the outset, both at the

national and international levels. Over the past two years, a series of workshops has

helped to build the IPY EOC community inside and beyond the U.S., exploring the

ways and means to maximize EOC impact. The first workshop, entitled ‘‘Bridging

the Poles: Linking Education with Research,’’ was funded by NSF OPP and organized by Robin Bell and Stephanie Pfirman of Columbia University’s LamontDoherty Earth Observatory . Held in Washington, D.C., in June 2004, Bridging the

Poles brought together polar researchers, science educators, and other polar enthusiasts to brainstorm potential strategies and resources. Participants recommended

that EOC efforts build on the strength of polar research by focusing on three elements: ‘‘a ‘sense of place’ for researchers, educators, students, and the general public; ‘pride of place’ for Arctic residents, especially indigenous Alaskans; and a sense

of connectedness [and] relevance.’’ A full report on the workshop, which describes

the vast potential of IPY EOC, is available online at http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/

res/pi/polar¥workshop/.

One of the recommendations from the Bridging the Poles workshop was for the

IPY community to tap the expertise and resources of the International Polar Foundation (IPF). Based in Brussels, Belgium, IPY has been actively involved with polar

science and related education efforts, participating in all the IPY EOC workshops

and assisting the IPY Programme Office in the development and translation of the

IPY brochure and designing the IPY.org web site. In addition to offering a wealth

of education materials available online and available on CD in multiple-language

formats, IPF also been instrumental in the design the new Belgian zero-emission

Antarctic station that will be constructed during IPY. (In the spirit of full disclosure,

through a collaboration between IPF and CU–Boulder, 20 percent of my salary is

covered by IPF, which allows me to continue to be involved in IPY activities.)

To build on the momentum of Bridging the Poles and re-access the potential for

IPY EOC, a second workshop, ‘‘Poles Together: Coordinating IPY Outreach and Education,’’ was held in Boulder, Colorado, in July 2005. Organized by the University

of Colorado’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Science (CIRES),

with in-kind support from NOAA and numerous volunteers, the workshop drew

more than 100 participants including researchers, teachers, representatives from

U.S. federal agencies (NOAA, NSF, USGS and NASA), and representatives from the

International Antarctic Institute in Hobart, Australia, the International Polar Foundation, and members of the Canadian, Swedish, Dutch, and German national IPY

committees. David Carlson, who had recently become Director of the International

Polar Year Programme Office (IPO) based in Cambridge, U.K., gave the keynote address and discussed plans for IPY in general and EOC in particular.

The core of the workshop was a series of breakout discussions, focusing initially

on IPY science themes and key audiences. One idea for EOC communication that

emerged was identifying and addressing common misconceptions about the Polar

Regions, such as the differences between Arctic and Antarctic geography, the real

effect of Earth’s axial tilt on seasonal change, and the reason why polar bears don’t

eat penguins.

Other recommendations included the call for a coordination office for U.S. EOC

efforts, and the development of a framework for polar literacy, with key concepts

and messages that could help in correlating IPY activities and polar science to education standards and benchmarks.

One of the participants, Stan Ruttenberg, who had worked as a science writer for

many of the IGY films, commented that he was impressed by the degree of excitement and enthusiasm of the participants. Where IGY education efforts had been

very much top-down, it was clear to Stan that IPY EOC was, above all, tapping a

tremendous energy at the grass-roots level.

Some participants of the Poles Together workshop expressed concern that, without sufficient funding for IPY, all the enthusiasm would lead not only to failure of

IPY EOC goals, but to disappointment and disillusionment among the IPY science

education community. A representative of the NSF attending the workshop indicated that NSF, the lead U.S. agency for IPY, would be able to fund only one to

two million dollars of education and outreach projects for fiscal year 2006. (As it

turns out, nearly $6 million was made available, meaning that the over 80 percent

rate of proposals not funded could have been far higher.) In order to seek a solution

74

to the funding conundrum, a group of interested individuals was formed to explore

funding options from corporations and foundations to augment IPY EOC projects

that NSF would not be able to fund. Several meetings were held in the fall of 2005

to explore funding options through corporate or foundations, but after Hurricane

Katrina, donor fatigue in the foundation community made it necessary to put plans

to seek alternative funding for IPY EOC activities on the back burner. A full report

of the workshop, funded through support from the National Science Foundation Office of Polar Programs (OPP) and NOAA Office of Education (OED), is available at

http://cires.colorado.edu/education/k12/ipyoe/.

To further the preparation for IPY EOC and prepare for the NSF IPY solicitation,

with it’s strong focus on formal and informal education and related coordination, the

Integrated Collaborative Education (ICE) workshop, (funded by NSF OPP and

NOAA OED) was held in virtual space in an asynchronous environment, allowing

participants from around the world and with varied work-schedules, to participate

at their convenience. More than 200 individuals from around the world participated

between March 17 and 31, using tools developed and facilitated by the Virginiabased College of Exploration, which has worked with NOAA and National Geographic in developing ocean literacy priorities.

Like all the prior workshops, ICE served as an incubator for collaboration and

networking, helping to inspire and inform the broad community of participants. Organized on a few weeks notice, ICE’s ambitious goals included the development of

an initial framework for polar literacy that could be linked with related ocean and

environmental literacy programs.

Participants focused on ten themes they considered integral to such a framework:

the uniqueness of the Polar Regions; the complex interconnections of Earth systems;

global climate change; the importance of the Polar Regions to science; their history

and culture; places of extremes; new models of land ownership/stewardship, international collaboration, and cooperation; the need and opportunity to study holistically; ‘‘what we don’t know’’ (i.e., the spaces between disciplines and the gaps in

our knowledge); and people and stories. While these themes in many cases overlap

with ‘‘official’’ IPY themes and other science education frameworks, the communitybased process itself was valuable. A final report of the ICE workshop is available

at http://coexploration.net/ipy.

Inspired by the Poles Together workshop, the European Polar Board of the European Science Foundation hosted a workshop in Brussels in mid-March of 2006 to

engage the European polar research and education community. The workshop

sparked later discussions of the EOC subcommittee on how education, outreach and

communication can be more fully integrated since, all too often, they are considered

separate, unrelated domains.

The IPY Framework document called for the IPY Programme Office to establish

an Education, Outreach and Communication Subcommittee of the ICSU–WMO Joint

Committee, which would review EOC-related proposals, help coordinate and integrate activities, and assist in establishing the IPY Web site. The Subcommittee,

made up of representatives from eleven nations that will be expanded as IPY gets

underway, began meeting in early 2006 through monthly teleconferences and is focused on coordinating launch events, developing the IPY.org web site, and supporting international EOC collaborations.

The discussions at the Brussels European Polar Board workshop in March, 2006

on linking education, outreach and communication helped to inform the development of the IPY EOC Action Plan (still in development), which explores how information from a particular IPY research project—say, a study of seasonal and longerterm sea ice fluctuations or of caribou migrations—might be customized and

repurposed for different audiences. Over the years, the terms ‘‘education,’’ ‘‘outreach,’’ and ‘‘communications’’ have become separate, specialized domains, rarely

overlapping or collaborating. The concept of using IPY as an opportunity to begin

to integrate these different, sometimes competing realms while recognizing the

unique needs and expertise required to be effective in each area, has been an emerging goal of the IPY EOC subcommittee. For example, we envision that:

• A short media summary of the research goal and its methods used by public

affairs or media specialists could also be used to help a classroom teacher see

at a glance whether a specific project is relevant and of interest to her students.

• A ‘‘who, what, where, when, why, and how’’ narrative description or ‘‘data

story’’ in non-technical language could help a teacher, exhibit designer or curriculum developer develop strategies for contextualizing the data.

• A database of high-definition video clips could be used by journalists, students, teachers, and exhibit developers alike.

75

• A blog from graduate students in the field could assist students in the classroom virtually participate in the project by providing a human context to how

the research is conducted and data are collected.

• Mapping the science of the project to science standards and frameworks, taking into account related misconceptions, could help scientists calibrate their

own communication with non-technical audiences.

• Reviewing and annotating existing background materials and learning activities and linking them with standards and curriculum could have benefits far

beyond the formal education realm.

To facilitate the integration of information that public affairs and media relations

officers, researchers, educators and students and other polar enthusiasts can access,

the IPY Programme Office is developing a database that will include short summaries of IPY projects, longer descriptions of the ‘‘who, what, where, when, why,

and how’’ involved, and, once funded and deployed, can be augmented with audio

and video clips, blogs and journals, relevant curriculum and education standards,

and so forth. Ideally, this database will be integrated into the IPY Data Information

Service, or IPYDIS, which is a U.S. led proposal headed by Mark Parsons of the

National Snow and Ice Data Center.

Dr. Bell has talked about the famous ‘‘honeycomb chart,’’ and I’d like to share it

with you again. It is in itself an invaluable outreach tool and is included as an attachment to my written statement. Of the 233 proposals, many of them made up

of numerous smaller projects, the U.S. is involved in 183 of them, or 82 percent of

the total, roughly 20 percent as the lead, in red on the chart (51), and 60 percent

as a key partner, in yellow (122). Again, I’d like to point out the IPY Data Information Service as an integral part of the big plan, which the U.S. is the lead on.

All of these cells of the honeycomb, which combine in some cases multiple nationally funded projects, are subject to funding through their national agencies. But

there is no guarantee that they will be funded at all, especially when budgets are

tight and review criteria between national and international programs differ. We

now know that some of the proposals approved at the international level will not

be funded by NSF, at least at this time, and we can anticipate that the honeycomb

chart will look significantly different a year from now.

The main point I’d like to make here is that those who did go through the international process and were endorsed by the IPY Joint Committee had to address the

basic IPY EOC criteria, meaning they needed to have a plan of how they would address EOC goals identified in the IPY Framework document. They also needed to

be international to some degree, including the education proposals, of which there

are 54, the majority of which involve U.S. partners or leads. All have international

linkages and partners.

Which brings us to a question: Should EOC for IPY be only addressed at the national level? The conventional wisdom seems to be, ‘‘yes,’’ that every nation has their

own education systems and unique communities with needs. But the decade-old

GLOBE program, which has just funded an IPY-related project looking at seasonal

changes, suggests otherwise. Indeed, learning from the experience of GLOBE, and

perhaps leveraging its network and those of the space science education community

of IHY, IPY EOC has the potential to forge a new, robust international education

network that will live on long after IPY is completed. Rather than have every nation

approach IPY EOC exclusively internally, this is an opportunity for ‘‘soft diplomacy’’

that could, in the spirit of Weyprecht’s vision, truly transcend national agendas and

make a robust contribution to global awareness and cooperation.

Some nations, such as Canada and Norway, require that proposals seeking funding for IPY first go through the international process, which mandates international

partnerships. The U.S. and most other nations did not require IPY international endorsement. Funded projects that did not go through the international process will

still have an opportunity to become part of the honeycomb, but they will be required

to go through the review process and either be linked with an existing program in

the honeycomb, or be endorsed as a new cell.

