Witness the Arctic | Autumn 1997

Some years ago, I was doing research at the National Archives in Washington, DC. As I was waiting for my material, I struck up a conversation with the person standing in front of me. He asked about my topic. I told him that it was federal policy toward pre-World War II Arctic Alaska. "My," he said, "what an obscure topic."

Within ARCUS, we frequently discuss how to raise the national policy profile of Arctic research. All too often, we hear that it is an obscure topic. Public funding for science cannot be built entirely on the logic of scientific discovery. Publicly funded science must-at least occasionally -show results that the public can understand. Examples come through the news of existing discoveries that capture public attention. One is tempted to seek such attention for Arctic research. One can spend considerable time trying to figure out what stories will capture the media's imagination.

The danger is, however, in creating sensational stories built on shaky science. Examples have arisen where the probabilities associated with each link in a chain of argument make the conclusions-and the newsworthy story-thin. The weakest link can be between media interest and actual importance to people's lives. Do we really need to know that life might-might- have existed on Mars rather than such things as whether our planet will be able to support life in the future? Publicity can direct investigations toward further thin results rather than strengthening less interesting links.

Most robust results require yeoman service to scientific work. Science is an accumulation of knowledge built-up over generations. GISP II has been an excellent example of polar research that can draw public attention, but do so on a frame of solid science. In truth, the Arctic science community will not find many opportunities like the Greenland Ice Sheet. Interesting results take far greater work. Each link in the chain needs to be supported. Most in the scientific community, and many in the press, understand the need for both exciting results and obscure but essential work. We can never know beforehand what we need to know.

Concern arises when government officials, from senators to program managers, talk about the need for exciting results. Arctic research needs to follow the logic of scientific discovery. Decision-makers need to see the importance of normal science-even when it seems expensive but obscure. The continuing trend is toward inter-disciplinary research within the Arctic, research that can at least draw immediate connections to larger systems and, possibly, human affairs. We can show the extraordinary in the normal.

Nicholas E. Flanders
President, ARCUS

Back to Witness the Arctic, Autumn 1997 Contents