Kelly Blunt was not the only federal employee who was fired this month while traveling for work. But she was almost certainly the only work trip to Antarctica.
Dr. Blunt was the program director for the National Science Foundation, a $9 billion agency that supports scientific advancement in all fields other than medicine. As part of the Trump administration's campaign to reduce the federal government, around 10% of the foundation's 1,450 career employees lost their jobs last week. Officials told staff that the layoffs were just beginning.
But the office where Dr. Brandt worked has a greater importance than science.
The Polar Program's office coordinates research in the Arctic and Antarctic. There, the fragile, rapidly changing environment has raised strategic interest for the world's superpowers.
By treaty, Antarctica is a scientific sanctuary. And for decades, in addition to US research, three yearly stations, aircraft and ships supporting it have become the basis for the existence of the country there.
However, recently, “countries such as South Korea and China are rapidly expanding their existence, but the US has maintained its status quo,” says Julia, a marine scientist at the University of Houston, who studies Antarctic University. · Werner said.
The Polar program's office has long been understaffed, said Michael Jackson, who worked as the agency's Antarctic Program Director until he left the company later last year. Aging planes and facilities, plus flat budgets for science have negated the pace of research. “Now we might be able to do 60% of the science we can do,” Dr. Jackson said 15 years ago.
If the Trump administration cuts scientific funds significantly, American researchers could work more together with polar labs in other countries, as many have already done, Dr. Werner said. “But other countries have their own scientists,” she said. “I don't think South Korea or the UK is just making space for all of us.”
When asked how polar scientists layoffs would affect the work of the National Science Foundation, the agency's representative declined to comment.
When the agency fired Dr. Blunt and other employees last week, she went home after spending more than a month at Antarctica's McMurdo Station. Another fired program director, David Porter, was helping scientists embark on a 10-week expedition in the South Seas, backing up scientists embarking on New Zealand. Other teams were preparing to drill ice cores, perform seismic measurements and measure UV rays.
Foundation program officials will help determine whether such projects are worthy of federal funding. Often, they are experienced scientists themselves. Dr. Porter is an atmospheric and marine science expert who worked at Columbia University.
Dr. Blunt's NSF employment was on probation as he became a permanent worker just six months ago, she said. Before that, she spent three years at the agency on temporary assignments from NASA and the University of Maryland. In total, she has 25 years of experience as a glaciologist, with 15 Antarctic field seasons under her belt.
“I want to dispel this rumour that this is a bunch of people sitting smoking a government milk bottle,” Dr. Jackson said. “These are people who had established careers in academia and they decided they wanted to come to NSF and give something back to the US taxpayers.”
Dr. Jackson also does not buy the idea of eradicating fraud and abuse by eliminating federal workers. “By removing frontline programme personnel, we're removing what we want to have in place there to ensure no fraud or abuse happen,” he said.
For scientists in this field, their programmers may be the first point of contact when problems arise, and as assistant chief scientist at the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Koro One Twila Moon said.
“Maybe you have some logistical issues,” Dr. Moon said. “Maybe your instrument isn't approaching you on time, or there may be changes to the field flights you need to consider.” Few executives have said that the obstacles and challenges are in place. She said it means there are a lot of scientists at risk.
The geopolitical importance of Antarctica may help protect it from the administration's most severe cost savings, says Dawn Sumner, a planetary scientist at the University of California, Davis, on Antarctic lakes. He said he is studying microorganisms. “The only way that can exist in Antarctica is through science,” Dr. Sumner said.
Still, much of that science is motivated by the need to deal with human-fostered global warming that President Trump and his allies have long been slandering as non-problems.
Dr. Werner of the University of Houston feels “terrifying” that Antarctic scientists may need to one day not to mention climate change in order to receive federal funding. Still, she said researchers from Texas, Florida and other states had long ago come up with ways to avoid official taboos around the climate.
“We're always talking about rising sea levels in Texas,” Dr. Werner said. “There's no need to talk about 'climate'. It's truly “sea level rise.” ”