The final question I have been asked to address is: what are the goals and expected societal benefits of these activities? At the level of the Joint Committee, the

U.S. National Committee, and NSF, the goals have been primarily polar science-specific: ‘‘to attract and develop the next generation of polar scientists, engineers and

to leaders and to capture the interest of the public and decision-makers,’’ (ICSU

2004a) , to increase ‘‘public understanding and participation in polar science’’ (NRC

2004) and ‘‘educate the public about the polar regions’’ (NSF 2006).

But to many involved at the grassroots level of IPY EOC, including many participants in workshops and on the IPY EOC Subcommittee, polar science is merely the

tip of the iceberg in terms of the potential for this international endeavor to go beVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
76

yond simply showcasing polar science and its global relevance. As the recent draft

IPY EOC Action Plan suggests, IPY can also ‘‘demonstrate the scientific process in

real-time by engaging the public with an exciting, enormous, and diverse, interdisciplinary scientific investigation. It is an opportunity for an open dialogue between scientists and society that will demystify and increase accessibility of science.

This will strengthen the public’s perception, understanding, and appreciation of

science and therefore empower them in making valid assessments of scientific information.’’ (IPY EOC 2006)

The goals of promoting polar science and recruiting new polar scientists is, frankly, the easy part. The far broader goals of fostering a more scientifically savvy society and forging new science education partnerships at every level is much more

daunting, and will require robust funding and support to achieve the inherent potential of IPY as a catalyst for positive change. There is a very small window—right

now—to seize this opportunity, devote the necessary, leadership, resources and people power to meet the challenge, and set the wheels in motion to allow IPY live up

to its vast potential.

There is tremendous power in the polar realm to inspire, inform and engage people of all ages and walks of life. At a gut level, the extremes of the polar environment challenge us in terms of basic survival; ask any child who has seen ‘‘The

March of the Penguins’’ or ‘‘Eight Below.’’ It has been suggested that in the first

two IPYs, survival required 90 percent of the time and energy with science requiring the remaining 10 percent. Polar regions will always remain dangerous, forbidding places, no matter how sophisticated the technologies. Now, with increased concern about human impacts on the Earth’s climatic and environmental systems, people look to the poles to gain information about and insights into the survival of the

planet itself.

Polar power also has tremendous emotional resonance, appealing to our sense of

beauty and wonder. The stories and experience of people from polar communities,

including the millions of Arctic residents and the scientists, explorers and teachers

who have spent time in Antarctica, are a powerful way of bringing a human dimension and personal touch to IPY activities.

And, finally, the polar perspectives offer a unique way to engage and challenge

our intellects, whether at the cutting edge of the scientific frontier, or addressing

common misconceptions that students have about the reason for seasonal change.

I would love to see posters of the spectacular polar ‘‘night’’ and ‘‘day’’ images from

NASA Goddard, part of the Blue Marble series, in every grade schools everywhere

with the title: ‘‘What’s Wrong With This Picture?’’ These wonderful photo-mosaics

can leave the impression that the sun is shining directly down on, or is directly behind, the north or south pole, when in fact, that never occurs. There is never a time

of day, or time of year, when there is so much sunshine. . .or darkness. . .in the

north or south hemispheres. Realizing this, students can then consider how the

axial tilt impacts polar seasons.

There are countless international years but only one IPY. For IPY to be more

than just another international year in a crowded field and live up to its huge potential, the support and leadership of the U.S., working in close collaboration with

our international partners, is imperative. The time for IPY is now.

References

ICSU IPY 2007–2008 Planning Group (2004a) Draft Education & Outreach Position

Paper.

International Council for Science. (2004). A Framework for the International Polar

Year 2007–2008, produced by the ICSU IPY 2007–2008 Planning Group.

IPY EOC Subcommittee (2006). IPY EOC Action Plan, draft v3.

Korsmo, F.L. (2004). Shaping Up Planet Earth. Science Communication 26:2.

Korsmo, F.L., Sfraga, M., (2003). From Interwar to Cold War: Selling Field Science

in the United States, 1920s through 1950s. Earth Sciences History 22:1.

Luedecke, C. (2004). The First International Polar Year (1882–83): A big science experiment with small science equipment. Proceedings of the International Commission on History of Meteorology 1.1.

National Science Foundation (2006). International Polar Year (IPY), 2007–2008, Information for the Research and Education Communities: http://www.nsf.gov/

od/opp/ipy/ipyinfo.jsp.

Robinson, M.F. (2006). The Coldest Crucible: Arctic Exploration and American Culture. University of Chicago Press.

U.S. National Committee for the International Polar Year 2007–2008, National Research Council. A Vision for the International Polar Year 2007–2008.

77

Wood, K.R., Overland, J.E. (in press). Climate Lessons from the First International

Polar Year.

BIOGRAPHY FOR MARK S. MCCAFFREY

Professional Preparation

M.A.—Educational Leadership—University of Northern Colorado, Greeley, CO, 1994

B.A.—Southwest Studies, Spanish Emphasis—Fort Lewis College, Durango, CO,

1980

Relevant Appointments

Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences

Associate Scientist, Professional Research Assistant, January 2001–present

CIRES Outreach Program, August 2004–present

Co-Chair, Poles Together IPY Outreach and Education Workshop, July, 2005

Member, International Polar Year Education, Outreach, Communications Subcommittee

Principal Investigator, Integrated Collaborative Education (ICE) Strategic Planning

Online Workshop

Principal Investigator, DLESE Climate Change Collection

Principal Investigator, NOAA Coral Reef Information System Data Outreach Project

Managing Director, International Polar Foundation USA

NOAA Paleoclimatology Program, National Climatic Data Center

Science Communications Specialist, January 2001–July 2004

Principal Investigator, Climate TimeLine Information Tool

Lead Author, Paleo Perspective on Abrupt Climate Change

Project Manager, Spanish translations of Paleo Perspectives

Boulder Creek Watershed Initiative, 1996–2003

President, 2000–2003

Co-founder and Board Member, 1996–2003

Boulder Area Sustainability Information Network, 1998–2001

Co-PI and Communications Coordinator

University of Northern Colorado, ChemQuest Curriculum Project, 1996–1999

Education Consultant and Curriculum Developer

The Naropa Institute, Environmental Leadership Masters Program, 1996–1999

Adjunct Faculty and Developer—Boulder Creek Atlas Project

Front Range Community College, Environmental Sciences Department, 1995–1996

Adjunct Faculty, Introduction to Environmental Science

Recent Publications, Presentations and Products

McCaffrey, M.S., Bishop, T., Lynds, S., Tuddenham, P. (2006). ICE: The Integrated

Collaborative Education Online Strategic Planning Workshop Summary Report.

Available: http://www.coexploration.net/ipy/ice

McCaffrey, M.S., Lynds, S. (2006). Poles Together: Coordinating International Polar

Year (IPY) Outreach and Education Summary Report. Available: http://

cires.colorado.edu/education/k12/ipyoe

McCaffrey, M.S., Anderson, D.M., Eakin, M.E., Morrill, C. (2004). A

PaleoPerspective on Abrupt Climate Change. NOAA Paleoclimatology Program.

Available: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/abrupt/

McCaffrey, M.S., Kowal, D., Eakin, M. (2003). Climate timeline information tool: exploring weather and climate change through the powers of 10. Paleoclimatology

78

Branch, NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center, Boulder, CO. Available: http:/

/www.ngdc.noaa.gov/paleo/ctl/

McCaffrey, M.S. (2003). ‘‘Using the climate timeline to frame inquiry into climate

change.’’ NSTA National Convention, Philadelphia, PA, March 27, 2003, National Science Teachers Association, 1840 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA.

McCaffrey, M.S. (2000). ‘‘BASIN.org, a case study on the use of information technology in developing local watershed networks.’’ Stockholm International Water

Symposium, Stockholm, Sweden, August 2000.

McCaffrey, M.S., Murphy, S., (2000). ‘‘Boulder Area Sustainability Information Network (BASIN): One Community’s Approach to Gathering and Providing Environmental Data.’’ U.S. EPA Community Involvement Conference: The New Millennium: Community Involvement and Effective Environmental Protection.’’ San

Francisco, CA, August, 2000.

Synergistic Activities

Member, International Polar Year Education, Outreach and Communications (EOC) Subcommittee and IPY.org Web Design Team—Contribute to

reviewing EOC-related proposals for the IPY Programme Office, reporting to Director David Carlson, offering input and recommendations on coordination efforts and design of the IPY.org portal site.

Member, American Geophysical Union and European Geoscience Union—

Co-convener of upcoming IPY Education and Data Literacy sessions at the

AGU, December 2006. Have previously convened Education sessions at past

AGUs and assisted in organizing the GIFT Workshop at Fall 2003 AGU on

polar science and at the Spring 2005 in New Orleans on hurricanes and other

natural hazards.

DLESE Working Group—Earth System Framework—Participant in working

group tasked with examining approaches to organizing resources within DLESE

using an Earth System framework and recommending strategies and options to

the Steering Committee.

Coral Reef Information System and Coral Reef Task Force Outreach—

Through involvement with the NOAA Coral Reef Information System (CoRIS),

serve as principal investigator of the CoRIS Data Outreach project, facilitating

stakeholder meetings with coral reef communities. Participant in the Coral Reef

Task Force’s Outreach and Education Committee.

Collaborators and Affiliations

Susan Buhr, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder

Linda Capper, British Antarctic Survey

David Carlson, International Polar Year Programme Office

Michelle Hall-Wallace, Science Education Solutions

Louise Huffman, Golden Apple Foundation

Martin Jeffries, University of Alaska, Fairbanks

Roberta Johnson, UCAR Education

Carol Knight, NOAA

Tamara Ledley, TERC

Susan Lynds, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder

Russanne Low, UCAR–DLESE

Cathy Manduca, Science Education Resource Center

Frank Niepold, NOAA Climate Program Office

Mark Parsons, National Snow and Ice Data Center

Stephanie Pfirman, Columbia University

Lesley Smith, CIRES, University of Colorado at Boulder

Peter Tuddenham, The College of Exploration

Daniel Zalles, SRI International

Graduate Advisor: Richard King, University of Northern Colorado.

79

80

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, sir.

Dr. Falkner.

STATEMENT OF DR. KELLY KENISON FALKNER, PROFESSOR

OF CHEMICAL OCEANOGRAPHY, OREGON STATE UNIVERSITY

Dr. FALKNER. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning.

My testimony draws from published reports from input from the

arctic community and 14 years of experience in arctic field work.

The research projects to be sponsored during IPY have yet to be

finalized, as you heard earlier, but based on ideas voiced during the

IPY planning process, I suspect there will be many more excellent

research projects proposed and can be supported by available U.S.

funds.

Well, I was asked to address what did we learn from polar

science in past IPYs, and in the interest of time, I refer you to my

written testimony and the comments of my colleagues here, but I

also highly recommend that you consult the four weekly issues of

November 1960 Life Magazine, which reported to the public the remarkable findings of the International Geophysical Year.

So what do we hope to learn from this IPY?

