Mahlon C. (Chuck) Kennicutt II

Your research focused on environmental chemistry and monitoring. How did you become interested in this field and how did it lead you to Antarctic research?

I think like most scientists before they specialize in Antarctica, my interest was based on early training in basic science.

I think like most scientists before they specialize in Antarctica, my interest was based on early training in basic science. My undergraduate degree was in chemistry, and when I started to look at graduate schools, one of the things I decided was that I did not want to specialize in chemistry. I'd taken a few undergraduate courses in geology and oceanography and was particularly interested in oceanography, so I ended up coming to Texas A&M University to do chemical oceanography. I also was very interested in organic chemistry, so it seemed natural to work with Lela Jeffrey, a pioneer in marine organic geochemistry. At that time there wasn't a lot understood about the organic chemistry of seawater and how things interacted, so I was working on basic analysis of lipids and sea water. I developed skills in things like gas chromatography and mass spectrometry. A lot of those same techniques are used for environmental monitoring. Dr. Jeffrey also was heavily involved in a lot of the early monitoring of offshore oil and gas platform production in the Gulf of Mexico, so the basis for my dissertation was a long-term study in the northeastern Gulf of Mexico prior to oil and gas drilling.

There were two things that ultimately led me to Antarctica. The first was by chance and is an example of why I think you should take every opportunity that appears during your career. There was a fairly famous Antarctic oceanographer at Texas A&M named Sayed El-Sayed. He was one of the originators of a very large program that SCAR did back in the 1970s called BIOMASS (Biological Investigations of Marine Antarctic Systems and Stocks), which was really the first look at ecosystems in the Southern Ocean. At one point during my graduate career, he was looking for somebody to go to Antarctica and I said, “Well, sure I'll go.” So, in 1977, my first field experience in Antarctica was with the BIOMASS cruise, spending about 45 days at sea with the Argentine Navy in the Scotia Sea. BIOMASS fundamentally was looking at krill as the basis of the Southern Ocean ecosystem, which ultimately led to a lot of discussion about fisheries and harvesting krill. The founding of CCAMLR (Commission for the Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources) and fishing regulations are really based on this information.

Now, fast forward to my second opportunity to work in Antarctica. As I mentioned, some of my graduate work focused on environmental monitoring, particularly of oil and its effects on ecosystems and organisms. In 1989, the Bahia Paraiso, an Argentine ship, ran aground right off of Palmer Station and caused a fairly major oil spill. The National Science Foundation felt that they needed to respond in some way, so they asked me to join a committee to contribute expertise on oil and the environment. I then became part of an interdisciplinary team to go to Palmer Station and assess the effects of the oil spill. This was a 4- or 5-year program that was really my first re-entry into working in Antarctica.

Image

So, it was both serendipity and expertise that led you to Antarctica. Can you elaborate on the history of environmental monitoring in Antarctica?

Monitoring is interesting because, back when I was a student, monitoring was seen as sort of mundane, almost, I'd say, second class science in the sense that it was just routine measurements. A lot of researchers that were more into process-oriented studies didn't really appreciate it sometimes. But today, almost all the major science is long-term monitoring. The classic example is CO2 in the atmosphere, the Keeling curve. If we hadn’t collected long term, high-quality information, we’d miss out on this foundational knowledge. So, I think monitoring has become much more appreciated today.

Another issue is that it was difficult to find funding for long-term monitoring. I think now we’ve become much more aware that things don't run on the on a time cycle of grants that are three to five years. There are a lot of studies that depend on seeing fairly subtle variations in the environment, which takes years of relatively routine but high-quality data collected over long periods of time. I saw you had an interview with Berry Lyons, and the LTER is a prime example of that. I think there's a better realization that monitoring and those long-term studies really provide the basis for process studies, and long-term data sets now are the gold standard for almost everything we do.

I think the 1989 oil spill at Palmer Station raised awareness internationally that we have ships going in and out of Antarctica, we have airplanes flying, there's a fair number of people, oil storage, and fuel storage at these sites. There is potential for accidents. The Madrid Protocol was being promulgated at the time and coming into force. So, there was a rising awareness that wherever we go, we have some impact. Certainly, Antarctica being seen as a relatively pristine area really elevated the whole concept. And there’s concern from the scientific side that you don't want to be doing your studies in systems that have been altered by your mere presence or previous presence of people. There was still significant dumping in McMurdo Sound, right next to the station. The old practices of basically bulldozing your waste materials into the ocean and just hope it would float away dates back to the 1960s and ‘70s, and that was part of what we studied.

