Dr Jenny Turton ARC0006
Written evidence submitted by Dr Jenny Turton
This evidence is submitted by Dr Jenny Turton. I have experience as a PhD candidate and early career scientist/researcher in the UK and internationally. My research expertise is within the field of polar meteorology, climate change and surface glaciology. I have numerous publications, have reviewed the latest IPCC report, organised outreach and education events and I have experience working within scientific unions and in the non-profit sector. The reason for submitting this evidence is due to my interest in ensuring that Arctic research remains a strong part of the UK's scientific remit post Brexit. I have a passion for protection of the Arctic environment and landscapes, and in educating the public regarding climate change in the polar regions.
Evidence for point 1: The Arctic Environment
Greenlandic glaciers are losing mass at an accelerated rate. Prior to 2010, the majority of the melting was located in south and western Greenland. However, since 2010, extreme melting and warming has also included much of the north and east of Greenland. The North East Greenland Ice Stream (NEGIS) is now losing mass and experiencing inland expansion of supraglacial lakes of melt water and large calving events (Turton et al., 2021). NEGIS has the (albeit unlikely in the near future) potential to raise sea levels by 1m. The immediate consequence of Arctic climate change in the UK is the rising sea level. Coastal erosion, economic consequences of upgrading the Thames barrier, and the enhanced risk of coastal flooding when high tides combine with passing storms, are all secondary, but nonetheless impactful, consequences of rising sea levels.
The direct association between Arctic sea ice loss and extreme weather over the UK remains uncertain. Some studies warn of a connection between decreasing sea ice area and increased storms over the UK due to weakening of the westerly winds (Overland et al. 2015) but other studies contradict or lessen the impact of these studies (Smith et al. 2022). Much of the disagreement depends on whether observations or models are assessed. Understanding the Arctic to mid-latitude impacts of climate change (also known as teleconnections) should form an important part of future Arctic research for the UK.
Evidence for point 3: The UK's contribution to the Arctic through scientific research
The UK is the closest non-Arctic nation to the Arctic circle – a region of accelerated climatic change, and developing societal and geopolitical change. It is crucial that the UK continues to support and develop Arctic research – both physical and social research.
The impacts of climate change within the Arctic will not be contained within the geographical location and will impact several regions of the UK. Whilst the increasing global temperatures, decreased Arctic sea ice and other large-scale impacts of climate change are relatively well understood, the regional- and local-scale impacts (extreme weather, storm track changes, flooding) are less well understood and are still largely unpredictable. These are the impacts which are affecting the UK the most, and will continue to in the coming decades. There is a close connectivity between Arctic and mid-latitude climatic conditions, which makes it almost impossible to separate the southerly regions of the Arctic from the northerly regions of Europe (e.g Scotland). The UK should have a strong presence in Arctic research activities so that they can actively collect the newest information, data, observations and understanding of the conditions which are just on their doorstep.
Public perception has moved towards acceptance of human-induced climate change evidence and the understanding that adaptation is required. It is important that the UK public sees a strong presence of UK scientists and research institutes actively involved in Arctic research to continue the public trust of climate change science. The UK is considered to have a strong Arctic research presence, which goes back to the years of exploration of the polar regions. Polar research and discovery are parts of the complex history of the UK in terms of exploring and mapping the hard-to-reach parts of the world. The building of the Sir David Attenborough icebreaking vessel received positive media and public feedback, which leads to increased science outreach and interest in scientific careers. Developing interests and skills in science and research at a young age will encourage generations of continued Arctic research strength within the UK.
Since leaving the EU, scientific collaboration in the Arctic is a way for continued interaction with the EU and for new collaboration opportunities with non-EU Arctic nations. The UK has been a crucial player in large international Arctic research expeditions such as MOSAIC and Arctic PASSION. These produce world-leading research with the latest data and observations. The UK has both the infrastructure (research ships, British Antarctic Survey, world-leading universities) and the position (close proximity to Arctic Ocean) to continue collaborating in these efforts.