As has been well publicized, the arctic has been undergoing dramatic changes. Air temperatures are increasing and are now higher

than they have been in at least four centuries. Last year, large portions of the arctic were four to seven degrees Fahrenheit warmer

than they had been in the previous 26 years. Sea ice area and

thickness are diminishing. Satellite records show that summer sea

ice area has decreased 20 percent, or roughly twice the area of

Texas, since 1979, with a record minimum in 2005, and this year

being very close to it.

Loss of sea ice cover will change the global heat balance and will

affect our global weather patterns. Sea ice retreat is already posing

severe habitat challenges to animals dependent upon it, such as

the polar bear. A changing ice cover also has implications for shipping routes and access to resources, such as offshore oil and gas.

Permafrost is thawing, posing serious challenges to infrastructure, altering ecosystems, and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

An article published two weeks ago in the Journal of Nature reported far more of the potent greenhouse gas methane being emitted from Siberian Fall Lakes than previously estimated. Methane

output from this vast terrain has increased by 58 percent from

1974 to 2000. The Greenland ice sheet is undergoing a net melting

trend that shows signs of accelerating due to processes we are only

beginning to understand. Realize that Greenland holds about 20

feet of potential sea level rise. The arctic hydrologic system has

been altered such that large amounts of freshwater have made

their way into sensitive areas of circulation in the North Atlantic.

Now global system models that include greenhouse gases predict

amplified warming in the arctic. Detailed records of climate change

from ice cores show that change in the past has, at times, been

very abrupt. Several degrees of temperature change and atmospheric circulation and precipitation rearrangements have occurred

during less than 10-year timescales. Intensified research efforts

during the IPY will come none too soon.

81

In addition, there remain a number of basic science questions

that are under-explored in the arctic because of its remoteness and

harshness. We now have the ability to observe in places and during

seasons where we haven’t before and at scales ranging from the

molecular to the global.

It is an exciting time to be embarking on an IPY. The international science community has developed new approaches and

tools that are ripe for application, so intensified research can be expected to foster new discoveries in realms, such as sea floor dynamics, the Earth’s magnetic field, biology, and contaminant transport.

So it is also asked what are the most critical unanswered questions that we hope to resolve with the research conducted during

the IPY.

The magnitude of the changes in the arctic raises the possibility

that the arctic system may be approaching a tipping point, especially if amplification or irreversibility of changes introduced

through reinforcing feedback processes. Such considerations led to

the overarching question that is a main driver of the Study of Environmental Arctic Change Program (SEARCH): is the arctic

transitioning toward a new state.

It is also important to ask: what new discoveries lie ahead? What

are the societal benefits of this research? If the IPY is fully implemented, as envisioned, the arctic, as well as Antarctic plans, address the future climate of our planet with the intention of establishing observation networks that take us into the future.

Concentrated efforts during the IPY will help to train the next

generation. As a mother, I am excited by the education efforts centered on the IPY that are aiming to bring fun into math and

science so we can get our kids on track and capable of competing

in the global economy.

IPY findings will help to prepare the people of the north for

adapting to what appears to be inevitable further change there.

The findings should also help provide guidance for further resource

development possibilities.

Finally, a firm commitment by the United States to the 2007–

2008 IPY will demonstrate to the world that the United States is

capable and willing to play a leading role in assuring the quality

of our collective environmental future.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Dr. Falkner follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF KELLY KENISON FALKNER

I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for giving me this opportunity

to testify regarding the 2007–2008 International Polar Year. I was specifically asked

to address the following questions from an Arctic research perspective:

• What has been learned from polar research and IPYs in the past and what

do we hope to learn from this IPY?

• What are the most critical unanswered questions that you hope to resolve

with the research conducted during the IPY? What are the societal benefits

of this research?

Before I address those questions, let me outline for you my qualifications. In 1983,

I was awarded a Bachelor’s degree in Chemistry from Reed College, followed by a

Ph.D. in Chemical Oceanography in 1989 from the MIT-Woods Hole Oceanographic

Institution Joint Program. Following this, I undertook postdoctoral work at MIT

under an NSF Women’s Initiation Award and then continued my studies at the Centre National D’Etudes Spatiales, Toulouse, France, under a NATO Postdoctoral FelVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
82

lowship. In 1992, I took a faculty position at the College of Oceanic & Atmospheric

Science at Oregon State University, where I currently carry out research and teach

as a Professor of Chemical Oceanography. Shortly after arriving at OSU, I embarked on studies in the Arctic with support of an ONR Young Investigator Fellowship. My initial objective was to devise methods to track river waters and other

water types within the Arctic Ocean using naturally occurring chemical signals.

Since then my research group has been applying these methods in numerous collaborative studies to document the remarkable changes in Arctic Ocean circulation

over the past decade, including at the North Pole Environmental Observatory.

Hence, I have been traveling to the Arctic to conduct field-based research from a

variety of platforms for the past 14 years. I have served on numerous Arctic related

national and international science steering and review committees. In addition, I am

the mother of two children, ages six and 11.

In preparation for my testimony, I informed the Arctic research community via

the ArcticInfo listserv of this pending hearing and requested their input via e-mail

regarding the questions I was tasked to address. The timing allowed five working

days for the community to respond during what is typically an active field season

period for the group. Nonetheless, I received 35 responses from a broad sampling

of the community. Without exception, all of the respondents endorse the importance

and timing of the IPY. They brought to my attention significant issues I might have

otherwise missed and so I am indebted to them for their input.

Development of the overall vision for the 2007–2008 IPY was strongly driven by

community input. I personally took part in several town hall discussions early in

the process that took place at various national and international science meetings.

The 2004 National Research Council Report, ‘‘A Vision of the International Polar

Year 2007–2008,’’ nicely captured the input and presented a path by which to proceed. I have drawn on aspects of that report for part of my testimony this morning.

In addition, I am a signatory of an open letter that was circulated in the science

community beginning in 1995, proposing a program to study Arctic change. As the

scientific vision developed to a broad initiative involving several federal agencies, it

was galvanized under the acronym SEARCH, standing for Study of ARctic Environmental CHange. Under U.S. leadership, the international community was invited to

an open science meeting in Seattle, Washington in 2003, since it was clear that

SEARCH activities transcend the intellectual, infrastructural and fiscal resources of

any single nation. In response to our request to foster an international effort on Arctic change, the International Arctic Science Committee and Arctic Ocean Sciences

Board initiated the International Study of Arctic Change in 2004. This is the international umbrella under which SEARCH is a national component. An Interagency

Program Management Committee consisting of eight U.S. federal agencies have

agreed to work together on implementing SEARCH. These are the National Science

Foundation (current chair), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, U.S. Department of Defense, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of the Interior, Smithsonian Institution and

the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

In May, 2005, over 80 members of the U.S. Arctic community met to align research priorities for SEARCH with the evolving thinking in the Arctic community

at large. The criteria used to prioritize activities included: importance to meeting

SEARCH science objectives, fit with international activities and readiness for implementation. The report that resulted is entitled ‘‘Study of Environmental Arctic

Change: Plans for Implementation During the International Polar Year and Beyond’’

(2005, Arctic Research Consortium of the United States, Fairbanks Alaska, 104 pp.).

My testimony also draws from that report and I refer you to it for further detail

and original references. I would like to note that the upcoming IPY marks the first

time that northern residents are being included directly in planning and implementation. The IPY vision also includes integration of social and physical sciences in the

north in order to identify socioeconomic impacts of change and adaptation and mitigation strategies.

One final point I would like to make before addressing the questions is that decisions regarding the exact research programs to be sponsored during IPY have yet

to finalized by several participating nations including the U.S. For example, science

proposals submitted to the U.S. National Science Foundation are currently under

review and decisions about the initial round of submissions are expected late this

fall. Once the initially funded projects have been identified, it is intended that another call for proposals will ensue permitting gaps in a coherent research portfolio

to be addressed. The peer review process should help to assure that the best possible ideas go forward. I am aware of attempts to coordinate funding of projects that

pass our merit review system with efforts funded by other countries. This is not

easy to accomplish given diverse deadlines and funding cultures but IPY will forge

83

new ground in that direction. My answers to your questions are what the community hoped to accomplish. Based on ideas voiced during the international IPY planning process, I suspect there will be many more excellent research programs proposed than can be supported by available funds in the U.S. and our funding agencies will have some difficult decisions to make.

What has been learned from polar research and IPYs in the past?

As already pointed out, the first IPY took place in 1882–1883 and was primarily

Arctic in focus. Coordinated observations were carried out at widely spaced locations. The international community demonstrated that it could collaborate in the

name of science and that collective efforts can pay handsome dividends. One of the

more notable findings was the first description of the large-scale motion of the seaice with important implications for exploration that followed. Priceless baseline data

for anthropology and natural history were also obtained during this era, preserving

what we now know was in the process of being lost to interactions with the lower

latitude world.

The second IPY in 1932–33 heralded the beginnings of modern weather related

observations around the globe and including the Arctic. Systematic Arctic Ocean observations began to be undertaken by the Russians at this time, which they continued through to the 1980’s. While the Russian data collection efforts were aimed at

informing their cold-war activities, that data provide us today with an essential

basis for assessing the magnitude of recent changes in ice-ocean and atmosphere

conditions.

Fifty years later in 1957–58, the IGY expanded its focus to include geophysical

observations of the entire planet and outer space. Scientists took advantages of technology that sprung from World War II, such as rockets, satellites, radar, sonar,

radio-communications, diverse telescopes and seismic sounding, to make extraordinary advances in our understanding of Earth and space science. Many of the accomplishments around the globe involved a close collaboration between the military

and science communities. Although polar efforts were focused more on the Antarctic,

in the Arctic the first large-scale determination of the sea floor relief was accomplished. The work on the interaction of solar and cosmic particles and the Earth’s

magnetosphere in a year of peak solar activity generated an appreciation of the

cause of radio communication disruptions at the poles. The first globally synoptic

weather observations were undertaken. The first submarine based surveys of seaice thickness were undertaken in the Arctic. Global carbon dioxide monitoring was

initiated at the South Pole. The first World Data Centers were established during

IGY. This is but a short list of the myriad IGY science accomplishments. The cooperative spirit of generating new knowledge overrode international tensions of the time

and fostered enduring treaties regarding Antarctica and space. The public was

broadly engaged by numerous media reports on the science and educational materials that evolved from it. Clearly IGY left many positive and enduring legacies.

What do we hope to learn from this IPY?

One would have to be avoiding the popular media not to realize that the Arctic

has been subject to some remarkable changes over the last few decades and that

many of the changes appear to be linked and are accelerating. Some of these

changes are large and in certain cases, unprecedented in the period of instrumental

and satellite observations. It is not an exaggeration to say that the magnitude and

rapidity of recent changes caught many scientists by surprise. Quasi-cyclical atmospheric pressure patterns were initially thought to be driving many of the changes

but now departures from those relationships have many of us wondering whether

the Arctic is in transition to a new state altogether. What are these changes?

