UK Polar Network ARC0025
Written evidence submitted by the UK Polar Network
The UK Polar Network was established in April 2007 as part of the 2007 – 2009 International Polar Year (IPY). We are the UK branch of the Association of Early Career Scientists (APECS) and currently have over 400 members, from aspiring undergraduates to Masters and PhD students, postdoctoral researchers, and recent faculty appointees. As a voluntary group we organise career development events for early career scientists in addition to running education and outreach activities to enthuse and inspire young people about the polar regions.
The UKPN is aligned with The Challenger Society for Marine Science. More information about the Society can be found here https://www.challenger-society.org.uk/.
The aims of the UKPN are threefold:
3.2 What more could the UK do to improve or increase its contribution to Arctic science?
To meet the needs of a changing Arctic, polar science must adapt to new models of working which are more inclusive and transdisciplinary. Early career researchers (ECRs) are very willing to use innovative and novel methods, expansive collaborations, and far reaching science communication to support Arctic science. ECRs are already making important contributions to Arctic science in these ways, and others, and must be supported as they continue to develop their careers as they will become the future scientific and geopolitical leaders of the UK.
Supporting ECRs to develop their leadership skills and giving them agency to promote new ways of conducting Arctic science and research is critical to improving and increasing the UK’s contribution to Arctic science. Currently, the UK Polar Network (UKPN) forms the basis of centralised ECR support for UK polar sciences. The UKPN is volunteer led and often lacks the funds and resources needed to deliver the quantity and quality of support to ECRs that is warranted. This support takes the form of in-person and online training courses ranging from public engagement to fieldwork skills. Importantly, the UKPN seeks to embed outreach and equality, diversity, and inclusivity (EDI) principles into the work of ECRs. While there is often vocal support for this work from more senior researchers, ECRs are not always equipped to improve their work in this way, nor are they compensated for the time and energy they put into developing these areas of their work. Outreach to garner the support of the general public is an important part of tackling the climate crisis and gaining public support for UK Arctic activities. EDI is fundamental to a successful Arctic science workforce underpinning the UK’s contribution to Arctic science.
3.5 How can future Arctic research in UK institutions be supported so as to maintain and enhance the UK’s leadership in Arctic science?
Arctic research must shift to a more transdisciplinary approach which is co-produced/co-designed with Arctic communities and other organisations with on the ground knowledge and extensive experience building relationships in the Arctic. Many ECRs are already engaged in research which is using more integrated methodologies, but they often face barriers to how extensively they can use these methods due to gatekeeping by senior academics and a lack of adoption or acceptance by senior colleagues and academic structures which do not support an increasingly multidisciplinary approach.
To maintain and enhance the UK’s leadership in Arctic science ECRs must be fully supported to develop into the leaders needed; the Arctic research workforce in the UK must become expert in methods of co-design; provision Arctic communities with the technology and support needed to monitor, stay safe in, and gain a livelihood from their environment.
Beyond general support for ECRs in future Arctic research to maintain and enhance the UK’s leadership, three tangible actions which could be taken include:
3.6 What factors govern the commissioning of Arctic research programmes in UK scientific institutions, and to what extent are the outputs of such programmes used in contributions to multilateral scientific assessments such as the IPCC?
While not as inclusive as they could be, multilateral scientific assessments do offer ECRs opportunities to contribute at an international scale as an output of their research programmes. One such example of this has been the coordination of ECR reviews of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change(IPCC) reports in the last couple of years. This was coordinated by the Association of Early Career Polar Scientists (APECS) and brought together ECRs representing many of the APECS national committees. Individual ECRs conducted their own reviews of assigned IPCC report sections and these comments were collated into a group response.
3.7 What research activities concerning the climate and environment ought to be eligible for UK support through the NERC?
The UKPN often finds that there is a division between natural sciences and social sciences within polar research. Many ECRs engaged with the UKPN are NERC-funded natural science PhD students. It would be transformative to the way in which Arctic scientific research is conducted for NERC to start encouraging further social science integration into its funding opportunities at the PhD level and beyond. Additional to this would be funding models which reward academics for more enhanced co-design of Arctic research projects. Climatic and environmental topics in the Arctic impact on Arctic communities’ livelihoods and safety, as well as having global consequences. Arctic communities know their environment in ways which UK scientists are unlikely to. While collaboration is often encouraged, funding for these kinds of climate and environment projects doesn’t usually cover co-design for the initial project scoping phase. However, this co-design phase, which requires relationship building across cultures, is costly. Restructuring the funding models used to support research activities concerning the climate and environment to include co-design needs would enhance the impact of NERC resourcing significantly, at a benifit to both social and natural sciences.