And what role has SCAR played in enhancing monitoring efforts in Antarctica?

There was a group in the 1990s that handled all the environmental matters for SCAR called “Group of Specialists on Environmental Affairs and Conservation” (GOSEAC). It was the original SCAR group that handled SCAR interactions with the Antarctic Treaty System. When the Treaty came to SCAR for scientific advice, this committee would provide a SCAR response. And as I said, at that time there was growing concern about the historic legacy of pollution around bases. Almost every Antarctic base or station has some type of legacy pollution issues. GOSEAC, under SCAR, didn't have any expertise related to oil spills or oil in the environment. The question about environmental monitoring and assessment became a primary focus of the international agreement under the Madrid Protocol, and became elevated at the Treaty. In response, the US National Science Foundation started looking much closer at their own operations, which leads us back to the beginning of my involvement in Antarctica.

So, SCAR played a role in launching your academic career in Antarctic research.

Yes, and my affiliation with SCAR just slowly from that first connection, ultimately leading to me being the Vice President for Science, and then President of SCAR about 15 years later. You know, it all begins with these sorts of small connections that you make with people in the community. Developing that network that really forms the foundation for your career for years.

It’s great that SCAR helped your career, and that you were able to later serve in leadership positions. Did you also become involved in studying subglacial lakes through SCAR?

...it all begins with these sorts of small connections that you make with people in the community. Developing that network that really forms the foundation for your career for years.

At the 1998 SCAR meeting in Concepción, Chile, when I was the US delegate to SCAR, Frank Carsey from NASA gave a talk about Lake Vostok. Lake Vostok, a subglacial lake, had been discovered a few years earlier, and people really didn't know what to make of a lake underneath the ice sheet. Russian scientists had published a paper in Nature in 1996, but then it was just viewed as sort of an oddity. NASA became interested in subglacial lakes from an exobiology standpoint. What I recognized at the time when I heard this talk, given my experience studying oil seeps and gas hydrates, was that these conditions are where gas hydrates would probably be stable. So, I went up to Frank and said, “Let’s go out and have a couple of beers and talk about this. I think this is gonna be big.”

Can you explain how subglacial lakes fundamentally changed how scientists view Antarctica?

The old view of Antarctica – 20 or 30 years ago – was that the ice sheets were more or less frozen in place. Other than mechanical physical things, there wasn't much of interest at the base of the ice sheets. The discovery of subglacial lakes, though, showed that in fact, ice sheets are lubricated at the bottom. There are hydrologic systems, there is potential for organisms to live in these areas out of sunlight.

It just really changed our whole understanding of what the Antarctic continent looked like.

After Lake Vostok was discovered, the question was: Is that just a one-off sort of odd situation, or are there more? Martin Siegert, a scientist from the UK, went back and reprocessed a lot of old geophysical data and started saying, “Well, wait a minute. I'm seeing it in this record and that record” (Siegert et al. 2004). And now there must be several hundred mapped subglacial lakes. Also, Helen Fricker’s work recognized that the ice sheets are moving up and down (Fricker et al. 2007). This motion is due to hydrologic connections between lakes. NSF put out a famous graphic that lifted the ice sheet off the continent, showing a system of rivers and lakes below. Well, that was fundamentally different from the more or less static, very slowly changing over the millennia view. It just really changed our whole understanding of what the Antarctic continent looked like.

How did SCAR facilitate these major discoveries?

This is an example of where SCAR served the role that it probably does best, because there wasn't already an organized community out there. The extent of the science at the time was just an observation from geophysical surveys. I made the argument to SCAR that this could be big. SCAR should be looking for what's next, not just organizing what's already happened or planned. So, two years later at the SCAR Delegates Meeting in Tokyo in 2000, the Delegates decided to form a group of specialists to learn more about these subglacial lakes beyond what we already knew from geophysical data. They asked John Priscu from Montana State University to lead this group and for me to serve as a co-chair. Our goal at that time was to assess the scientific importance of subglacial lakes, and what might be the next steps for studying them.

SCAR’s efforts evolved over the years to essentially build a subglacial lake community and provided continuity over a long period of time.

As I said, at that time there was really not much community interest. This phenomenon was just seen as a novelty. So, for about 10 years, SCAR took the lead in investigating subglacial lakes. We had this group of specialists and then we formed the Subglacial Antarctic Lake Exploration group. We held small workshops with about 20 people and convened sessions at scientific meetings to slowly grow a community. The last meeting we had was in Grenoble, about 10 years later, and over 100 people attended.