Arctic air temperatures are increasing. Average air temperatures have risen

strongly in recent decades and are now higher than they have been in at least four

centuries. In 2005, large portions of the Arctic were four to seven degrees Fahrenheit warmer than they have been over the previous 26 years. Sea-ice area and

thickness is diminishing. Over the period of the satellite record, summer sea-ice extent has decreased 20 percent (twice the area of Texas) with a record minimum in

2005, and 2006 being very close to it. Snow-covered ice reflects most incoming sunlight or as scientists like to say, has a high albedo, and water absorbs light or has

a low albedo. Thus the loss of sea will change the global heat budget and so affect

our global weather patterns. The ice retreat is already posing severe habitat challenges to animals dependent upon it such as the polar bear. The changing ice cover

has implications for shipping routes and access to resources such as offshore oil and

gas. Permafrost is warming and thawing, posing serious challenges to infrastructure, altering ecosystems and greenhouse gas emissions. Just two weeks ago, K.

Walter from the University of Alaska Fairbanks and colleagues reported (Nature,

84

Sept. 7, Vol. 443, p. 71–75) that lakes resulting from thawing in Siberian tundra

probably emit 10–60 percent more of the potent greenhouse gas methane than previously estimated. Moreover their area has increased with the warming increasing

their methane output from 1974 to 2000 by 58 percent. Woody shrubs are becoming

larger and more abundant throughout the Arctic tundra as they out compete other

plants, interfering with caribou migration and in some instances with oil exploration. Other plant and animal species are beginning to appear in the Arctic that

have been previously unknown there. The Greenland Ice Sheet is undergoing a net

melting trend that shows signs of accelerating. There are signs of concurrent icesheet losses in Antarctica. Recent observations highlight more dynamic response

factors in ice sheet behaviors than we had previously appreciated. Realize that the

Greenland Ice holds about 21 feet of potential sea-level rise; we need further observations and model improvements that incorporate these dynamic factors to anticipate the rate of future sea level changes. Freshwater cycling in the Arctic hydrologic

system has been altered such that large pulses of freshwater have made their way

into potentially sensitive areas of circulation in the North Atlantic that can impact

our regional and global climate.

Global climate system models that take into account greenhouse gas forcing predict amplified change in the Arctic. Detailed records of climate from ice cores have

taught us that change in the past has at times been very abrupt with multiple degrees of temperature change and atmospheric circulation and precipitation rearrangements occurring on less than 10 year time scales. Intensified research efforts

during the IPY will come none too soon.

The IPY affords us the opportunity to accelerate the implementation of SEARCH,

to provide leadership and to collaborate internationally to understand and document

the nature of these changes and their linkages to each other within the Arctic and

to our global climate system. It appears that some amount of further change and

challenges to ecosystems and human systems in the North are inevitable. We need

to understand the changes to better chart their future course. What are the foreseeable benefits and difficulties of Arctic and global warming? The people of the north

need answers to help them anticipate and cope with change. The effects of changes

in the Arctic on global climate may well be disproportionate to its area. We need

to push our understanding of Arctic-global linkages so that people outside of the

Arctic can know what to expect under possible future greenhouse levels.

In addition to the very visible issue of Arctic change, there remain a number of

aspects of the Arctic that are under-explored because remoteness and harsh conditions make for challenging logistics. The science community has developed new approaches and tools that are ripe for application during the IPY and so intensified

research can be expected to foster new discoveries in several realms. For example,

the Gakkel Ridge is the slowest spreading ridge in the world’s oceans. Preliminary

evidence has shown that the nature of hydrothermal activity associated with that

feature spans the full range of that observed elsewhere in the world’s oceans. By

current thinking, this is not supposed to be the case. Further exploration offers the

possibility of entirely new insights in marine geology. Another example is that the

geomagnetic North Pole is currently on the rapid move. Recent studies of marine

and lake sediments have revealed similar shifts of the pole’s position and repeating

patterns in the past that may lead to a better understanding of the behavior of the

Earth’s core. IPY activities could help unveil tantalizing links between the Earth’s

magnetic field position, solar and cosmic particle flux and climate.

Another example is that much of what we know about past climate on Earth

comes from what we call proxies or signals preserved in ice cores, sediments and

organisms. There are plans to conduct scientific drilling for the first time in ocean

sediments in the Bering Sea region to determine the climate and ecological impacts

of the Bering Sea Bridge that emerges during low sea-level stands as well as volcanic eruptions in the region. The ice-coring community is hoping to obtain the first

complete ice record from Greenland that extends back through the interglacial period at the Eem site. Advances in trace element and isotope geochemistry offer the

possibility of developing and applying new proxies for teasing out the past conditions. The international community has embraced a program called GEOTRACES

to track the behavior of such trace elements and isotopes in the world’s oceans and

has targeted their initial observations in polar regions as part of the IPY.

GEOTRACES also aims to provide accurate baseline information for micro-nutrients

such as iron and problematic contaminants such as mercury in the polar oceans.

The integration of biological sciences during this IPY offers many new knowledge

frontiers. For example, advances in molecular techniques can be applied to characterizing the diversity of organisms both north and south and potentially important

functional genes such as anti-freeze proteins and UV protection of DNA. Our EuroVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00088 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
85

pean and Canadian colleagues are planning to focus on migratory bird health, which

has important links to avian flu and global health.

It is an exciting time to be embarking on an IPY. We have the ability to observe

in seasons and places where we haven’t before and at scales ranging from the molecular to the global. We are bound to make many new discoveries.

What are the most critical unanswered questions that you hope to resolve with the

research conducted during the IPY?

The magnitude of the changes in the Arctic raises the possibility that the arctic

system may be crossing a threshold or approaching a tipping point, especially if amplification or irreversibility of change is introduced through processes such as the

ice-albedo-temperature feedback. Such considerations lead to the overarching question that is a main driver of the SEARCH program:

Is the arctic system moving to a new state?

Key questions that must be addressed in order to understand whether the Arctic

is moving into a new state include the following:

• To what extent is the Arctic system predictable, i.e., what are the potential

accuracies and/or uncertainties in predications of relevant arctic variables

over different timescales?

• To what extent can recent and ongoing climate changes in the Arctic be attributed to anthropogenic forcing, rather than to natural modes of variability?

• What is the direction and relative importance of system feedbacks?

• How are the terrestrial and marine ecosystems services affected by environmental change and its interaction with human activities?

• How do cultural and socioeconomic systems interact with Arctic environmental change?

• What are the most consequential links between the Arctic and the Earth systems?

In keeping with the spirit of previous IPY’s, it is also important to ask:

What new discoveries lie ahead?

What are the societal benefits of this research?

The Arctic is harbinger of global change and research community is poised to

make unprecedented advances in understanding of our climate system at the

present juncture. We will apply interdisciplinary approaches to these complex issues

in a manner that wasn’t conceivable during the IGY. Our observational tools have

progressed dramatically. Satellites can now provide us the larger scale view of numerous essential system parameters. A wide array of in-situ sensor and autonomous

platforms have been developed which can be applied to unmanned observations of

the ocean, atmosphere, ice, biosphere, land, the interior of the Earth and space.

Modern computational, as well as data storage and dissemination, capabilities will

allow us to move and share information in new ways. In fact, it is the hope of many

of us that the IPY might provide a very visible opportunity to develop and showcase

advances in cyberinfrastructure in a way the benefits the larger science enterprise.

If the IPY is fully implemented as envisioned, the Arctic as well as Antarctic

plans address the future climate of our planet with the intention of establishing observation networks that take us into the future. Concentrated efforts during the IPY

will help to entrain the next generation into polar science and transfer unique operational and logistics know-how to that new generation. As a mother, I am excited

by the education efforts centered on the IPY that are aiming to bring fun into math

and science so that we can get our kids on track and capable of competing in the

global economy. The findings from IPY and the observation networks that result will

help to prepare the people of the north for adapting to what appears to be inevitable

change. The findings should help provide guidance for further resource development

possibilities in the north under a changing climate. IPY research will provide data

with which to assess environmental base line conditions and future change. The IPY

data set should also advance our knowledge of past conditions on earth and improve

the basis for predicting future perturbations. Finally, a firm commitment by the

U.S. to the 2007–2008 IPY will demonstrate to the world that the U.S. is capable

and willing to play a leading role in assuring the quality of our collective future.

86

BIOGRAPHY FOR KELLY KENISON FALKNER

Date & Place of Birth, Family: March 1, 1960; Lancaster, NH, USA; Married, two

children born 13 Sep 95 & 9 Nov 99.

EDUCATION

B.A., Chemistry with Russian minor, Reed College, 1983

Ph.D., Chemical Oceanography, M.I.T./W.H.O.I. Joint Program in Oceanography,

1989

Languages: French & Russian

ACADEMIC POSITIONS

Postdoctoral Researcher, M.I.T., 1989–1990

NATO Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Groupe de Recherche Ge ́ode ́sie Spatiale, Centre National D’Etudes Spatiales, Toulouse, France, 1990–1992

Assistant Professor, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, OSU, 1992–1997

Associate Professor, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, OSU, 1997–2005

Full Professor, College of Oceanic & Atmospheric Sciences, OSU, 2005–present.

RECENT COMMITTEES, EDITORSHIPS, etc...

NSF office of Polar Programs, Office Advisory Committee, 2005–present

Arctic-Subarctic Ocean Fluxes Science Steering Committee, 2003–present

Associate Editor, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, 2002–2006

UNOLS Arctic Icebreaker Coordinating Committee, 1996–2002

NSF Office of Polar Programs, Strategic Plan for Marine Science in the Arctic,

1998–1999

NSF Office of Polar Programs, Ocean-Atm-Ice Interactions Steering Committee,

1997–2001

RESEARCH INTERESTS

Application of inorganic elemental and isotopic measurements to aqueous geochemical issues

This entails sampling of waters and associated solids of diverse media including

snow, ice, rivers, lakes, and the oceans and analysis by state-of-the-art laboratory

instrumentation, including ICPMS, TIMS & IRMS. Current projects include tracing

origins and pathways of river waters and other water types to characterize the nature and causes of variability in Arctic Ocean circulation and characterizing tributary and main stem Salmon River (OR) chemistry as part of a collaborative study

of salmon life history as recorded in their otoliths.

HONORS

National Science Foundation Arctic Service Award, 2000

COAS Student Mentoring Award, 2000

Office of Naval Research Young Investigator Award, 1993

NATO Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1990

Association for Women in Science Predoctoral Award, 1987

National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship, 1984–87

Phi Beta Kappa, 1983

FIELDWORK

Participated in 25 major seagoing, lake and river expeditions, 1981–2006

Served as Chief Scientist on seven of these missions.

REVIEW PANELS

NSERC Site Review Panel for acquisition of ICPMS at UVic, Victoria, BC, January

1994

NSF Chemical Oceanography Panel, July 1993, May 1997 & November 1997

NSERC Earth and Environmental Sciences Grant Selection Committee, 1996–1997

Committee of Visitors to evaluate NSF Office of Polar Programs, July, 2000

87

NOAA Russian U.S. Long-term Census of the Arctic, June 2006

RECENT PUBLICATIONS

Taylor, John Ryan, K. Kenison Falkner, U. Schauer, M. Meredith (2003). Quantitative considerations of dissolved barium as a tracer in the Arctic Ocean, J.

