spinofflive
Rebecca Priestley having a read on the ice of Antarctica in 2014 (Photo: Cliff Atkins)
Rebecca Priestley having a read on the ice of Antarctica in 2014 (Photo: Cliff Atkins)

ScienceNovember 16, 2018

Celebrating the amazing women of Antarctica

Rebecca Priestley having a read on the ice of Antarctica in 2014 (Photo: Cliff Atkins)
Rebecca Priestley having a read on the ice of Antarctica in 2014 (Photo: Cliff Atkins)

Women have made a massive impact on scientific research in Antarctica, but they don’t get remotely the recognition they deserve. Science-celebrator Steph Green wants to do something about that. 

Antarctica, the edge of the world – a seemingly endless expanse of glacial and sea ice, with no indigenous human population and an inhospitable climate. If there was any part of the world untouched by the patriarchy, surely this would be it?

Not so. Despite oral history from Oceania indicating female explorers visited the region, women have often been excluded from Antarctic exploration and scientific discovery. When Ernest Shackleton advertised for fellow adventurers in 1914, three women applied to join him, but they were not included. In 1937, 1300 women applied to join a British Antarctic Expedition. How many went to the frozen continent? Not a one.

The US Navy, who conducted many exploratory expeditions, even went so far as to outright ban women from setting foot on the frozen continent, claiming the sanitation facilities were too primitive for female sensibilities. Admiral George Dufek wrote in 1956 that women in Antarctica would, “wreck men’s illusions of being heroes and frontiersmen.” This ban wasn’t lifted until 1969.

Nowadays, things on the frozen continent are different. Efforts by the scientific community across the world have improved numbers of women entering the sciences and applying for research opportunities. In 2016, nearly a third of all researchers at the South Pole were women.

New Zealand has played an important role in improving gender diversity on the ice. Because of our proximity to Antarctica and our joint logistics pool with the US, we’ve had a key voice in policy and communication with the public.

Italian biologists Simonetta Corsolini and Silvia Olmastroni with Emperor penguins near the Italian Mario Zucchelli permanent research station at Terra Nova Bay, in the Ross Sea, Antarctica. (Photo by Vittoriano Rastelli/Corbis via Getty Images)

Many of our top female scientists – including Victoria’s Dr. Nancy Bertler – are on the forefront of climate research, trying to get the message across that when it comes to climate change, Antarctica is the canary in the mine. Three kiwi scientists are among the 80 women selected for the Homeward Bound expedition that develops leadership capabilities to bring diversity to significant global issues in STEM. In 2017, Scott Base announced they’d honour three pioneering Antarctic adventuresses by putting their names to three new laboratories.

While a true list of women contributing to our understanding of Antarctica would fill several books, have a look at some of the remarkable heroines who’ve defied nature and the patriarchy to make their mark on the ice.

Edith “Jackie” Ronne

Many of Antarctica’s pioneering women have been lost to the history books, their deeds overshadowed by their explorer husbands. Edith “Jackie” Ronne was one of the first woman to explore Antarctica. In 1947, aged just 28 years old, Ronne followed her husband, the explorer Finn Ronne, on his Antarctic expedition. She faced many challenges – including the harsh winter season – and wrote extensively about her adventures.

Ronne’s history degree from George Washington University gave her a love for writing. She poured her talents into her chronicles, which were published by the North American Newspaper Alliance and the New York Times. She is often remembered as “Antarctica’s First Lady.”

Edith Ronne, right, with Canadian Jennie Darlington, during the RARE expedition, 1947. The two were the first women ever to overwinter in Antarctica. (photographer unknown)

Maria V Klenova

Maria was the first female scientist to work in the Antarctic region, as part of the First Soviet Antarctic Expedition 1955-57. She worked mainly from the icebreaker ships Ob and Lena. She was not allowed to go ashore, and had to rely on reports and field data brought back by male colleagues. Between her seasons, she worked at a Russian base on the Queen Mary Coast of Antarctica, and was also the first woman ever to step on the ice on Macquarie Island. Her work contributed to the first ever Antarctic atlas, Klenova Peak in Antarctica is named in her honour.

Lois Jones

After the US Navy lifted their ban on sending women to Antarctica, they put together an all-female expedition led by geochemist Lois Jones, who would become one of the first women to reach the South Pole. These pioneering women were not allowed to live on McMurdo station with the men. Despite this, the Navy paraded them around as a publicity stunt, referring to them as the “powderpuff explorers.”