Achieving this big science takes years, so you need patience. It was probably 15 years from the beginning of the discussion of subglacial lakes until one was actually penetrated. Over those years, SCAR continued to identify the scientific questions, develop plans about how to collect samples, explore which technologies were needed. SCAR’s efforts evolved over the years to essentially build a subglacial lake community and provided continuity over a long period of time.

What a wonderful example of SCAR’s impact on Antarctic science. Can you elaborate on the value of international coordination within Antarctic research and SCAR's role in that process?

Fundamentally, because of the remoteness of Antarctica and the expense of working there, it's always been clear that the preferred approach is of international partnerships. A lot of the work that happens in Antarctica is big, expensive science. That doesn’t just happen. As with subglacial lakes, it takes years to build community support for projects, and they generally tend toward being international partnerships because the field work is so expensive. On top of being remote, there’s also an issue of access. You can't be everywhere, but one way to increase access is through international collaborations where national Antarctic programs have stations in different locations. Then you really can optimize research efforts.

Image

Image

I think why SCAR still thrives is because it is the place to go if you want to pursue international Antarctic science.

It's a sharing of expense and access, but it's also bringing together a very diverse science team. The expertise you want to bring in should be regardless of what country they're from. It's what they bring to the team. This sort of approach is fundamental to why SCAR was created, and I think why SCAR still thrives is because it is the place to go if you want to pursue international Antarctic science. It exemplifies the sharing of resources, the sharing of information, the bringing together the best people in the world. These are awfully difficult questions that take a lot of collaboration.

What do you consider to be the most significant impacts you made in your positions as Vice President and President of SCAR?

I hate to take credit for things because I'm very much part of an international team. Before I served those leadership roles, SCAR went through a major evolution. In the 1990s, SCAR essentially had become irrelevant, to be honest. It had become an insular good old boys’ network. It really, I think, had lost its way over the years. SCAR reinvented itself from 1998 to about 2002, which was just about the time I was getting involved. There were some very good leaders at the time, like Chris Rapley, the director of British Antarctica Survey, and Bob Rutford from the US. They are real icons in the field that took the time to really reinvent SCAR, and I think they did a masterful job.

The new structure was officially adopted in 2002 in Shanghai. At that time, you couldn’t have more than one person from the same country on the SCAR Executive, so I couldn’t be when Bob Rutford was President. When he stepped down, I ran for Vice President. This was also the beginning of the Scientific Research Programmes. That original group of programs, which included one on subglacial lakes, really changed the whole dynamic of how SCAR worked. SCAR is best at interdisciplinary science - that bridging of disciplines that today is almost fundamental to Antarctic science.

Since SCAR had been through this sort of tumultuous period of reorganization, I thought that what needed to be done when I became President was institutionalizing the change. I'm very proud that I was nominated by the Russians and elected President in 2008 in Moscow. I campaigned on the institutionalization of change. It’s easy to redraw the organizational chart, but more difficult to actually change how you operate as an organization. I think we were successful because now people involved with SCAR probably don't even know what it looked like before.

Image

I also worked hard to rebuild SCAR’s position with respect to other international organizations. I spent a lot of time – not just myself, there are a lot of people involved in getting these things done – reestablishing SCAR as the scientific advisor for Antarctic matters. SCAR’s presence at the Treaty System had diminished over time, so we worked to repair credibility and achieve the organization’s mission of provided scientific advice. COMNAP (The Council of Managers of National Antarctic Programs) was also working independently of SCAR at the time. Operators had moved out of SCAR because they didn't feel their needs were being met. I thought this was odd because my belief is that we are one community. You wouldn't have the operators if not for them supporting the scientists, and the scientists wouldn't get to Antarctica if they didn't have the operators. So, I worked hard to reassert SCAR's place in that constellation of international organizations.

Another accomplishment I’m proud of is my involvement with creating the Tinker-Muse Prize. The Tinker Foundation had asked the US National Academy to construct a prize that they would fund. As President of SCAR, I helped write a proposal to get funding for the Tinker-Muse Prize, which was awarded to mid-career Antarctic researchers. Unfortunately, it no longer exists, but there were 10 years where the $100,000 Tinker-Muse Prize really impacted some of the best Antarctic scientists. When we were working on the proposal for the award, there were no awards for mid-career researchers. So, the Tinker-Muse Prize identified people who were on the rise and looked like the future leaders of tomorrow and gave them a boost. I think it was very successful.