Geophys. Res. Vol. 108, No. C12, 3374, 10.1029/2002JC001635.

Falkner, K. Kenison, M. Steele, R.A. Woodgate, J.H. Swift, K. Aagaard and J.

Morison (2005). Dissolved oxygen extrema in the Arctic Ocean halocline from

the North Pole to the Lincoln Sea, Deep-Sea Res. I 52, 1138–1154.

Woodgate, R.A., K. Aagaard, J.H. Swift, K. Falkner and W.M. Smethie, Jr. (2005).

Pacific ventilation of the Arctic’s lower halocline by upwelling and diapycnal

mixing over the continental margin, Geophys. Res. Lett. 32(18), DOI 10.1029/

2005GL023999.

Mu ̈nchow, A., H. Melling and K.K. Falkner (2006) Volume and freshwater fluxes in

Nares Strait from observed salinity and velocity fields, J. Phys. Oceanogr., in

press.

Falkner, K.K., L. Bandstra, I. Royer, N. Ryckelynck, M. Wetz, D. Zima, R. Collier,

B. Hales, F. Prahl, C. Reimers, M. Torres, S.M. Meyers and E. Volk (2005). A

chemical study of the Oregon Salmon River Estuary and tributaries, Estuary,

in revision.

Woodgate, R.A., K. Aagaard, J.H. Swift, W.M. Smethie Jr. and K.K. Falkner (2006).

Atlantic water circulation over the Mendeleev Ridge and Chukchi Borderland

from thermohaline intrusions and water mass properties, J. Geophys. Res., in

press. (http://psc.apl.washington.edu/HLD/CBL/Atlanticwaterzigzag

paper.html)

Morison, J., M. Steele, T. Kikuchi, K. Falkner and W. Smethie (2006). Relaxation

of the central Arctic Ocean hydrography to pre-1990s climatology, Geophys. Res.

Lett. 33, L17604, doi:10.1029/2006GL026826.

K. Kenison Falkner, E. Carmack, P. Jones, F. McLaughlin, H. Melling, A.

Muenchow, M. O’Brien and P. Strain (2006). Implications of nutrient variability

in passages of the Canadian Archipelago and Baffin Bay for freshwater through

flow and local productivity, Arctic Freshwater Cycle Special Issue of J. Geophys.

Res. Biogeocsi., in prep.

28 additional peer reviewed publications.

88

89

DISCUSSION

Chairman INGLIS. Thank you, Dr. Falkner.

We are expecting a vote on the House Floor soon, but we have

got a plan for how we will continue the hearing so that we will

keep you all on schedule. And now Ms. Hooley and I can tell everybody in the audience that those pictures really are for real. Those—

if I hadn’t been there, I am not sure I would have believed the incredible beauty of those pictures, but having been there, I can testify those are really actual shots. You know, they look like they

might be staged, sort of like the moonwalk, you know, all that was

staged, as you know, as many people in my hometown believed for

a long time. Maybe they still do.

But it is—while we were on the ice, I actually had an opportunity to—with Dr. Olsen’s help and Tony Gibson’s help, to hook

up some students in high school science classes with a slideshow

of—speaking of pictures, slideshow of shots that I had taken. And

we were actually able to interact. They were watching. They were

looking at them from a website that we had loaded them up on,

and then I was able to go through the shots, rather than telling

them what we were doing. It is fascinating to see how interested

the students became in that. And they spoke to me afterwards

about it. You know. I mean, that—my kids would tell about a

friend of theirs who was in one of those science classes who really

was very excited about the whole thing. And it is—as you said, Dr.

Manahan, there is something about the poles that captivates the

imagination.

And so what can we do to—here, in Congress—I will ask Dr.

Bement first and then anybody else. What can we do, here, in Congress, to facilitate that, to make sure that that kind of interaction

takes place? I know you have plans in place to do that kind of

thing, and far better than the shots that I took, I imagine. But—

Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, thank you, Congressman.

Let me say, first and foremost, it is part of our appropriations

for 2007——

Chairman INGLIS. Yeah.

Dr. BEMENT.—because even though we have detailed plans in

what the other agencies plan to do, what they could actually do will

depend on that. But apart from that, I think promoting visibility

of IPY within your districts, and especially within the schools is

critically important. You know, visits. You have been to the Antarctic, but have you been to the arctic?

Chairman INGLIS. I have not.

Dr. BEMENT. There is a whole range of exciting things that are

going on in the arctic and the trans-arctic. Greenland, for example,

would be a very interesting place to visit. So getting firsthand experience in what is happening in IPY and then bringing that back,

I think, would be critically important.

Chairman INGLIS. Right.

Dr. Manahan, any thoughts on that?

Dr. MANAHAN. Absolutely. I couldn’t agree more about that comment that Director Bement made about promoting visibility even

within your own districts.

90

I think this message is just starting to get out that the poles affect, potentially, everybody’s lives. Even my mother asks me these

questions, and she rarely had asked me questions for 26 years

since I have been in America. She called me from Ireland after

news broke about possible melting of issues in the north and pushing back the currents and cooling down northern Europe and possibly northern America. It is a speculative model, but it is remarkable how few people seem to be aware of these issues. So—and promoting visibility as much as you can, talking about it in your

speeches when you talk with your—anybody in your communities

to get the word out, because as you said, people in the Carolinas

may say, ‘‘Well, is this really affecting me?’’

Chairman INGLIS. Right.

Dr. MANAHAN. Yes.

Chairman INGLIS. Other suggestions about ways we can help

here, in Congress, to accomplish that? Mr. McCaffrey had the good

idea of making sure those posters are in every classroom kind of

thing. And maybe make ‘‘March of the Penguins’’ as required viewing or something.

Mr. MCCAFFREY. You know, from my perspective, in kind of the

trenches of education, the science education world, a lot of the incredibly talented folks are scrambling for funding. And so I don’t

mean to come across like we are, you know, desperate for funds,

but I do feel , from the research I have done and the people I have

talked to, that we have a science education crisis, particularly, I

think, at the K–12 level in this country. And some of it has to do

with the preparations for teachers. We actually have some exciting

plans, for instance, for the National Science Teacher Association

meeting this coming March 2007, which is perfect timing for the

launch of the IPY to have a number of symposia that NSF and

other agencies are organizing in St. Louis that, I think, will actually make a big splash with a lot of the science teachers out there.

so if we can continue to leverage those types of events and provide

the training and the networking, not just nationally here, but I—

to my mind, one of the huge opportunities of this is to have teachers network internationally, along the lines of the Globe Program,

which you may be familiar with, that has a network of teachers

around the world where the students collect data and then share

data among themselves through the Internet. And——

Chairman INGLIS. One suggestion to pass along to you—I was excited to hear you mention the mission list module that—research

module. I speak—I presume to speak for Roscoe Bartlett, who was

also on the trip. He is a Member of Congress from Maryland. He

was asking in Antarctica about the use of more windmills and the

use of solar to produce some of the power rather than diesel generators. It would be a neat way, if that is possible, to hook the

poles with alternative energy so that it makes it much more interesting that here, in this environment, we are keeping it pristine as

much as we can by producing energy from renewable sources. That

would be pretty exciting. You have got a lot of wind there and an

awful lot of sunshine, at least—well, not now. But I hope that happens.

I see my time is up, but let us see, Ms. Matsui.

Ms. MATSUI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

91

And I want to thank all of the distinguished witnesses today for

testifying before us.

And I realize in your testimony that I was probably, as a young

person, a beneficiary of the last polar year in the education arena,

the emphasis on science and excitement of it. And I would like to

see more of that happening, obviously, with this IPY. Young people

are very, very interested, and to get them interested in this way

is, I think, absolutely fascinating.

To get to a very practical place, I represent Sacramento, California. And after New Orleans, we are now the most at-risk river

city, as far as flooding. And so I am doing everything I can, obviously, to protect my constituents. And an essential component of

that effort is to understand how global climate change can be affecting the snow melts in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and the

weather patterns coming off the Pacific Ocean. And from your testimony, it is clear that IPY has the potential to yield valuable insight for my constituents and for people all over the world. And I

do look forward to working with you, because, on a very practical

level, I can see now where this particular effort now is going to be

really meaningful for people in the community, in essence. I am

certainly making an effort. I live at the confluence of two rivers.

And we see every day that the weather patterns coming off the Pacific are more intense now. We have more rain now and not as

much snow. And as the snow melt comes much faster, we are going

to be impacted. So for us, it is certainly something of very much

interest.

I would like to ask any of you if past research has actually revealed what happens that polar regions drive, actually, the fundamental processes of the globe and—such as ocean circulation and

the early signs of global climate change in high latitudes. How will

research, under the IPY, advance understanding of these processes

associated with climate change? And are there any particular

projects that you have in mind or types of projects that would be

enabled by this? I am looking at very practical efforts here, because

that is a way to get our constituents and the people of this Nation

really, really involved.

Dr. BELL. Maybe I will answer, and then I think Kelly looks like

she has something to follow up on.

And one of the things that came out of the planning process of

the Academy was this similar sense of concern about environmental change and our ability to monitor it. One of the real goals

is to come out of the IPY with two things: one, a better understanding of how the polar environments are changing; and two, the

better capability of how to watch them change so that we can both

contribute to the models of change and also understand how fast

it is happening. So those are sort of the two messages back to you

that—both trying to understand the basic physics and the rates

and the processes and then putting in place a system so we can see

how the poles are changing. We, as scientists, actually have been

surprised at how fast the poles and the planet is changing. I mean,

my little story is 20 years ago, when I entered graduate school, the

debate was whether or not we were going to enter an ice age. It

has taken, you know, five to seven years for the community to

swing. So we now, as a—fairly uniformly believe that the planet is

92

changing, and every year, we chock up more information on how

the poles are changing, and we realize we haven’t been looking at

them carefully enough. And that is one of the very fundamental tenets of what we hope will come out of the IPY.

And I think Kelly looked like she wanted to follow this up.

Dr. FALKNER. Yeah. There is an effort within the community to

try and assess what the impact of the loss of the ice cover in the

north would be, for example. The reason we need to be concerned

about that, with respect to the heat balance, is that snow-covered

ice reflects the majority of incoming light, and water is a very efficient absorber of that. So you are going to change things fairly dramatically. The work that has been done to date suggests that it

will have strong effects on regional climate. I am aware of a study

actually conducted in your district by people who pointed out the

possibility that the loss of sea ice cover in the Barents Sea, all of

the way around the globe, is going to shift storm track patterns in

the Pacific north so that Alaska regions would receive more rain

and Oregon would become more like Sacramento. And again, there

are studies that are focused primarily on regional climate that

show, as you say, that the snow pack is diminishing. The timing

of our rain will change. These are the things that are in models,

and these models will be informed by the activities of the IPY. The

physical processes that we are using in these models need to be improved for our confidence levels to go up, and that is a major objective of IPY.

Ms. MATSUI. Okay. Thank you very much.

