Science Subcommittee Looks at Future of Antarctic Research

Last September, the Senate Appropriations Committee issued a report stating it was “very concerned about the ability of NSF to continue to fund a U.S. permanent presence on the continent [Antarctica] given severe budget constraints” (see 1995 FYI #131.) The committee directed the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to undertake a policy review of the U.S. presence in Antarctica, which resulted in a NSTC report issued this spring (see FYI #82.) This report formed the basis for a hearing last week by the House Subcommittee on Basic Research on the future of Antarctic research.

Six government and university witnesses testified about the importance of continued operations in Antarctica, all calling for a continuation of polar research. Associate OSTP Director Ernest Moniz affirmed “the Administration’s commitment to a continuing active and influential presence in Antarctica,” and summarized the NSTC’s conclusions that the continent is a unique natural laboratory.

The NSTC recommended that an external panel explore various options for sustaining U.S. research under constrained budget levels. Neal Sullivan, Director of NSF’s Office of Polar Programs, reported that Norman Augustine of Lockheed-Martin will chair this panel. Other panel members are being recruited. The panel will issue a preliminary letter this fall and a full report in early 1997. Sullivan cautioned the Subcommittee that the 30-year-old South Pole research facilities are deteriorating, and outlined a core issue: “as the infrastructure ages, it becomes increasingly costly to maintain activities. With level budgets, the cost of risk management increases at the expense of other program costs, including direct science support.” The current U.S. Antarctic Program budget is $196 million. The Administration sought, and Congress is in the process of providing, $25 million for FY 1997 critical safety and environmental upgrades at the South Pole, in addition to its basic budget request.

R. Tucker Scully, a State Department official, testified that “appropriation of the funds necessary to maintain an active and influential United States presence in Antarctica represents both a priority and cost effective investment.” Assistant Secretary of the Navy Robert Pirie assured the Subcommittee of a “seamless transition...with no impact on the science and safety” as air support of operations shifts from the Navy to the Air National Guard.

David L. Clark, chairman, and Robert H. Rutford, past chairman, of the Polar Research Board, voiced strong support for a continuation of the program, with Rutford saying the South Pole Station should “Absolutely!” be replaced. It is estimated that this would cost $90 million to $225 million, with $181 million being the figure most often heard.

Subcommittee Members seemed impressed with the work done in Antarctica, but expressed concern about the costs entailed in rebuilding the South Pole Station. In his opening remarks, subcommittee chairman Steve Schiff (R-NM) posed a series of questions, two of which are of central importance: “In reviewing the entire U.S. science budget, how much resources can and should be dedicated to polar research?” and “In these difficult fiscal times, are researchers willing to absorb the cost of rebuilding the South Pole Station from operational and scientific support funding?”