Part III: Antarctica and Academe - Scott Polar Research Institute

use Grant's cooling Units and collect changes of water from the jetty. This was
working well but only one unit was available last winter; they now had three. Bob
Ralph had been quite happy with the system for his work.
Fourth, diving: The murkiness of the water makes diving unpleasant. It is
necessary to operate by feel and sampling is difficult. Shortage of equipment, had
now been partly rectified, but more would be needed next season. A recompression
chamber was essential. Poorly maintained equipment is due to the inexperience of
the divers. Compressor troubles developed, because the engine was overworked in
a small overheated room. Leopard seals were a concern. These problems should be
overcome by the appointment of a professional diver and John Hall’s was a good
appointment.
Fifth, pollution: There was a general feeling of unhappiness about tin cans, old
scrap metal and oil. The latter had greatly reduced since Etchell's project last
summer, but the long term problem was still with us. Bob Ralph and Inigo Everson
did not see special cause for concern unless there was a marked deterioration and I
was inclined to agree.
Sixth, supervision: This was generally felt to be inadequate. Also more
preparation and more flexibility in planning projects was desirable. Callaghan
expressed the view that the present recruiting lectures, by emphasizing the
romance, ‘survey’ aspects, ‘Fid-power’ etc. and neglecting science gave the wrong
impression. Potential scientist recruits were frightened off and we got scientists
who were more interested in going to the Antarctic than doing good science. I am
inclined to agree and was impressed by Callaghan and Gunn, who clearly had
divergent views from SWG (as indeed I did!).
There were complaints of a general, lack of response to signals and to annual
and monthly reports. Callaghan and Gunn suggested that each worker should have
a senior University supervisor who would come south at the beginning of the
project - provided with a flight and a grant from BAS. The question of bringing
families was raised, but this was not desirable or possible in the foreseeable future,
even at South Georgia and certainly not at other bases. Callaghan suggested that
visiting senior scientists, even contract scientists should be treated differently from
Fids and not expected to work cargo, do ‘gash’ etc. It was wrong that scientists
should spend some three months on the ship before being able to start work.
Seventh, scientific equipment: Some felt that this was inadequate and that
people were given false information at interview and during preparation in the UK.
Callaghan had apparently expected a desk computer to be provided at South
Georgia. But South Georgia is still developing and needs time to catch up with
other bases.
Eighth, Scientific Programme: Again some biologists were critical of the lack of
a long-term programme. Some felt an initial survey was needed and emphasis on
teamwork rather than individual projects. I pointed out that Platt, Stephens and
Berry were employed to work as a team; that an initial survey would be too
superficial, whereas each project would add to the background information even
outside its special objective. It was suggested that we might be trying to do too
much too quickly. Callaghan was also critical of the biological survey approach. He
felt that there were ample opportunities for new work and that BAS scientists
should be leading not following. (This may be true of Botany, but surely not of
other disciplines?). I told Callaghan that I would be interested in his suggestions for
projects.
I concluded that the most serious current problems related to the generators
and marine biology. Paul Whitehead had done his best to resolve the former. I am
inclined to think that the agitators/troublemakers in the latter are Stephens and/or
65