I have to just say that, for my constituents, and I think people

in California, in particular, anyway, is that we are greatly affected

by this. And I think, for most of us in California, we understand

this, so we are aggressively trying to figure this out. Obviously, in

many cases, government works very slowly, but what we are trying

to do is incorporate some of the scientific information into policy

arenas as much as possible. And as much as you could tailor your

projects to look at practical aspects, I think the better it is for all

of us as we move forward.

So I really thank you very much. I—would you also like to comment? I am sorry. Do I have enough time or am I——

Mr. SODREL. [Presiding.] Your time has——

Dr. MANAHAN. Mr. Chairman, can I comment?

Mr. SODREL.—expired, but a very short comment.

Dr. MANAHAN. Sorry. Sorry. Sorry.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. High visibility is a very important issue to understand. We know that the ice sheet in the western Antarctica is

beginning to break up. Those ice sheets tend to hold back the

movement of land-based glaciers. As those ice sheets break up, the

glacier movement accelerates. We know the surface water will penetrate as much as a kilometer down into the ice and will lubricate

the movement of glaciers. And we know, as a matter of fact, that

glaciers in Greenland, as a result of this effect, are beginning to accelerate. Those are the kinds of mechanisms we need to understand. We need to know what the inter-relationship is near the

oceans and lithosphere as well as the ice sheet.

Mr. SODREL. We are trying to keep on schedule while we are also

trying to vote, so I am going to yield to myself since we are a little

93

out of order here, but I will ask a question, because I will have to

have leave as soon as the Chairman comes back.

You know, I attended a lot of trade associations when I was in

the private sector, and people would say, ‘‘Boy, this is a great meeting.’’ Well, you don’t know it is a great meeting until you go home

and see what develops as a result of the meeting. And my question

for you, if I might, is how will you know the International Polar

Year has been a success? What would you like to see accomplished?

And what is the desired result that you would like to see at the

end? And we will start with Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, first of all, we will understand considerably

more about the impact of climate change on the ecology in the arctic and the Antarctic. We will understand more about ocean flow

patterns in the Arctic Sea and to the Bering Sea and on into the

North Pacific and how that affects fish production, seafood production, in those regions. We will understand more about the impact

of global change on the native populations in Alaska and on coastal

erosion and also on the thawing of the tundra, which is causing

considerable damage not only to housing but also infrastructure. In

the Antarctic region, we will understand more about paleoclimate

change over two million years. And we will also understand more

about the climate patterns that existed over the entire continent.

In some parts of Antarctic, the temperature is rising. In other

parts, it is cooling. In some parts of Greenland, at least on the margins, we are seeing considerable melting, but in the center of

Greenland, we are seeing ice buildup. Those are patterns that we

need to be able to model in order to predict better what the volume

change of ice melting is likely to be over time. And the work of

NASA in helping us understand from space what is happening on

the surface of the ice sheet areas compared to what we could measure on the ground will also be critically important.

Mr. SODREL. Dr. Bell.

Dr. BELL. In addition to the important inputs towards understanding the planet and the change and looking at those new frontiers, the other success will be if we stimulate both the scientifically-literate public and the next generation. That is really one of

the long-lasting legacies of the previous IPYs and people who went

into science because of it and people who were educated at an earlier age. So I think that is the other clear benchmark that we have

set for ourselves is the scientifically-literate public and engaging

the next generation of leaders.

Dr. MANAHAN. And I think another matrix of success, in addition, I would agree completely with what I have just heard, would

be a move towards a more interdisciplinary kind of systems thinking that links life sciences and physical sciences. As you know, for

50 years, those are often in universities in separate buildings. They

are separate graduate program, separate undergraduate education.

We have to start linking the life and the physical sciences and in

between, the chemical sciences, et cetera, and that is going to be,

I think, at the graduate level, a very obvious matrix of success if

we start to see the emergence of new ways of training the next generation of scientists and engineers.

Mr. SODREL. Yes.

94

Mr. MCCAFFREY. I would just like to add that, in addition to

what Robin was saying about a science-literate society, I think that

this is an opportunity for people to gain skills in understanding

how science is conducted in terms of how scientists go out and collect data and analyze the evidence and so forth, because I think increasingly people are going to have to become—they are going to

have to start making decisions and—along the lines of what Ms.

Matsui was saying in terms of her community and her constituents

needing more scientific information as they make decisions in their

lives. I think IPY is an incredible opportunity for us to kind of

demystify how science is conducted. And we know a lot about people’s misconceptions in terms of polar regions. People are disappointed to learn that polar bears don’t live in Antarctica, for instance. And these types of misconceptions are also an opportunity

for us to sort of get them engaged and excited about the science

involved.

Dr. FALKNER. I guess I have the last comment here.

I think we will be successful if, when you ask the general public,

the majority of them know, by the end of IPY, where Antarctica is,

where the arctic is, they don’t mix them up, and they know they

are very important to the whole global system.

Mr. SODREL. Thank you. The Chairman hasn’t made it back. I

want—I have only got about five minutes or maybe a little less to

get to the Floor, so I would like to call a 10-minute recess, because

I am confident that the Chairman will be back in 10 minutes.

Thank you.

[Recess.]

Chairman INGLIS. Let us see. We will resume the hearing now.

I am aware that we don’t have Ms. Hooley back yet, and she hasn’t

had an opportunity to ask questions. But while we are waiting for

her, maybe I will go ahead and ask a question.

But Dr. Bement, you had something to add.

Dr. BEMENT. Yes. I was looking for an opportunity to tell you

about our alterative energy source that is——

Chairman INGLIS. Oh, good.

Dr. BEMENT.—in our plans, and this——

Chairman INGLIS. Yeah.

Dr. BEMENT.—might be a good time.

Chairman INGLIS. Yeah, I—that would be a great time to do it.

Please.

Dr. BEMENT. We currently are using wind turbines to power our

satellite communications, and we plan to increase that. Now we

have, as part of our request for 2007, a planning exercise to extend

that type of alternative energy supply to include photovoltaics and

also biodiesel. So it is a very active part of our program, and we

appreciate your support on that.

Chairman INGLIS. Yeah, what—and what do we need to do make

that happen in Congress?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, I think a little bit of hand-holding would help,

but we already have a good momentum to make this happen. And

of course, it will offset the use of diesel fuel. So this will take place

over time, but we are pursuing it.

Chairman INGLIS. Right. Well, I am speaking in for Roscoe Bartlett, who was very interested in whether there are also some ways

95

to handle waste differently than we are handling it now at the—

and perhaps advance systems for dealing with that. Is that—any

work being done on that?

Dr. BEMENT. On waste disposal or retrograde, as we like to call

it?

Chairman INGLIS. Particularly sewage systems that might be

adapted for that environment. He had some thoughts that——

Dr. BEMENT. If I may, I would like to call on Dr. Erb to answer

that question.

Chairman INGLIS. Sure.

Dr. ERB. Mr. Chairman, we—as I think you know, we have a

very—you probably remember all of the different waste baskets you

had to sort trash into.

Chairman INGLIS. Right.

Dr. ERB. And as a result of that, we actually make money on

trash. It is so well sorted, that when we bring it back to the States,

we can actually sell it. Sewage treatment at McMurdo is done

through a—I think it is a three-stage biochemical waste treatment

plant. So we are in good shape there. We are well ahead of most

other countries and way in advance of what the Antarctic Treaty

requires. At the South Pole, we are interested in seeing if we could

develop a closed system. Closed systems work in the space station,

for example. And what we are looking at is whether we can scale

that kind of system up to a system where you have 200 people creating waste.

Chairman INGLIS. Right.

Dr. ERB. So we don’t know if we can do that yet. It is something

that is on the agenda to continue to look at. Here in the room

today, one of the young people in our office, Maggie Kanopp, has

been discussing and attended a meeting in Australia last year

where she presented what we are doing in McMurdo and talked to

other countries, particularly the French, who are also experimenting with this closed circuit system.

Chairman INGLIS. Yeah. And I think Roscoe mentioned—Roscoe

Bartlett mentioned composting as a possibility. Is that the kind of

system—particularly in the field operations.

Dr. ERB. Yes, in the field operations, that is possible. We have

done that in some areas, and that is just a matter of straightforward scale-up.

Chairman INGLIS. Right. For the record, we have been hearing

from Dr. Karl Erb, who is Director of the NSF Office of Polar Programs. We thank you——

Dr. ERB. Thank you, sir.

Chairman INGLIS.—for answering that question.

And we are mostly waiting for Darlene Hooley, if she has an opportunity to come back.

But I wonder if, while I was out handling that vote, I wonder if

there are other comments that you might want to add that you feel

deserve a little amplification.

Dr. Bell, you look like you have something to——

Dr. BELL. Well, I think the—you know, the interesting question

is, you know, are there any hurdles out there to keep the International Polar Year from being a success.

Chairman INGLIS. Right.

96

Dr. BELL. I mean, it has come a tremendous way in the four

years since the planning really started in earnest, mostly in the

United States and internationally. And when I stand back, I think

there seem to be sort of four potential hurdles or things that could

be improved, and I thought maybe I would share the——

Chairman INGLIS. Yes.

Dr. BELL.—these with you. First is, NSF is doing a tremendous

job in their leadership in putting forward and planning the International Polar Year. But I think it would be—the polar year will

be more likely to succeed if the support from the agencies is deeper

and broader. I think there could be stronger engagement from more

of the agencies.

I think the second one is, clearly, funding. Again, funding at a

greater level across the board, beyond NSF. I think it is very clear

that those two come together: the engagement of the agencies and

the funding specifically for projects within other agencies.

Chairman INGLIS. When you are speaking of ‘‘other agencies’’,

you mean, for example, EPA or somebody like that or——

Dr. BELL. The ones that come to mind that I think would—could

strengthen their engagement would be NOAA and NASA. Those

are the big players that I think would—a stronger engagement, because of the tools they bring to the table, or the potential tools they

bring to the table, a deeper engagement would strengthen the outcome.

The third would be I think a little bit more coordination nationally and internationally. It is something that much of this has been

done on a shoestring, on both levels, and I think, again, science is

very different now than it was in 1950s, or in 1882, when much

of it was run by admirals, captains. It was run by the military and

it was very top-down. The nature of science today is much—as you

know, is much more grass roots. And we are running the balance

between how do you have tremendous grass roots efforts and how

do make sure you coordinate it to maximize the output. So I think

a little bit more coordination.

And the fourth one is one that Dr. Manahan mentioned was the

need to continue to foster interdisciplinary research, that that is

really what is different about this IPY, and it is something that our

society will benefit from when we break down these disciplinary

boundaries, and so continuing to look for ways to foster that process, because it is hard. It really is hard for scientists and agencies

to talk across those disciplinary boundaries.

So those would be the four things that I think need a little attention or thought.

Chairman INGLIS. Do others want to add something to that?

Mr. MCCAFFREY. I would like to just make a follow-up to Dr.

