UNITED STATES ARCTIC SCIENCE POLICY

INTRODUCTION

During the past 30 years the importance of northern and arctic science has been largely ignored and neglected at a time when this nation has stepped up its use and occupancy of the North in response to growing national resource needs. The critical need now, of course, is to alleviate the nation's energy problems. This imperative, however important, should not and need not be an excuse to run roughshod over proper procedures and good science. In the long run, a well-thought-out and integrated arctic science policy would guarantee the best management and use of the Arctic's diverse resources-natural, strategic, and human.1 During the past three decades government basically has paid "lip service" to this concept with token and procedural programs in arctic science. Governmental coordination, priority determinations, and sporadic pronouncements concerning arctic science have, in effect, been a farce in every sense. The nation simply cannot afford any longer to be complacent in its approaches to the acquisition of arctic knowledge.

Clearly, the time for a renaissance in arctic science is now. We need a strong and cohesive U.S. arctic science policy to guide national program effort in resource development, international relations, defense, environmental protection, and human health. A coherent U.S. science. policy would contribute to the solution of the following national and regional problems which now adversely affect the well-being of the nation.

1.

Firi

Delays in energy resource development

The unhealthy state of the U.S. economy 3. The low status of the United States among nations active in the Arctic

4.

Lack of economic infrastructure to more fully utilize North Pacific fisheries resources

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

Lack of appropriate facilities and logistic capabilities to support both science and industrial development in the arctic region

Insufficient education and training of enough arctic scientists and technologists to fulfill national needs in the region

Conflicts between indigenous peoples and governmental and resource development interests in the Arctic

Conflicts between environmental and development interests in the Arctic

Critical health, trauma, and morbidity conditions among arctic occupants

In this paper we first review past U.S. efforts to establish arctic science policies designed to promote fulfillment of national needs. Second, we discuss within an arctic context the relationships of science to natural resource development, environmental protection, national defense, understanding climatic change, enhancement of human life and occupancy, and the Arctic as a scientific research laboratory. Finally, we offer the case for legislative action as the essential policy foundation for the development of coherent and comprehensive programs to achieve national objectives in the arctic region.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

Throughout history, U.S. government policies concerning the Arctic have been reactive to special interests and events. The conduct of U.S. arctic affairs during the past 20 years (1960-1980) is most germane to the need for a forum on arctic affairs today, but earlier history serves to set the stage for more recent events.

Prior to and during the nineteenth century, the federal government provided little policy direction pertinent to activities in the North. Exploitation of resources worldwide was the rule. In this context U.S. interests shared or led the rush to reap the riches of the Arctic

furs, fisheries, whales, gold, and other minerals.2 The Arctic was explored in order to more efficiently exploit its economic resources. Scientific inquiry into arctic environments, indigenous peoples, and high-latitude phenomena was incidental. Often during these times, scientific and exploration activities of U.S. organizations, citizens, and government employees received little direct official support and sometimes engendered actual opposition.3 Westward expansion, or "manifest destiny," was the driving force, and the goals were the economic imperatives of the times. Nevertheless, by the turn of the century, scientific knowledge of the arctic region had greatly increased, and a number of humanistic and progressive economic policies toward indigenous peoples had been adopted.5

By the 1920's, there was a further increase in the breadth of arctic scientific inquiry, setting the stage for several major policy-shaping events. Based largely on Ernest Leffingwell's identification of major oil structures on Alaska's Arctic coast, President Warren G. Harding established Naval Petroleum Reserve No. 4 (NPR-4) by executive order in 1923.6 Eastward, between the Greenland and Barents seas in the Svalbard Archipelago, the United States agreed to the concept of international sharing of offshore resources.7 Finally, the experiences and writings of one man, Vilhjalmur Stefansson, created an intellectual appreciation for the arctic technologies of indigenous peoples and explained them in the context of Western science. Most importantly, he convinced people throughout the world that the Arctic was not as forbidding as most believed.8

As the clouds of World War II gathered, the United States had taken only sporadic and partial actions to develop policies dealing with resource exploration in the North and the equitable relations with arctic Native peoples. Little thought was given to defense strategy in the Arctic and sub-Arctic, to the sociopolitical and cultural values of Native people, to transportation and communication in and over the arctic lands and waters and, of course,

to pertinent environmental protection as we know it today.

During the post-World War II era of the late 1940's and the decade of the 1950's, 9 diverse agencies did develop piecemeal policies on many of these subjects, but they lacked cohesion. During this period three sets of events gave impetus to U.S. arctic science activity. These were (1) the exploration of NPR-4 from 1946 to 1953, the concurrent establishment of the Naval Arctic Research Laboratory (NARL) at Pt. Barrow, Alaska, plus the development of the Air Force Research and Development Command's Project 572, Distant Early Warning (DEW) line; (2) the 1957 International Geophysical Year (IGY) program; and (3) commitment of the U.S. Indian Health Service to eliminate or reduce the incidence of tuberculosis and environmentally associated disease in the populations of Alaska Natives.10

Exploration of NPR-4 focused on geological investigation of the Alaskan Arctic and laid the foundation of knowledge necessary for the later (1968) discovery of oil at Prudhoe Bay.11 Activities in the biological fields at NARL developed understandings of the tundra vegetation, physiology of arctic animals, and the life history of northern fishes. Meanwhile, the doctors and biologists of the Indian Health Service and the Arctic Health Research Center of the Public Health Service conducted investigations and research on a broad array of endemic disease, environmental health, and genetic problems, thereby effectively reducing disease and mortality among indigenous peoples.12 In the physical sciences, high-latitude atmospheric phenomena became better understood,1 13 forming the foundations for improved arctic communication and air transport. Oceanographers began systematic inquiry into arctic seas, and meteorologists pursued studies of the arctic climatic regime and its global effects.14 All of these activities resulted in the development of a small cadre of skilled and dedicated arctic scientists and the foundation of knowledge necessary to understand and live and work in the arctic environment.

The decade of the 1960's was one of great change in the Arctic itself and in national events affecting U.S. interests in the North. Nationally, the 1960's brought an awareness of scientific deficiencies, particularly within the scientific community and the Congress of the United States. As a result, increased attention was given to environmental, ocean, and space sciences. Congress passed numerous laws to elevate the national posture and awareness in these areas of concern. 15 Several studies, reports, and actions within the executive branch, particularly emanating from the President's Science Advisory Council and the Office of Science and Technology, complemented the congressional sense of urgency about these topics of national importance. 16

In Alaska the disastrous 1964 earthquake brought about an economic and societal recovery effort which greatly enhanced Alaska's well-being. Following that event, Alaska began to contribute to the national economy instead of, as before, being almost completely dependent upon federal largess. The economic development brought about by postearthquake recovery and oil industry exploration (based on earlier NPR-4 investigations) culminated in the 1968 discovery of the nation's largest oil field on the arctic coast at Prudhoe Bay.17 These events placed new demands on arctic science and technology. The few existing scientists with experience in arctic environmentspermafrost construction, the dynamics of coastal ice. forces, fisheries and wildlife, soils and vegetation-were in great demand by both industry and government. They participated and directed a new thrust in arctic science and technology applied to natural resource recovery, improved arctic communities, and transportation and communication development. Suddenly arctic science had new reason for being, even though many with foresight had seen the imperatives years earlier.

In the vanguard were Alaska's then-Senator E.L. "Bob" Bartlett and Joseph Fitzgerald, Chairman of the unique Federal Field Committee for Development Planning in Alaska.18 Senator Bartlett served on the Appropri