Dear Deeply Readers,

Welcome to the archives of Arctic Deeply. While we paused regular publication of the site on September 15, 2017, and transitioned some of our coverage to Oceans Deeply, we are happy to serve as an ongoing public resource on the Arctic. We hope you’ll enjoy the reporting and analysis that was produced by our dedicated community of editors contributors.

We continue to produce events and special projects while we explore where the on-site journalism goes next. If you’d like to reach us with feedback or ideas for collaboration you can do so at [email protected].

Ongoing Arctic Research in a Post-Brexit World

Some scientists fear that the U.K.’s decision to leave the European Union may lead to the erosion of British expertise and international collaboration in the Arctic. Others smell an opportunity to take the lead.

Written by Véronique Morin Published on Read time Approx. 4 minutes
Ny-Ålesund is one of four permanent settlements on the island of Spitsbergen in the Svalbard archipelago.Flickr/Harvey Barrison, CC BY-SA 2.0

MANCHESTER, U.K. – When sea ice physicist Peter Wadhams left Canada in 1974 to return to his native Britain and join Cambridge University, the United Kingdom had only recently joined the European Community.

“It suddenly became attractive and worthwhile to pursue Arctic research in my own country,” he said. But after a slim majority of British voters opted in favor of Britain’s exit from the E.U. (Brexit) in June’s referendum, Wadhams fears the collapse of the U.K.’s Arctic research programs – and is giving serious thought to moving his research to Italy.

“Forty-two years of research now destroyed in one day,” said Wadhams, whose Polar Ocean Physics Group, internationally recognized for its sophisticated modeling of sea ice, is primarily funded by the E.U.

Many echo his fears. Brexit was on every mind at the EuroScience Open Forum in Manchester in July, possibly the last time Europe’s largest general scientific conference will be held on British soil. The anxiety was particularly acute among Arctic researchers because they depend more heavily on European money and collaboration.

The E.U., through the European Research Council (ERC), spread about 200 million euros ($223 million) across nearly 50 Arctic-related projects from 2007–2015. Almost half of the funding went to U.K. universities. Under the E.U.’s latest funding scheme, Horizon 2020, the ERC has already committed 40 million euros for 2016–2017, with a high level of involvement from U.K. universities. The next granting round takes place in November and many fear it is highly unlikely that British-based groups will be able to participate, unless they are “invited” to do so.

On top of that, the famed British Antarctic Survey (BAS) runs a research station at Ny-Ålesund on the high Arctic island of Spitsbergen, Norway, along with more than a dozen programs at the North Pole. These programs, in fields ranging from climatology to ice physics and biochemistry to marine conservation, receive 2 million euros ($2.23 million) from the E.U. annually.

The U.K. Arctic Research Station in Ny-Ålesund, on the island of Spitsbergen, Norway. (Wikimedia/Bjoertvedt)

The U.K. Arctic Research Station in Ny-Ålesund, on the island of Spitsbergen, Norway. (Wikimedia/Bjoertvedt)

“My U.K. colleagues are very concerned right now,” said David Barber, Canada research chair of Arctic-System Science at the University of Manitoba. “And so it is for anyone involved in research with British scientists in the North.”

Panelists at sessions about research collaboration in the Arctic tried to reassure U.K. scientists that their expertise and experience in the polar regions were still appreciated. “Brexit would not affect in any way eventual collaborations between NordForsk and British funding agencies and researchers,” said Marja Makarow, who chairs NordForsk, the organization that provides funding for Nordic research cooperation and infrastructure.

Wadhams made an effort to put an upbeat spin on the situation. “One positive step is that we might be freer to [conduct] collaborative work with Canadians. It would be nice if we could,” he said. While Canada can take part in some European projects, their researchers must be invited into E.U. consortia to receive grants, he added.

Some have pointed to Norway as a solution to the U.K.’s funding woes. Norway pays a fee to be part of the E.U. research program, even though it is not part of the E.U. But Wadhams isn’t optimistic. “Norway can only take part in these programs so long as they accept the free movement of people. Half of Britain voted to keep foreigners out,” he said. “If we insist on controlling our borders, then we won’t be part of any E.U.-funded research consortium – even as paying guests.” Pro-Brexit voters say uncontrolled immigration, not foreign workers, is the issue.

Alexandre Anesio, a biochemist and director of the Glaciology Centre at the University of Bristol, who recently published a paper explaining how microbes survive extreme cold temperatures, is also mulling over his options. His program isn’t under immediate threat, but Anesio sees potential danger two to four years ahead. His center trains PhD microbiologists from across Europe and more than 60 percent of his funding stems from the E.U.

Few fields of research require a more collaborative approach than those focused on the Arctic. The conditions are so challenging and the region so difficult to access that scientific study there requires joint efforts.

With its decision to leave the E.U. and the funding impact that is likely to have on Arctic researchers, Britain may well have to step back from its starring role in these joint efforts, particularly if leading scientists move their operations to the continent.

The withdrawal by the U.K. might open up new research partnerships for Canada with European partners, said David Scott, president of Polar Knowledge Canada (POLAR). “Brexit is going to complicate things for the U.K. as they are moving forward, and could have unforeseen consequences,” he said. “But I am neutral as to whether it may affect research in the Arctic. We’ll have to wait and see.”

Meanwhile, ongoing partnerships (negotiated outside of POLAR) might suffer. “Conducting research in the Arctic is dangerous and expensive, and requires long-term planning and strategy,” said Barber. “Brexit makes the future of ongoing research very uncertain.”

Suggest your story or issue.


Share Your Story.

Have a story idea? Interested in adding your voice to our growing community?

Learn more