1.4
the relationship between IASC’s science activities
IASC Reviews
and international science programs; 4) determine
whether the volume and balance of IASC’s programs
The IASC Founding Articles called for a review five
are adequate to meet the perceived needs of the
years after IASC was founded. It was later agreed to
natural and human sciences; 5) assess the ability of
continue regular reviews.
IASC to respond to requests for scientific advice; 6)
1.4.1
examine the effectiveness of all other components
by which IASC delivers its mission.” This was quite a
task, but the team felt they could provide a useful
The 1995-1996 Review of IASC
David J. Drewry (Chair of the Review Group)
Reviewer: Jörn Thiede
canvas on which to paint IASC’s future scenes.
At an early gathering, it was decided that it was
vital to canvas the opinions of the Arctic science
In 1995, IASC had been operating for barely five
constituency. There were people who had taken
years, so it was surprising that a decision was made
an early interest in IASC and its various projects,
to review its activities and performance. This was
but it was recognized that there were many oth-
in part the result of the phenomenal development
ers in universities and government organizations,
of its work, driven principally by its Executive Secre-
in commercial enterprises, NGOs, and indigenous
tary, Odd Rogne. The IASC Council must have spot-
peoples associations that were keenly interested
ted a naive candidate when, attending the Council
in the science agenda but had little awareness of
for the first time, I was asked to chair the review. To
IASC. It was agreed that a questionnaire should be
be fair, I was not too upset since I had been follow-
circulated as widely as possible and a good deal of
ing the progress of IASC since 1990. Moreover, the
the thinking should be based on the replies. At that
selection of the other members of the review group
time, I was Deputy Chief Executive of the UK Nat-
brought a breadth of experience and knowledge of
ural Environment Research Council and had access
Arctic scientific affairs, including Anders Karlqvist
to staff assistance. I therefore seconded one of
from Sweden, Vladimir Kotlyakov from Russia, Bar-
my team to work on the preparation of the Ques-
rie Maxwell from Canada, Jens-Peder Hart-Hansen
tionnaire. The questions were designed around the
from Denmark and Claude Lorius from France. That
Terms of Reference of the Review and approved by
there were three glaciologists on the team failed
the Review Group. About 450 questionnaires were
to cool their enthusiasm for the task! Furthermore,
sent out to addresses provided by the IASC Secre-
three of the members also had considerable experi-
tariat and from the successful ICARP I. These were
ence working in Antarctica and with its coordinating
supplemented by a variety of other minor inputs.
organizations, which provided a useful comparative
Approximately 30% of the questionnaires were
perspective. Indeed, Lorius had recently been the
returned; for such a survey this is considered a rea-
SCAR President and I had not long before stepped
sonable outcome. The comments on the returned
down as the Chair of the Council of Managers of
questionnaires were probably the most valuable, as
National Antarctic Programs (COMNAP).
participants commented freely on their perceptions
of the organization.
I T