International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

2
IPY 20 07–20 08
PA R T O N E : PL A N N I N G A N D I M PLEMEN T I N G I PY 20 07–20 0 8
Introduction
Igor Krupnik and Paul Cutler
The purpose of this opening section is to explore
“what it takes” to launch an IPY. Its
seven constituent chapters illuminate how
the International Polar Year (IPY) 2007–2008
was built on the history of three earlier IPYs, how it
has been conceptualized and developed by its champions,
and how it was successfully implemented over
the course of ten years from 2001 to 2010. Launched
first in 1882–1883 and then every 50 years (or 25 years
in the case of the International Geophysical Year
1957–1958), each of these four ‘international polar
years’ has been a major milestone in the history of science.
Each has served as a springboard for advances
in scientific knowledge and in science methodology,
technology, planning, international collaboration, and
capacity building to its constituent disciplines. In addition,
every ‘polar year’ has initiated an intensive public
campaign to advance polar research and to inspire
people’s imagination about the Earth’s polar regions.
Such monumental enterprises usually required several
years in planning and the efforts of many people
and organizations in implementation.
It is, therefore, no accident that each successive
initiative after the first International Polar Year (IPY-
1)—the second International Polar Year 1932–1933
(IPY-2), the International Geophysical Year 1957–1958
(IGY, which was originally developed as IPY-3, but
later became a global program with very strong
polar component), and the recent International Polar
Year 2007–2008—had advanced by invoking the
memory of their predecessors. The IGY organizers, in
particular, helped solidify that practice by producing
extended historical overviews of both IPY-1 and IPY-
2 (Heathcote and Armitage, 1959; Laursen, 1959)
published in the first volume of their publication
series, Annals of the International Geophysical Year. In a
similar way, the drive for new IPY 2007–2008 started as
the preparation for the “50th anniversary of IGY 1957–
1958” or “IPY +50” (Chapter 1.2). It is also no accident
that many champions of IPY 2007–2008 referred to
their early memories or to the stories they heard from
their mentors about the IGY era. Several major IPY
2007–2008 websites featured historical summaries
of IPY-1, IPY-2, and IGY, often accompanied by early
photographs and excerpts from old articles and books
that, otherwise, are hardly cited in today’s science
publications (Fig. 1). 1
Science history and legacy played such an
important role in the development of IPY 2007–2008
because it helped generate grass-roots enthusiasm
and marshal disciplinary and institutional resources.
It also illuminated the specifics of modern science
organization and planning. Several comparative
overviews of three or even four International Polar
Years were published as a result of IPY 2007–2008
(Andreev et al., 2007; Barr and Lüdecke, 2010; Behr et
al., 2007; Elzinga 2009; Fleming and Seitchek 2009;
Lüdecke, 2007b; Rae, 2003; Sörlin, 2007; Summerhayes,
2008). All shared valuable insights into the preparation
of the earlier IPYs and explored how history can offer
a successful playbook to today’s science planners
(Berkman, 2003; Korsmo, 2004, 2009; Korsmo and
Sfraga, 2003; Lüdecke, 2004; Rae, 2003). That long-term
historical view was on the minds of many champions
and organizers of IPY 2007–2008 (Chapter 1.2) and it
guided the approach to this opening section of the JC
overview of IPY.
This first section starts with a synopsis of major steps
in the origination and organization of three previous
IPY initiatives: IPY-1, IPY-2, and IGY (Chapter 1.1). Since
lengthy accounts of all earlier IPYs are available in
many books and historical papers, the purpose of
this chapter is rather practical, as it aims to introduce
IPY 2007–2008 scientists and educators to certain
approaches and strategies that emerged repeatedly
over the past 125 years in the organization of all
previous IPYs. Many of the same or similar strategies,
like the active promotion of the proposal for a new IPY
across professional fields and science organizations;
seeking endorsement and support of the most
respected international science bodies of the time;
establishment of an effective international steering
committee; focus on coordinated efforts, international
dissemination of results, and publication, etc., were