C. Susan Weiler

Ultraviolet radiation in Antarctica : measurements and biological effects

The loss of the Earth’s protective shield of ozone, especially in the Antarctic regions, and the implications for the amount of ultraviolet (UV) radiation reaching the ground, has sparked ferverish activity amongst scientists of many persuasions. This volume is an attempt to draw together contributions from physical scientists, engaged in the processes of measuring or estimating UV radiation levels, and biological scientists, whose interests focus upon implied or observed effects of elevated UVlevels on biological systems. The 15 contributed papers, some of which are reviews and some of which contain original data, are divided roughly evenly between physically-based and biologically-based treatments, and manage to cover a good cross-section of current Antarctic research and centres of research. Roy et al. provide a good opening paper, dealing first with general issues of UV radiation and potential for biological effects and then describing the network of broadband UV radiometers which have been in operation at Australian Antarctic stations for five years, and outlining some of the recorded variability in UV levels at Mawson Station in particular. The following paper by Booth et al. describes the United States’ NSF polar network for monitoring UVradiation with spectral radiometers, and is a valuable reference for the many people who have made use (directly or indirectly) of these data, describing the instrumentation, the availability of data, and some examples of the way that the data have been used to demonstrate the changing UV conditions in polar regions. The third paper is a more modest, but very valuable, contribution from Booth & Madronich, warning of the indiscriminate use of radiation amplification factors (RAFs) to express in a linear fashion the complex relationship between fluctuations in atmospheric ozone amounts and surface UV irradiance values. The authors argue that RAFs can be useful even in situations of severe ozone depletion if they are redefined according to a power law relationship, and counsel the reader to be wary of RAFs calculated along traditional lines. Frederick & Lubin present a comprehensive discussion of the climatology of UV irradiance at Palmer Station, based on spectral radiation measurements in 1988 and 1990. Their article promotes the use of a ratio of two spectral irradiances (one in the UV-B region and one in the UV-A region) to examine the variability in UV irradiance independently of varying cloud amounts. The following paper by Lubin et al. considers the task of mapping UV radiation for a small region near Palmer Station, through a combination of satellite imagery from the NOAA AVHRR and Nimbus 7 TOMS satellitehensor combinations. The technique pays careful attention to the difficult and vital issues of surface albedo and cloud detection. This theme is continued in the paper of Gautier et al. (for which Lubin is again an author) which examines the roles played by ozone and cloud variations on UV irradiances, in this case through a combination of surface measurements at Palmer Station and radiative transfer calculations. Consistent with the recommendations of Frederick & Lubin’s paper, Gautier et al. utilise a ratio of a UV-B irradiance (calculated for the Setlow action spectrum) to an integrated UV-A irradiance to establish the particular effects of clouds and ozone on the spectrum of the shortwave solar radiation. The biological effects papers are almost exclusively concentrated on the algae and it is a little disappointing not to have seen more contributions dealing with the effects of UVon higher trophiclevels. The standard of the contributions is uniformly high and many interesting and sometimes divergent views are expressed. Karentz presents another useful review of UV tolerance mechanisms across a broad range of organisms, in the only paper which discusses the effects of UV on higher organisms. The paper by Vincent & Quesada on the effects of UV on cyanobacteria likewise builds on the existing outstanding contributions by these authors in this field. They describe the major lines of defence cyanobacteria have against UV exposure and note that although the changing UV flux is unlikely to affect productivity, it is likely to affect community structure. The colour illustrations are particularly effective. Neale et al. estimated biological weighting functions (BWFs) for phytoplankton growing near McMurdo Sound. They found that the BWFfor UV inhibition of photosynthesis was variable between phytoplankton growing under different environmental conditions and that UV exposure during growth was not an important factor affecting the shape of the BWF of the diatom-dominated phytoplankton assemblages. Vernetetal.reported on the effectsofinsituUVexposure (on photosynthetic pigments and primary production) of phytoplankton in the Antarctic Peninsula area. They noted a relationship between UV absorption at 330 nm, phytoplankton composition and the degree of photosynthetic enhancement after artificial screening of UV-A and UV-B. (They also reported the worlds largest Phaeocystis cells at >40 mm!) Prezelinet al. discuss the results of the impressive Icecolors ’90 project. They documented a real decline in productivity in a natural marine community as a result of 0,-dependent increases in UV-B radiation, as well as 0,-independent

Meeting Ph.D. graduates' needs in a changing global environment

While the world is becoming smaller in some senses, the intellectual terrain is becoming ever more difficult to traverse. The physical world is changing at an accelerated pace because of human activities. New technologies and intellectual breakthroughs have profoundly changed our understanding of the environment but also have revealed vast chasms of ignorance at the boundaries between disciplines. Disciplines have fractured, multiplied, and coalesced like volcanic islands in a sea of turmoil. The net result is that interdisciplinary collaborations are increasingly needed to extend research frontiers and address issues at the interface of science and society.