Jones’ work is fascinating. Her team conducted surveys and collected specimens in the McMurdo Dry Valleys – an area of Antarctica that doesn’t have any ice.

Mary Odile Cahoon

Mary was a biologist and Benedictine nun who conducted research in Antarctica alongside Mary Alice McWhinnie. Her congregation collected funds to help pay for her trip, and she reported that most of her friends and family were excited to see her go, with the exception of her mother, “who was very worried.”

Together, the pair became some of the first female scientists to overwinter in Antarctica with 128 men.

Pamela Young

Pamela Young was the first New Zealand women to work in Antarctica and one of the first six women to set foot at the South Pole in November 1969, Young was a field assistant to her husband, biologist Euan Young, at Cape Bird, counting penguins and observing their behaviour. She wrote derisively of her visit to the Pole, which was a publicity stunt following the lifting of bans on women working on the frozen continent, saying, “I simply couldn’t think of the spot as that solemn goal to which Scott and Amundsen had toiled. Indeed, it seemed just the sort of Pole that Pooh and Piglet might have set out to find and it fitted perfectly into the circus like atmosphere of our own visit.”

A series of Antarctic peaks east of Mount Coley are named after Young, and a laboratory in Scott Base also bears her name.

Pamela Young, the first woman to join a NZ Antarctic programme, arrives at Scott Base in 1969 (photo: antarctica.govt.nz)

Thelma Rodgers

In 1979 Thelma Rodgers made history as the first New Zealand women scientist to winter over in Antarctica. Her achievement is remarkable, considering only a decade earlier men believed the climate was too harsh for women. Rodgers shared New Zealand’s Scott Base station with ten other men, and worked as a science technician overseeing experiments that lasted throughout the winter. She was honoured in 2017 by having a laboratory in the newly refurbished Hilary Field Centre at Scott Base named after her.

Felicity Ashton

In 2012, British explorer and adventurer Felicity Ashton became the first woman to cross Antarctica solo. She made the trek across the frozen continent in 59 days. Ashton is an experienced explorer whose other conquests included an expedition to the South Pole, a race across Arctic Canada, and traversing the inland ice of Greenland. Crevasse fields; whiteouts; sharp-edged grooves and ridges; temperatures below -40 C and hurricane-speed winds – Ashton dealt with them all, but stated that the biggest challenge was doing it by herself. “That level of aloneness was instantly frightening. Just the weight of the amount of time on my own.”

Rebecca Priestley

As an academic, Priestley’s work focuses on science communication and creative science writing – bringing what many would consider “dry” topics to life for the rest of the world to engage with. One of her main areas of interest is Antarctica and the history of science and exploration. She visited Antarctica in 2011 and 2014, to write articles and film a series of video lectures for Antarctica Online about the science and culture of the icy continent. Her anthology on Antarctic science, Dispatches from Continent Seven, captures not just the importance of the work being done, but the wonder of discovery.

There are many more adventurous women who’ve made their mark on the frozen continent, and many who continue to work in Antarctica today uncovering the true story of climate change. By engaging with their stories and supporting efforts to keep Antarctica a frontier of diversity, we ensure that there will be many more heroines of the ice.

Keep going!
Juliet Gerrard and Jacinda Ardern. Photo: RNZ
Juliet Gerrard and Jacinda Ardern. Photo: RNZ

ScienceNovember 13, 2018

‘I literally covered my wall in Post-it notes’: meet NZ’s new chief scientist

Juliet Gerrard and Jacinda Ardern. Photo: RNZ
Juliet Gerrard and Jacinda Ardern. Photo: RNZ

The new chief science adviser to the prime minister, Professor Juliet Gerrard, talks about diversity in science, the political hot potatoes, and what constitutes science.

The biggest splash out of the office of chief science advisor to the NZ prime minister came in the final days of its first occupant’s tenure. A report overseen by Sir Peter Gluckman blew the lid on a long-running meth contamination scare, which ultimately saw the government direct Housing NZ to pay compensation to around 800 wrongfully evicted tenants.