3.9 What impact has Russia’s invasion of Ukraine had on Arctic scientific cooperation? Has the conflict had an impact on UK research capacity in the Arctic?
The UKPN and APECS Russia signed a memorandum of understanding in 2018 which committed both APECS national committees to cooperating, fostering links, and building relationships for future scientific advancements and progress. This formalised a well-established collaboration, and provided a structure for UK-Russia Arctic science funding from the FCDO, UK Arctic Office, and the British Council. Funding from these organisations to the UKPN supported a number of activities conducted in collaboration with APECS Russia including in person fieldwork training courses (ARCTIS fieldwork exchanges) and a series of online webinars. Both programmes were designed to provide ECRs with skills needed to overcome barriers to bilateral cooperation; understand funding, planning, and resources available for Russian Arctic research; and develop networks. Other programmes designed to facilitate exchange and cooperation between UK and Russian researchers in the Arctic include EU-Interact. UK Science and Innovation Network also promoted the projects which were all excellent examples of science diplomacy in action, despite existing political tensions.
Following the invasion of Ukraine by Russia, these collaborative activities have been severely impacted by sanctions. While scientific communication and collaboration with Russian scientists is not prohibited, many research institutions and individual academics have chosen to curtail contact with Russian-based scientists and Russian Arctic scientific research. Similarly, the UKPN’s position is to not engage with Russian collaborations at this time, although individuals are permitted to engage as they would like to as long as the UKPN name and brand is not used. The primary impact has been that all communications and knowledge exchange between UKPN and APECS Russia which facilitated UK scientists working in the Russian Arctic has ceased. This not only changes the foundational relationship and collaborative way of working, but has also resulted in the inaccessibility of funds held by APECS Russia on behalf of the UKPN. Many connections and collaborations that took many years to establish and resulted in the projects described above have been lost. This is acutely felt by ECRs who may have started the career with a Russian-Arctic focus and are now needing to reassess how to proceed and develop. Beyond the impact of sanctions, peer-reviewer opinions are influencing ECR career progression in the context of funding and publications. It will take many years to heal scientific relationships broken by the current conflict.
3.11 What role is there for the UK to assist in Arctic scientific co-operation while the Arctic Council is in abeyance?
Through the UKPN, the UK is actively pursuing international collaboration to assist scientific co-operation and ECR leadership development by partnering with other national committees of APECS. Despite the Arctic Council abeyance and shutdown of Russian collaborations such as the UKPN’s ARCTIS fieldwork programme, the UKPN has a number of international collaborations.
The UKPN and APECS France have partnered to launch a pen pal project allowing UK school students to write to French polar scientists, in French. Beyond strengthening ties between UK and French ECR communities, this encourages a multidisciplinary education by bringing polar science into language classrooms in the UK. With ~10 other APECS national committees the UKPN is in the planning phase to host a national committee symposium to facilitate further collaboration and provide training around English language scientific publications. The UKPN has also collaborated with APECS Norway on events.
4.3 How can the UK increase its visible presence and influence in the Arctic in support of activities which protect the Arctic environment?
As mentioned in the above responses, giving ECRs the appropriate training and agency to be future leaders of UK Arctic science is vital. This is again true of increasing the UK’s visibility and influence in Arctic environmental matters. Fostering supportive environments which value ECRs for their contributions equally to their peers and senior colleagues supports ECR visibility. The UKPN-APECS Russia, APECS France, and other collaborations have been successful in fostering ECR development and scientific collaborations, both of which are crucial for increasing UK presence and influence in the Arctic. Continuing to invite ECRs into high level conversations around Arctic science and policy will further train future leaders and showcase the novel contributions made by UK ECRs to the broader Arctic community. Ways this has been done in the past include side meetings with the British ambassador to Iceland during the Arctic Circle Assembly, facilitated by the UK Arctic Office. The UKPN also sits on a number of committees to support the organisation of international conferences, and the UK governance of Arctic science activities. Finally, ensuring that adequate funding is provided for innovative outreach and public engagement activities (as well as the needed training to deliver these) will further aid the protection of the Arctic environment by garnering public support for climate mitigation policies and further Arctic research. This increases the visibility of the UK’s involvement in Arctic science nationally, and internationally.
This response was compiled by the UK Polar Network, an organisation whose mission is to support early career polar scientists and disseminate knowledge to the general public. The response was compiled by current co-presidents Eleanor Maedhbh Honan and Chloe Nunn, with significant input from Saule Akhmetkaliyeva, Chelsey Baker, Benjamin Boyes, Anna Gebruk, Rhiannon Jones, and Nadezhda Mamontova all of whom are currently or have been members of the UKPN committee. The work of the UKPN is thanks to all past and present committee members.
April 2023