Personality type differences between Ph.D. climate researchers and the general public: implications for effective communication

Effectively communicating the complexity of climate change to the public is an important goal for the climate change research community, particularly for those of us who receive public funds. The challenge of communicating the science of climate change will be reduced if climate change researchers consider the links between personality types, communication tendencies and learning preferences. Jungian personality type is one of many factors related to an individual’s preferred style of taking in and processing information, i.e., preferred communication style. In this paper, we demonstrate that the Jungian personality type profile of interdisciplinary, early career climate researchers is significantly different from that of the general population in the United States. In particular, Ph.D. climate researchers tend towards Intuition and focus on theories and the “big picture”, while the U.S. general population tends towards Sensing and focuses on concrete examples and experience. There are other differences as well in the way the general public as a group prefers to take in information, make decisions, and deal with the outer world, compared with the average interdisciplinary climate scientist. These differences have important implications for communication between these two groups. We suggest that climate researchers will be more effective in conveying their messages if they are aware of their own personality type and potential differences in preferred learning and communication styles between themselves and the general public (and other specific audiences), and use this knowledge to more effectively target their audience.

Scholarly motivations to conduct interdisciplinary climate change research

Understanding and responding to today’s complex environmental problems requires collaboration that bridges disciplinary boundaries. As the barriers to interdisciplinary research are formidable, promoting interdisciplinary environmental research requires understanding what motivates researchers to embark upon such challenging research. This article draws upon research on problem choice and interdisciplinary research practice to investigate motivators and barriers to interdisciplinary climate change (IDCC) research. Results from a survey on the motivations of 526 Ph.D.-holding, early- to mid-career, self-identified IDCC scholars indicate how those scholars make decisions regarding their research choices including the role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations and the barriers arising from the nature of interdisciplinary research and institutional structures. Climate change was not the main motivation for most respondents to become scholars, yet the majority began to study the issue because they could not ignore the problem. Respondents’ decisions to conduct IDCC research are driven by personal motivations, including personal interest, the importance of IDCC research to society, and enjoyment of interdisciplinary collaborations. Two thirds of respondents reported having encountered challenges in communication across disciplines, longer timelines while conducting interdisciplinary work, and a lack of peer support. Nonetheless, most respondents plan to conduct IDCC research in the future and will choose their next research project based on its societal benefits and the opportunity to work with specific collaborators. We conclude that focused attention to supporting intrinsic motivations, as well as removing institutional barriers, can facilitate future IDCC research.

Preparing New Polar Researchers to Lead the Next International Polar Year: New Generation of Polar Researchers Symposium; Colorado Springs, Colorado, 4–11 May 2008

Logistics and physical conditions of polar research today, though challenging, are considered comfortable compared with what polar researchers endured 50 years ago during the 1957–1958 International Geophysical Year (IGY). However, the intellectual terrain has grown far more demanding than that of the past. This new generation of polar researchers must not only achieve disciplinary expertise but also be ready to communicate beyond a specialist audience, conduct transformative research, participate in outreach and public communication, keep up with technological and computational developments, and support their research in an increasingly competitive funding environment, all while addressing the urgency of our changing planet.

Antarctic Treaty summit to focus on global science policy lessons

The Antarctic Treaty Summit, which will coincide with the fiftieth anniversary of the treatys signing, will be held at the Smithsonian Institutions National Museum of Natural History, in Washington, D. C., from 30 November to 3 December 2009. The summit will provide an open international forum for scientists, legislators, lawyers, administrators, educators, students, corporate executives, historians, and other members of global civil society to explore science policy achievements from the first 50 years of the Antarctic Treaty. In addition, the summit will complement official government celebrations of the Antarctic Treaty anniversary that do not include public participation.

Symposium targets recent Ph.D.s in the aquatic sciences

To foster cross-disciplinary understanding and collaborations, the Dissertations Initiative for the Advancement of Limnology and Oceanography (DIALOG) program is holding a symposium from October 12 to 17, 1997, for aquatic scientists who recently received their doctorates. Participants will present posters, discuss their dissertation research, and participate in working groups focused on emerging aquatic science research, education, and policy issues. Participation is limited to about 40 students. The symposium will be held at the Bermuda Biological Station for Research.