While those revelations were playing out in headlines Juliet Gerrard was appointed as the second chief science advisor to the prime minister a decision which was hailed at the time on this site by Siouxsie Wiles. A professor of biochemistry at the University of Auckland, Gerrard’s scientific interests traverse biochemistry, health, agriculture, food science and biomaterial design. After spending the first few weeks taking soundings from scientists around New Zealand, she has now properly assumed the independent role, which includes oversight of a dozen departmental science advisors.

The Spinoff spoke to Gerrard last week, as she was preparing to head to Tokyo and meet her counterparts at the International Network for Government Science Advice.

The Spinoff: Among the other international advisers, are there some that have been part of the furniture a lot longer than in NZ?

Juliette Gerrard: It’s really varied around the world. So different countries have had different advisers using different models at different times. But there’s quite a community of practice, so we don’t have to reinvent the wheel. In fact, Sir Peter was a lead figure in the thinking. So he spent a lot of time building that community and coordinating groups so they could share information. Because lots of the advice that’s required from different governments is going to be internationally relevant, so it’s more efficient to work together.

Given the role was a new one, with Gluckman the first – what can you look at that worked, and what can be improved on?

I think Peter did a fantastic job at defining the role in New Zealand, not just for the prime minister’s chief science advisor, but for using evidence in general, to inform policy. He really championed the appointment of the network of departmental science advisers that sit across various ministries. And he really built that international network. So I think that’s a fantastic platform.

My focus is going to be lifting the profile of those advisers and forming more of an advisory team, so that we can look at some of the gnarly issues and work together, not in silos.

A lot of the issues facing the government at the moment are going to cut across different ministries. So if you’re interested in climate change, you’re going to need to talk to MPI, and DOC, and the Ministry for the Environment. So that provides quite a nice forum to have those discussions. They had been happening under Sir Peter, but we’re just going to formalise it a bit more and raise their profile.

So you expect those advisers to be more in the public eye than they have been?

Yes, I think so. Obviously it’s going to depend on the context and the particular issue. But, yes, I imagine that if they’d been working on an issue, they would be fronting that. And that’s been happening to a certain extent, but I think there’s scope to really bring in those other expert voices.

The other thing I’m really keen to work on is making the advice more accessible. So we’re advising the government, in my case the prime minister, but I think there’s some to make sure there’s a public facing layer to that, that we’re explaining very openly what it is that the advice means. So often the documents are going to be quite dense, and aimed at policy-makers. So just simple and accessible summaries – we’re going to pop those up on the website, the current issues of the day.

So, for example, anti-microbial resistance is a big issue, there’s been reports out internationally, from the World Bank and the World Health Authority. So we’re just complete a two-page document with a simple summary of what the issue is and what it means for New Zealand. More accessibility, more transparency.

The final thing I’m working on is inclusivity. Because of the way the network evolved, there’s lots of individual appointments and nobody’s looked at the group as a whole. For good reasons – it wasn’t formed as a group. It was formed as a collection of individuals to advise in their context. But if you look around the table you get the demographic you might expect. There’s lots of old white guys, not many women, and no Māori voice.

So one of the things I’ve been prioritising is working with Māori researchers, and at the weekend I went to the Federation of Māori Authorities and they are appointing a chief adviser, innovation and research, and a team around him, so they can connect with the science system. And I think that’s going to be a fantastic bit of connection, to really build a bridge to Te Ao Māori.

Is it part of your role to address broader diversity in the field?

Yes. I mean obviously I’m only one person with a small office, and that requires a massive culture change. But I’m getting in behind the efforts in MBIE to improve diversity in the science workforce. They put out the MBIE diversity statement recently simply committing to collect the data and putting out some stats. The Māori and Pasifika numbers particularly stand out. There’s only 2% represented in the science workforce – against a population that’s much bigger than that, something like 25%. I think that’s a really urgent thing to address. We really need to just bring those voices into the science system.

How does it work practically? I’m assuming the prime minister won’t, for example, ring you up at dawn to ask you a question about nuclear physics or fluoride?

No. I guess if there was an emergency that might happen, but what we committed to do was that I would go around the country , so I’ve visited as many places as I possibly can, all sorts of different research institutes, and asked the research community: OK, where do you think there’s evidence that research is not being done, that could really improve government policy, and how could we make that work? Obviously I had my own ideas; the other science advisers have their own ideas, too.