Bell’s comments. Within the international EOC Subcommittee, we

have been looking at how to try to integrate education, outreach,

and communication in new ways, because over the years, those

realms have become very specialized and often the public affairs

folks at agencies don’t necessarily know what the education people

are doing. And then the informal education folks working with museums and science centers don’t necessarily know what is happening with—in classrooms, for instance. So this, I think, is also

an opportunity to be integrating at that level as well.

97

What Robin just mentioned about the grass roots aspect I think

is particularly true in education. And we—at the Poles Together

Workshop we held in Boulder last year, there were a number of

folks that had been students during IGY who, you know, were retired or were still excited to be involved with planning for the upcoming IPY, and they commented on how different it is now than

it was then in terms of just this incredible enthusiasm at the grass

roots level. And so whatever we can do to continue to build that

community and support that community of, for instance, teachers

who—that had been to Antarctica through NSF programs and so

forth, we need to really do whatever we can to keep that enthusiasm alive, because people get discouraged. And you know, I think

NSF has done an incredible job of providing leadership, and at the

same time, there is the reality that 80 percent of the proposals that

were submitted did not get funded. So there is more we could do

to support these efforts.

Chairman INGLIS. And Dr. Manahan, what do you think about

the possibility of using the International Polar Year to somehow reduce the political overtones in the climate change debate? I mean,

is this an opportunity to maybe sort of stick to science and sort of

turn down the heat on the political side of things and turn up the

emphasis and the heat on the science? Could that be an outcome

of the International Polar Year?

Dr. MANAHAN. That is a very, very insightful question.

I think you are absolutely right. I think it has to be made clear

that the scientific process always involves disagreements and debates. And sometimes it is picked up as being that there is not a

consensus. And I think it is fair to say that there is an enormous

consensus that the globe is warming. And without getting into the

debates about causality, just that it is warmer. And we have to

deal with this. And just that step alone, as a sort of a national or

an international recognition, I think would be extremely important.

The debate about the cause and all of those issues are secondary,

but right now, it is warmer, and we have to deal with this. And

it is going to require a different level of training of people to see

its impact. It is going to be a different kind of science. America has

led the world in graduate education for decades and decades and

decades, and it will continue to do so if we are very forceful in coming up with new ways to educate at that graduate level, so we will

still be this great magnet to attract the best and the brightest, you

know, from around the world. I would like to think that I am one

of those who was attracted to America for that very reason. And

I—and we have a real opportunity to hit two things here: one, to

educate people about the scientific consensus; and two, to excite

graduate students and younger students to come into the sciences

in a very interdisciplinary way.

Chairman INGLIS. Does anybody else want to comment on that?

If not, we are very happy to have been joined by Ms. Hooley.

Mr. MCCAFFREY. Actually, could I just make another brief comment to follow up?

The Time Magazine article that Dr. Manahan showed, I think

the notion of being very, very worried is not necessarily very effective for young people. Young people want to have the tools. They

want to have the insight, and they need the scientific savvy to be

98

able to understand these very complex issues. You know, when we

talk about climate change without understanding climate, I think

we are sometimes getting ahead of ourselves. And there are some

very, very fundamental issues in terms of just understanding

seasonality, you know, what happens over the course of the year

in terms of the water cycle and the carbon cycle and how we use

energy and so forth that could be outcomes from IPY. You know,

we are focusing on the poles where the seasons are very extreme,

but we can also use that as an opportunity to just look at the basics of how we live our lives and how we can use simple scientific

observations and data to become more sustainable and so forth.

Chairman INGLIS. Yeah. And I would point out that—I am really

taking all kinds of license here with the time. I think I have had

more time to talk here than anybody else today.

But I point out that one of the strengths of the trip that we took

to Antarctica was being able to hear from people, very knowledgeable people, who presented the facts, as they understood them, or

the observations that they have taken in a non-hysterical way.

Sometimes—well, I won’t be—I don’t want to be too critical of Time

Magazine’s cover, but it sort of begins to tend toward hysteria,

which causes a reaction among, particularly conservatives, who

say, ‘‘Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Let us not get hysterical

here.’’ But to hear presentations like we heard from Dr. Manahan,

very thoughtful presentations with observations that were clear,

and I am sure that there are some people that would doubt some

of those observations, and there are all kinds of debates about the

observations, but the weight seems to be there that the observations are valid and they are worth considering, and therefore, we

should be taking some action. And it helps to have it presented in

that way. And so to have had that opportunity was a real eye-opener for me and very helpful to my understanding of the issue.

Dr. Bement, do you want to add something to that?

Dr. BEMENT. Yes, I just wanted to comment briefly that there

has been a revolutionary change that we have an opportunity now

to use very effectively since the last geophysical year in 1957 and

1958. In those days, we could inform the public, but we didn’t have

the capability to involve the public. Now we can involve the public.

We have the Internet. We have I-pods. We have broadband communications. We can bring, in real time, polar exploration into the

classroom, and we can involve the children directly in the activities

going on, either in Alaska or in Antarctica. That is a dramatic shift

in the way we can communicate and communicate broadly across

a whole nation.

Chairman INGLIS. Yeah. And you know, it is interesting. I want

to get to yield to Ms. Hooley, but since coming back from the trip,

a number of times I would be passing through our kitchen, and I

would say to my kids, ‘‘Let us see what is happening on the

webcam.’’ You know. And it is just—I mean, it is fascinating just

to turn it on, and they would say, ‘‘Oh, that is so cool.’’ You know.

And I have kids that are somewhat interested in science, not from

their dad, from their mom, but, you know—so, but my interest in

the—in being there and showing them the webcam caused them to

get excited about Antarctica. So school kids across the country

being able to, as you say, Dr. Bement, access the webcam and see

99

what the weather is looking like right now in Antarctica. Of course,

they wouldn’t be very interesting pictures right now, but once the

sun comes up, there are some great shots.

So now, Ms. Hooley.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

For all of you, I just would like to ask, if we didn’t have the

International Polar Year, what are some of the research projects or

type of projects that wouldn’t get done, or would they all get done

whether we have it or not?

Anyone want to answer? Go ahead, Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. The one thing that has happened as a result of IPY

is international collaboration and the ability to work on a much

larger and higher level of complexity than what would normally be

possible. For example, we have an International Trans-Antarctic

Scientific Expedition [ITASE], which I believe is involving 19 other

nations working collaboratively to understand, at least within the

near surface of the ice, what has happened over the last 200 years

since the beginning of the industrial revolution in climate change

across all of Antarctic, not just in one specific region. We could not

have done that before. We have developed new facilities in preparation for IPY that will provide further outreach into regions of Antarctic that would ordinarily not be accessible for ice drilling and for

other activities. We will be improving our communications systems

on a scale that would not have happened otherwise, not only in the

Antarctic, but also in Alaska at their new global change laboratory.

So there are a number of things like this that I don’t believe

would have happened otherwise.

Ms. HOOLEY. Okay.

Yes.

Dr. MANAHAN. I have a comment that struck me, as you were

saying, Mr. Chairman, about it would be—it would not be interesting to look at Antarctica right now, because it is dark. But just

remember how many things are going on on planet Earth in the

dark. And I think this new initiative of NSF, Life in the Cold and

Dark, is an example of some very new thinking about—in stimulating the life sciences to look into this cold, dark biosphere. A

number that is in my written testimony that I didn’t mention in

my oral testimony is that if you look at anywhere where anything

can live on planet Earth, some 90-plus percent of it has to live in

the refrigerator. And so this is—the most of this planet Earth is

cold biosphere. Most of it is cold.

Ms. HOOLEY. Ninety percent?

Dr. MANAHAN. Eighty percent alone is in the deep sea, which is

at about two to four Centigrade. Oceanographers have known this

for a while. And the link between the poles through the deep sea,

it is a huge biosphere. And looking into this dark, cold biosphere

in the poles is a great type of program that will understand the

cold biosphere, which ultimately, in a cold, dark way that we don’t

even think about, many that are microbiological processes, they are

sustaining life on this planet. And we need to know what they are

doing in the dark.

Ms. HOOLEY. Dr. Bell.

Dr. BELL. When you ask, ‘‘What would not have occurred without

the International Polar Year?’’, Dr. Bement pointed to a number of

100

very international programs that wouldn’t have happened. But to—

what has surprised me, and I think will be a lasting legacy, is how

putting this process on the table has opened the doors for meaningful collaboration with places that we wouldn’t have been able to

collaborate before, so that we would have been going out, very similar to what was happening in the 1880s with territory. We would

have been going out and doing our individual science, trying to go

places, trying to accomplish our goals, but in fact what this honeycomb that you have seen has produced is a willingness across the

world for doors to be opened and conversations to be happening so

that we have a greater number of minds working on these problems. And we are actually building a stronger international science

community. It is—I hadn’t actually anticipated this as an outcome,

but I have found, through my own research, I found the doors in

China, for example, thrown open where I had not been able to

make in roads before.

So to me, that is one of the—it is difficult to point to all of the

individual projects, but I think it is the—what we are going to see

is the multiplicative effect. We are going to get more off our investment. We are going to learn more, because of the greater number

of brains that are being applied, and a variety of approaches.

So I think that is one of the precious nuggets that is going to

come out is sort of the enhancement of the science at a level that

we wouldn’t have seen otherwise.

Ms. HOOLEY. Have you seen other countries willing to put in additional money for this project where, I mean, they may have allocated X amount of dollars but because an International Polar Year

they are putting in additional dollars for this?

Dr. BELL. Well, I think that—I mean, certainly, there are the nations that have put in specific allocations for International Polar

Year: China, Canada, and the European Union have put in significant new funds for the large scale. I don’t have any good examples

off the top of my head of, you know, places where individual

projects have gotten significant increments, but in terms of the

whole umbrella, the—there has been additional investment in the

polar sciences.

Ms. HOOLEY. Dr. Bement.

Dr. BEMENT. Well, close to home, Canada has already made a commitment for $150 million for International Polar Year, and they

are going to be one of our important partners in the Arctic Exploratory Network, which we are putting together with other arctic nations, such as Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, and

Russia, to look at global climate change as part of the search network. And so that will be a collaborative activity that would not,

again, have happened otherwise.

Ms. HOOLEY. Yes, Mr. McCaffrey.

Mr. MCCAFFREY. In terms of the education, outreach, and communication aspects of IPY, and referring, once again, to the honeycomb, every single one of these cells on the honeycomb, and some

of these are made up of multiple projects, a dozen projects in some

cases, they all have their own education, outreach, communications

plans and strategies. And then there are 54 programs over here on

the side that are specifically education outreach oriented. And none

of this would have happened if it weren’t for IPY and the collaboVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:03 Dec 20, 2006 Jkt 029850 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 C:\WORKD\RES06\092006\29850 SCIENCE1 PsN: SCIENCE1
101

rative, sort of, incubator that this whole process has provided. The

process has not been easy, and certainly not all nations have required people to be involved at the national—at the international

level, but for those of us who have participated and had the patience to stay involved, it has led to some unbelievable partnerships that otherwise would never have happened.

Ms. HOOLEY. Yes.

Dr. FALKNER. If I may speak, please. First off, I just want to say

it is really obvious to me we have got to get you to the arctic. There

is a cam up there that I am part of a party putting out, so if you

want to see the weather at the North Pole, you can tune in there,

too.