Lastly, I led the implementation of horizon scanning. Part of SCAR’s reinvention was strategic planning and when I became president, I realized that SCAR didn't really have a mechanism to future cast. Then, Steven Chown, a renowned Antarctic ecologist – and a recipient of the Tinker-Muse Prize, by the way – introduced me to the concept of horizon scanning at a workshop. Horizon scanning is a mechanism to future cast with a large group of people and come to some consensus about what future directions are important. With over 40 countries at SCAR, all the scientific disciplines, literally from astrophysics to genetics, I thought, “How does SCAR create some type of vision of the future?”. Horizon scanning, I think, is a more actionable technique that brings in the community. We did online surveys and had workshops to gather community input. Fortunately, we were funded by the Tinker Foundation, so we spent almost a half a million dollars on the horizon scan.

Image

SCAR’s Horizon Scan efforts concluded in 2014 and has been, I think, highly impactful. There are national programs that have referred to it while setting their goals. The science questions in the Horizon Scan also helped with COMNAP’s Antarctic Roadmap Challenges Project, which informs operational needs. So, horizon scanning really provided that mechanism to make our strategic planning much more substantive. That has had a huge impact on the community.

Speaking of future casting, what is your outlook for the future of Antarctic research? Do you envision that the Horizon Scan will still be followed, or are there new priorities?

If you look back at Antarctic science, the big questions have always been there. These big questions seem to be going on for years and years, and I don't know if they'll ever be resolved. We published a 5-year update of the Horizon Scan to address whether or not we answered any of these questions. It’s important to look back to reflect on what you’ve done and what you’ll do next. I would hope that SCAR will continue that practice. I think SCAR will benefit greatly from having some mechanism to evaluate progress on answering big questions if they truly want to lead Antarctic science and not just manage it.

In terms of other priorities, climate is obviously one piece of everything going forward. I assume that climate change will continue to dominate Antarctic science for foreseeable future. And, relatedly, SCAR has really been focusing on the interface between advice and policy. These issues continue to be of great interest and will be reflected by how the Scientific Research Programmes evolve over time.

There is certainly much important work left to do in Antarctica. For our last question, what advice would you give to early career scientists who want to get involved in Antarctic research?

There are really three things, and I’ve mentioned them throughout this interview. The first is seize every opportunity. For example, that BIOMASS cruise ended up influencing the rest of my career. So, take advantage of any opportunities that are out there. Serve on committees, go to workshops, get involved in organizations like SCAR. There are plenty of opportunities out there and they help build the foundation of your career. My number one piece of advice is that opportunities don't often come around a second time, so seize every one.

My number one piece of advice is that opportunities don't often come around a second time, so seize every one.

The second thing is that you need to work with the very best people. When you choose your graduate school or your postdoctoral appointment, do your research and find who's the best person in the world that does whatever your research focus is. Don't be scared to call them up or email them. Here’s an interesting story related to this. The best person at horizon scanning is a fellow named Bill Sutherland at the University of Cambridge, and he had nothing to do with Antarctica. When I was planning for SCAR’s Horizon Scan, Steven Chown had given me a couple of Sutherland’s articles to read. I sent him an email that said, you know, we're going to do this, would you like to be involved? And he said, “I'd love to!”. Even though he was not an Antarctic guy at all, he changed the whole dynamic of the SCAR Horizon Scan. So, search out the best people and don't be frightened by somebody who is a world expert. There’s an old adage, “Learn at the feet of the masters.” It makes a big difference in your career.

Image

My last piece of advice is to develop interests in a range of areas. Some people are lucky enough that they can do their entire career and only be an Antarctic scientist, but that's really the exception, not the norm. So, whatever your basic skill sets are, think about applying them to other things. And who knows, those skills can later lead you to Antarctica. I worked on the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska, which directly translated to being involved in Antarctica. And I think having a range of interests also helps with expanding your own horizons. Some of the most novel work happens when you take your skills from over here and apply them to something totally different. For example, we brought Andrew Klein into our McMurdo monitoring project, and his GIS expertise changed the whole program.

So, the three things: seize the opportunity, work with the very best people out there, and develop a broad range of interests. I think if you do that, you'll have a long, productive career.

Those are three excellent pieces of advice from someone with a long and productive career! Thank you, Chuck, for the advice and for sharing your experiences with Antarctica and SCAR.