Potential future economic benefits could be identified or confirmed with Arctic research. Mining in the Arctic, particularly for critical deep-sea minerals, remains a controversial topic for debate. However, many of the minerals required for the green transition (e.g to manufacture electric cars and batteries) are thought to be located under the Arctic Ocean. To benefit economically from any resource extraction in the Arctic will require adequate research to identify key areas, understand the geology, extract the necessary resources, and understand the political and ethical framework for such economic benefits. The UK has a strong history in geologic research, however in recent years, the number of students entering geology and geoscience studies is decreasing due to the general negative connotation surrounding the mining and petroleum industries.
With the exit of the UK from the EU, movement of students and early career scientists across different nations is more difficult. However, international collaboration, especially in the early stages of a scientific career are crucial for both the individual's career development and for Arctic science. Allowing for periods of study or work abroad, with the option of returning to the UK research sector afterwards is beneficial for the UK. The UK should encourage international collaboration through joint research council calls (for instance with other Arctic nations), which provide funding for travel and collaboration abroad. Similarly, the UK should encourage greater collaborations with institutions such as UNIS (University Centre in Svalbard), which provide education and fieldwork experiences for students and PhD candidates, and teaching experience for researchers. I have personal experience of working internationally (pre-Brexit and post-Brexit) as well as periods of study in UNIS.
Secondly, the UK should further support the Arctic infrastructure and logistics in places such as Ny-Ålesund, where the NERC base is located in Svalbard and ensure that Arctic research is a key focus of the British Antarctic Survey, rather than being secondary to the Antarctic research and infrastructure. Many countries have a 'polar' institute as oppose to a specific 'Antarctic' institute. From my personal experience researching at the British Antarctic Survey, there were very few scientists working on Arctic projects. This should increase and feature more heavily. The NERC Arctic Office has quite a small secretariat but with a lot of experience.
In the last decade, more universities now offer glaciology and/or climate change study programs, and numerous universities now have strong Arctic research departments including Newcastle, Bristol, Cardiff and Edinburgh. It is crucial that the UK continues to develop clusters of Arctic research expertise, with increased numbers of permanent research positions, allowing scientists to have the security of a permanent job whilst they research. This also benefits the UK by having Arctic research expertise throughout the UK, rather than gathered in one city. Arctic research has therefore been strengthened in Wales, Scotland and England and this should continue. A question which the committee should ask the government is whether they are willing to support the careers of (Arctic) researchers by providing more permanent and long-term job opportunities.
The release of the Arctic policy framework places the UK in an important standing as a non-Arctic nation committed to Arctic protection, governance and stability. Many non-Arctic nations and Arctic Council observer nations now have individual Arctic policy frameworks and reports. The Arctic policy framework provides insight into the key focus areas in the Arctic, and for policy to be useful and influential, research must also focus on these areas.
Much of the Arctic research is focused on physical sciences, such as climate change impacts and adaptation. The Arctic Policy Framework also highlights other areas which the UK should focus on, including international relations, geopolitics, and security. Science diplomacy has never been more important, and science-policy is a key avenue to continued cooperation and security in the Arctic and near-Arctic regions. Social sciences have often been underfunded, even more so than physical sciences, so this policy framework should highlight key themes which should receive increased research funds. Therefore, an implication of this framework should be increased research funding for areas highlighted in the report: biodiversity loss, plastic pollution, net zero transition,
The Arctic Policy Framework is an excellent example of science-policy, whereby gaps in our scientific understanding of the Arctic combined with current world affairs, are being placed at the forefront of the UK Parliaments interests. An implication on Arctic research should be to further the science-policy success with other examples. Therefore, research funding should include a component of international collaboration, science-policy and science-communication activities. It is becoming increasingly important to both effectively communicate Arctic research and implement this into policy. Additionally, an increasing number of early career scientists are pursuing these avenues for careers post PhD or studies. These early career professionals are therefore relying on societies (such as the European Geoscience Union, EGU, which hosts an annual conference with specific 'short courses' on careers outside of academia and science-policy workshops), to develop the skills of science communication/policy making. More focus should be placed on informing scientists of ways to get involved with policy and decision making. The EGU furthermore has a science policy-pairing scheme whereby geoscientists are paired with MEPs in Brussels. For greater Arctic science-policy interactions, the UK should have a similar scheme.