The comment I want to make regarding what we might not have

done without an IPY effort is that back in 1995, the arctic science

community wrote an open letter that I circulated, I was a signatory

of this, saying we are seeing remarkable changes. They look well

outside the scope of a highly variable environment, so we are very

concerned and we know we need to address this. Now this has

evolved to this broad interagency initiative we are calling

SEARCH, but the attempt to get SEARCH really going has been

more than 10 years in the making. What IPY offers us is the

chance to jumpstart what we know we need to do in order to observe the changes in the arctic, which are very dramatic and perhaps, you know, in some sense, more dramatic than what you witnessed in Antarctica.

Ms. HOOLEY. Dr. Falkner, a question. You talked about if you—

if IPY is fully implemented as envisioned, that you would see permanent observation networks. Do you see any sign that IPY will

not be implemented as envisioned? I mean, is there the money to

do it? That is always an issue.

Dr. FALKNER. Certainly, that is true. The level that was informally discussed is—among a board of people looking at this, is a

lot larger than what we have on the table. I personally am concerned that, particularly the other agencies, which do have as

Robin pointed out, some important components to contribute, are

pointing to what they are doing in science and don’t necessarily

have the means or the commitment to do intensified research at

the poles. So I think Robin summarized nicely the concerns about

the issues.

Ms. HOOLEY. Okay. Dr. Bement, let me ask you just a quick

question.

You are the lead agency. What does that entail? What does that

mean?

Dr. BEMENT. Well, we started planning in cooperation with the

National Academy of Sciences and Dr. Bell’s research board three

years ago. In the course of coordinating with the National Academy

of Sciences and also with the International Council for Scientific

Union, we also had interagency workshops and meetings. I hosted

one of those at NSF in order to put all our plans on the table. And

we gathered those plans, and we have been working on them since,

and you now have an update of what is currently being planned

and roughly what the funding is. So that is sort of a snapshot of

where we are today, but our planning will continue over the next

year.

102

Also, in the terms of education and public outreach, we have had

workshops putting together the information officers of all of the

participating agencies to coordinate how best we can communicate

the results of IPY to the public and what kind of educational initiatives we should be supporting. That has been very helpful in our

planning, and it has also led to a common website on the Internet,

which is available to anyone, which will have all of the current outreach and educational activities being planned by all of the participating agencies.

So those are some of the coordination mechanisms we have responsibility for.

Ms. HOOLEY. I have one last question for all of you.

We have got your written testimony. We have asked questions.

Is there something that you think we need to hear or know that

you just can’t wait to get out and we haven’t asked you the question?

Yes.

Dr. BEMENT. Just to put the hearing in a longer-term perspective, the International Geophysical Year and the International

Polar Year III occurred 50 years ago, and that led to a wealth of

data and also a wealth of archived photographs that is still being

mined today. So there has been a long-term legacy based on what

happened 50 years ago. Our outlet in IPY 2007 is to develop the

legacy for the next 50 years, and there will be much more data generated. They will be analyzed in terms of modeling and simulation,

trying to get a deeper understanding and be able to develop predictive tools of where our planet is going over the next 50 years.

And I think that long-range perspective shouldn’t be lost sight of.

Ms. HOOLEY. Dr. Bell.

Dr. BELL. I would like to second that in that I have a paper in

review that is using some data that grew out of an IPY project that

was never published, so you know—and somewhere this is now

new different data that no one has ever had a chance to look at,

but it shows you what a legacy this data has, particularly when it

is in these places that are so difficult to get to. So I feel very

strongly that the legacy of the data is—scientists love data. It is

their gems. It is their truth. You know, we may not wear beautiful

jewelry, but that is what is our tenet. You know, that is on which

we build our results, so the data and the legacy of the data, besides

the other important legacy of the people. You know, people like Dr.

Bement, who—I believe one of the reasons he went into science and

engineering had to do with the lure of International Geophysical

Year. So those are the legacies that we look at so preciously.

Dr. BEMENT. I hate to say I was getting my masters degree at

the time.

Dr. MANAHAN. I, too, would like to comment on this legacy thing.

It is very important that we don’t do this quick-burst, one or two

years and then say, you know, ‘‘We are done now. Let us move on.’’

Ms. HOOLEY. Right.

Dr. MANAHAN. I work in a building that I am told there were

samples collected on big expeditions in the 1930s that aren’t still

finally worked up. It is fairly easy, in environmental science, to collect data and samples. It is the workup, as you have heard. And

so it might be worth even, you know, calling us to order, if I may

103

use that phrase, in years to come and say, ‘‘Well, where are we five

years, 10 years?’’ There is going to be a huge legacy of data that

we have to keep an eye on and not just, you know, cut off the funding support and say, ‘‘Good. You went there. You collected it. It is

over.’’ Decades and decades of information is going to come out of

this.

Ms. HOOLEY. Okay. Thank you.

Mr. MCCAFFREY. Excuse me. I—the legacy, to me, is a huge opportunity, and recently, I read an article that Kevin Wood and Jim

Oberland from NOAA put together about the data from the first

IPY, and the focus on the arctic that—it is a fascinating, sort of

data story, if you will, a narrative description of what went on during the first IPY in terms of the number of stations and how the

data were collected. And then they actually do a reanalysis of the

data, and, in effect, they create a baseline data set, which was actually never accomplished back in the first IPY, but looking back

over 125 years at this reanalysis not only makes a fascinating historical story that I think can help us understand the history of

science and technology certainly in the United States and even

internationally, but it also is a showcase for how data from many,

many years ago that was essentially forgotten about can be resurrected and be very relevant to today’s studies.

So I think there are many, many opportunities like that that we

can begin to mine.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you.

Dr. FALKNER. And I am very much hoping that the IPY serves

as a showcase for how we communicate science to the public and

how we engage the public. I think there are a lot of creative ideas

I am aware of. We don’t know specifically which directions we are

going in yet, but I think there is a tremendous potential there.

Ms. HOOLEY. Good. Thank you.

Chairman INGLIS. Well, thank you very much to all of you for

testifying here today.

Dr. Falkner, I have got to get that webcam address from you so

that I can look at it. And Dr. Grossman has just pointed out that

the sun will be rising at the other one here soon, I suppose, so I

need to go look again at that—at the Antarctica cam.

And I think, Ms. Hooley, that this was an engraved invitation

that we got from Dr. Bement to go to the North Pole, don’t you

think?

Ms. HOOLEY. I absolutely believe that.

Chairman INGLIS. I think that it is one that we should accept as

soon as we can.

So I thank you all for testifying. Thank you for the work you are

doing.

Ms. HOOLEY. Thank you.

Chairman INGLIS. We are excited about it and we want to help

you make it a great success.

Ms. HOOLEY. It is really important.

Chairman INGLIS. Hearing adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

(105)

Appendix:

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

106

ANSWERS TO POST-HEARING QUESTIONS

Responses by Arden L. Bement, Jr., Director, National Science Foundation

Questions submitted by Representative Darlene Hooley

Q1. Has joint planning by the agencies participating in the International Polar Year

(IPY) produced a coordinated research agenda with a corresponding budget?

What is the total planned federal budget for fiscal year (FY) 2007 in support

of IPY activities, by agency?

A1. The National Academies of Science developed broad goals and objectives for

U.S. IPY activities. NSF and its sister agencies participate in meetings devoted to

discussing their plans for IPY research, education and outreach. For example, several Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) meetings were devoted

to discussing the IPY plans of the federal agencies, as was a workshop at the National Academies of Science.

One major coordinated program is SEARCH, the Study of Environmental ARctic

CHange. The IPY focus for this program will be on implementing an Arctic Observing Network (AON). In FY 2006, NSF provided $4 million toward AON. Subject to

Congressional approval, NSF will provide up to an additional $6 million toward

AON in FY 2007. In this activity, NSF is working primarily with NOAA and NASA,

but opportunities are also being explored with DOE and DOI. Network sites are

being established, with the U.S. playing a leading role in Alaska, Canada, Russia,

and the Arctic Ocean.

NSF will direct $31 million from ongoing programs to IPY, and its FY 2007 budg- et requests an additional $30 million for IPY.

In recent data calls to other agencies, many indicated that they would contribute

on-going Arctic and Antarctic programs to IPY. See, The International Polar Years

2007–2009—Report on U.S. Federal Agencies’ Planning, submitted with Dr.

Bement’s testimony at the September 21, 2006 hearing on IPY, and the web site

created by NSF as part of its work to coordinate IPY activities among the agencies:

http://www.us-ipy.gov/. This site includes updates on the various agencies’ programs, as well as information on IPY for a general audience, and for scientists and

educators interested in obtaining IPY funding from the U.S. Government.

Q2. Did the Administration give any direction through the Office of Science and

Technology Policy or the Office of Management and Budget for agencies’ funding

targets for IPY activities for FY 2007?

A2. While the Administration is supportive of NSF’s IPY activities, NSF does not

comment on OMB guidance or other predecisional discussions with OMB.

Q3. How will individual research projects be selected and supported? Does each

agency do its own proposal reviews or are there joint reviews? Are there any

international projects planned with joint reviews?

A3. Merit review is a critical component of NSF’s decision-making process for funding research and education projects. Through use of rigorous, competitive merit review, NSF maintains high standards of excellence and accountability. Merit review

enables investments in projects that couple the best ideas from the most capable researchers and educators.

NSF and NASA referenced each other’s solicitations in their own solicitations. In

addition, all participating agencies are communicating about their prospective portfolios, and information about proposals is exchanged so that related projects are

properly coordinated.

Countries around the world are actively planning their IPY activities, and the

International Council for Science and the World Meteorological Organization are

working to provide project integration where appropriate. NSF expects that many

proposals will be submitted to NSF by U.S. scientists and to agencies in other countries by scientific collaborators. U.S. program officers will coordinate international

programs with their foreign colleagues to determine the proposals that best satisfy

merit and IPY criteria. This coordination activity is already beginning to take place

between the United States, Canada, and the European Union.

Q4. Dr. McCaffrey raised the concern that, since the National Science Foundation

(NSF) declined to fund a U.S. IPY coordinating center for education, outreach

and communications activities, teachers are without a point of contact for information on IPY and researchers are without a point of contact for sharing their

research outcomes with educators and the public. Why did NSF not support a

coordination center for this purpose?

107

A4. Scientists and educators proposing education and outreach activities to NSF

need to convince a panel of their peers that they have effective outreach plans. NSF

is committed to supporting the most meritorious proposals, whether for scientific research or for education and outreach. Where possible, NSF program officers work

to build ties between grantees where these would enhance the overall outreach effort for the program, and NSF has initiated a series of meetings among federal

agency outreach officials to coordinate our various outreach efforts.

NSF is highly committed to its mandate to educate the Nation’s future scientists,

engineers, and mathematicians. NSF is planning a new IPY solicitation in FY07,

and we remain open to the possibility of funding a high quality and well-reviewed

proposal for an IPY coordinating center for education.

Æ