01.03.2013 Views

International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

International Polar Year 2007–2008 - WMO

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

PA R T FI V E : T H E L E G AC I E S O F I PY 20 07–20 0 8 A N D FU T U R E O F P O L A R R E S E A R C H<br />

5.2 Broadening the Cross-Disciplinary<br />

Impact of IPY Research<br />

Lead Authors:<br />

Colin Summerhayes, Volker Rachold and Igor Krupnik<br />

Contributing Authors:<br />

Hajo Eicken, Gary Hufford, Vera Metcalf, Sue Moore, James Overland,<br />

Lars-Otto Reiersen, Morten Skovgård Olsen and Helen Wiggins<br />

Cross-disciplinary collaboration, synthesis and integration<br />

The science scope of this IPY was remarkably different from that of its predecessors and<br />

other large-scale science programs in polar research. Dedicated efforts were made to<br />

include cross-disciplinary studies and projects exploring the human dimension, ecological<br />

diversity, and community and ecosystem health. For the first time in an IPY–IGY setting,<br />

physical, natural, social and humanistic scientists and local community-based experts<br />

worked together under a common multidisciplinary science programme. This new form<br />

of cross-disciplinary collaboration is widely perceived as a lasting achievement of IPY<br />

<strong>2007–2008</strong>. It marks an extraordinary advance in our perception of the complexities of<br />

the polar regions and of the importance of synthesis, knowledge integration and data<br />

sharing in the understanding of processes that affect our planet.<br />

(The State of <strong>Polar</strong> Research, 2009, p. 9)<br />

As impressive a venture as IPY <strong>2007–2008</strong><br />

has been, with more than 228 international<br />

projects engaging some 50,000 scientists<br />

from 60 nations, it was not the only major<br />

polar science initiative between 2004 and 2010.<br />

Nor did IPY introduce the template of a ‘megaprogram’<br />

involving experts from many disciplines<br />

and funding from several nations. Some of those<br />

‘mega-programs’ started prior to the main thrust for<br />

IPY <strong>2007–2008</strong> and were completed and published in<br />

parallel with the emerging IPY network. Arctic Climate<br />

Impact Assessment report (ACIA, 2005), Arctic Human<br />

Development Report (AHDR, 2004) and Arctic Research:<br />

A Global Responsibility (ICARP II, 2005) are among<br />

the few examples from those years. In other cases,<br />

national operators decided to re-label as ‘IPY’ what<br />

they would likely have been doing anyway. Although<br />

in development independently and prior to IPY, these<br />

programs experienced their full advancement during<br />

the IPY years and were taken by their originators as<br />

contributions to the goals of IPY <strong>2007–2008</strong> and its<br />

science program. Arctic Human Health Initiative (AHHI,<br />

IPY no. 167 – Chapter 2.11), U.S. Study of Environmental<br />

Arctic Change (SEARCH) and its international version,<br />

<strong>International</strong> Study of Arctic Change (ISAC, IPY no. 48),<br />

Developing Arctic Modeling and Observing Capabilities<br />

(DAMOCLES, IPY no. 40), Arctic Social Indicators (ASI<br />

– IPY no. 462), ArcticNet - Network of Centres of<br />

Excellence of Canada and several others are good<br />

examples of such major multi-disciplinary programs<br />

that became the building blocks of IPY.<br />

In yet other instances, new research was indeed<br />

started due to the IPY-triggered ’pulse’ and funded<br />

with the new money generated under IPY. For<br />

example, the development of the Arctic Ocean and<br />

Southern Ocean Observing Systems (Chapters 3.2<br />

and 3.3) was a topic of ongoing concern for several<br />

years and the preparation for both had already been<br />

started. The arrival of IPY added the needed urgency<br />

to the process; it enabled many groups and scientists<br />

to develop their ideas as IPY proposals, which helped<br />

bring the wider community together and get things<br />

moving faster. Having the IPY label was a great boost<br />

for many science programs that would or might<br />

have happened anyway. As IPY illustrated, it makes<br />

a difference when you can see that what you are<br />

l e g a C I e s 545

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!