And then I literally covered my wall in Post-it notes, in a big mind-map, and looked at the areas where the research community think they can make a difference. And then sat down with the prime minister in my office, and said: OK, where are there gaps? There are other streams of advice going into government, but where is there something, a project that’s easy to scope, where there’s an evidence base that could really make a difference to policy, that’s timed with the policy agenda? If it’s working correctly, your science evidence lands on the desk just as the policy-writers are writing the policy.

That was a very complicated prioritisation process. And I think the two that are coming up to the top are: one on plastics in the circular economy. How are we going to change behaviour, improve recycling, improve composting, and also look at those long-term stretchy solutions, the whole new material. So put together an evidence portfolio for that. Because obviously there’s lots of interest in that at the moment and lots of policy-makers are looking for that evidence base. So that’s a nice timely one.

The other is to collect some stories where western science and Te Ao Māori are coming together and really strengthening both frameworks, using the knowledge base from both cultures and really celebrating those examples. That won’t be a piece of evidence as such, but a way of celebrating success, where two cultures are coming together in a more inclusive space. That will go up on the website. I’m trying to work as transparently as possible.

You’ve also mentioned GM as something you might look into.

GM is something very high in the list of issues that scientists would like to address. Obviously it is fraught in New Zealand. We don’t have a good history of calm discussion on that topic. The Royal Society is looking in some depth at the new gene-editing technology in various contexts, and what that might mean for different communities. So they’re looking in the primary industries, in health, in pest control, all those sorts of things. And they’re doing lots of public consultations in that space. And that piece of work is all very transparent – it’s going up on the website as they publish different pieces. We’re keeping a really close watching brief on that. And I think the first step is probably to look at the legal and regulatory framework, because at the moment it’s not fit for purpose, because the act was written before the technologies we’re discussing were even invented. So I think what we need to do is have a calm look at sorting out the language and the legal and regulatory framework.

So that whichever side of the argument you’re on, at least we’re at least all speaking the same language. And then move forward and decide the degree to which we’ve got social licence. So it’s not top of the priority list, simply because the Royal Society are busy doing that piece of work. But once they’ve finished that trawl through the evidence and done the public consultation we’ll be looking at what would be in scope to work on.

Testing a house for meth contamination. Photo: Katy Gosset/RNZ

That’s of course a bit of a political hot potato, perhaps even more so than the meth testing work overseen by your predecessor. To what extent to you pay heed to that?

The job involves just looking at the scientific evidence. To put together the evidence as objectively as possible. And to synthesise it in a form that’s useful to policy-makers. That’s only one thread that goes on to the policy-maker’s desk. The rest of it will be about values and what voters want and what is on the government’s agenda. That part of it is not in scope. My role is about the science. And obviously the way you ask the question and the way you scope the work is going to become politicised very quickly. So I think it’s really important to step back from that and calmly look at the evidence. In this case I think the place that we can have that calm conversation is around whether the legal and regulatory framework is fit for purpose. I think that’s a question that can be answered objectively, and that will help move the debate forward.

What about social sciences? There was major work done recently on criminal justice recently. But do you think, for example, there is such a thing as “political scientist”?

The word science is quite contested. My reading of it is that we should interpret that as broadly as possible – so anywhere that there’s evidence that is being collected in a systematic and objective fashion.

I think the work in the criminal justice system space – a third report is in the pipeline – is very important. Particularly important for our group at the present time because a lot of that work is well aligned with the policy agenda. So there is a need to be collating that evidence, because there are policies being written. There’s an urgency to that. Those pieces of work will be led by the social science advisors. Because that’s where the expertise is.

But when it comes to some of what might be called ‘softer’ sciences, do you have to draw the line somewhere?

It’s what counts as evidence. And that’s something, certainly, that researchers from different disciplines have been talking to me about, as I’ve gone round listening  to people around the country. Do you need to draw the line somewhere? You need to make sure that there’s a sound basis, that the data being presented is objective and that ultimately whatever you’re trying to achieve, this is going to work. Or, at least enough evidence that it’s worth a try, and you can test if it works. So you do have to draw the line, around an objective way of doing the research.

But for example kaupapa Māori research methods I think are completely valid, and maybe haven’t been included in the evidence base as much as you might like. And, yes, political science is always going to be tricky when you’re trying to draw a line between science evidence and politics.

And the other one that’s interesting as to where and when it is included is economics. At the moment we don’t have an economist around the table and I think that would be a useful voice.