Arctic researchers must have greater involvement of Indigenous and Arctic citizens in science. The Arctic Policy Framework outlines the UK parliaments support for Indigenous Peoples, the Arctic Council Permanent Participants and the UK-Canadian programs for Indigenous community collaboration. An implication of this on Arctic research is that the researchers and research institutes must now play their part in collaborating meaningfully with other Indigenous communities and people living in the Arctic. This was reflected by Aaya Chemnitz Larsen, a Greenlandic politician who represents one of the two Greenlandic seats in the Danish parliament, who recently spoke at the Arctic Frontiers conference in Tromsø in 2023, and said 'nothing about Greenland, without Greenland'. For many years, research has been conducted in Greenland and other Arctic nations, without participation of any native researchers or communities. It is crucial that projects requesting funding for science and research in the Arctic must consult with native, Indigenous, and local peoples. Research institutes should be encouraged to provide visiting professor/researcher positions for scientists in Arctic nations, to enhance collaboration, and ensure that local people are included in science and research.
There should be more focus on collaboration between UK institutions and additionally between different types of institutions (e.g universities, businesses, innovation clusters, museums, think tanks, research institutes). Great science and research occur in all of these institutions, however collaboration between them is often stifled. In my research experience, collaboration across institutions was high during the PhD phase, when students located at research institutions (e.g BAS) had to be paired with a host university, which ensured research supervisors in different research institutions. However, these same research institutions often have many research projects and publications which are solely contained within the institute. Whilst the expertise is clearly within the building, better research may be conducted when greater diversity is included. Therefore, there should be a focus on cross-institution research proposals and publications, to ensure the experts in each field are consulted. For example, the Norwegian research council has a specific funding call for researchers who collaborate with businesses in their research. Additionally, the Fram Centre in Tromsø, Norway, hosts over 20 polar research institutions and companies, and encourages cross-institution research projects. Whilst UKRI has funding for businesses, these do not require a collaboration with a research institute.
Funding for Arctic research should now become more interdisciplinary. Arctic issues are not one-dimensional, and resolution lies in combining numerous scientific fields and experts. For example, in order to achieve the net-zero transition/green transition, it will require the expertise of physical scientists, social scientists, engineers, economists, city planners and policy makers. Ring-fencing funding into one specific field will limit the actions which can be taken and may not provide the accelerated change which is required. This is still a problem in many countries who excel in science and research, but the UK has the opportunity to lead the way in interdisciplinary Arctic research.
Much of the research funded by NERC has a strong focus on novel or new discoveries (e.g closing the gaps in our knowledge), or improving techniques to further our knowledge of an area (e.g new satellite data for surface mass balance estimates). However, there is now a wealth of knowledge and a mass of unused/underused data which has already been collected and stored. Therefore, projects which utilise the existing data and/or focus on applying our current knowledge should be eligible for support. These could include projects which focus on education and outreach, such as the Ursa Major research project, which aims at educating the next generation of urban sustainability scientists through summer schools and educational resources. There are many terrabytes of data stored at research institutions which goes unused, as the original projects which collected the data/satellite images/model output have now ended, or the researcher has moved to another location. There is likely to be vital information on these which could be used in long-term monitoring studies or case studies of specific events (e.g extreme weather).
There are a number of associations or groups which are run by volunteers or very few paid members, but have an important role in education, outreach and research. One such in the Arctic is the Association of Polar Early Career Scientists (APECS), which is an international secretariat but has regional branches. The UK Polar Network (UKPN) is the UK branch, which is run solely by volunteers (mostly PhD candidates). The UKPN regularly participates in museum and school outreach events, as well as conferences for teachers and creates educational resources. Yet, they struggle to find funding to assist them. Small pots of funding would be useful for them to have things such as travel expenses or to run more activities and events. This element of science communication is vital to encourage more young people into STEM fields, as well as communicate important science to the public. Other relevant societies or activities which encourage science careers and science communication include Girls on Ice.
April 2023