US science left out in the cold amid plans to retire Antarctic icebreaker A letter protesting the imminent demise of US research vessel and icebreaker the Nathaniel B. Palmer was this week sent to the National Science Foundation (NSF) amid proposed funding reductions. The fate of science in the US has come under scrutiny following proposals to make deep cuts to the budget. The NSF is aiming to get …
"NSF intends to terminate the lease of the research vessel Nathaniel B. Palmer in FY 2026."
So, if the lease is terminated that implies that the NSF do not own the ship.
Can it therefore continue operations, if funded by a different "body", maybe one that isn't in the US (and hence dependent on the whim of tRump and the majority Republicans in Congress?
Then, if any scientists want to do work on it, they can pay their way.
" the Palmer, which is owned by Offshore Service Vessels, a marine transport firm,"
(from the linked Science piece)
Maybe Chile would take it on, they've got a local presence and science infrastructure (albeit telescopes).
Or could be time for a crowdfunder, lead by the Boaty McBoatface Foundation!
(Icon for what's happening to the icecap.)
... a couple of historical links or it never happened ...
But yes, the very success of this type of research was its ultimate demise in this ideologically-supercharged day and age of erasing history, science, and all knowledge that doesn't conform to the doctrines and diktats of the orange politburo and the relentless insanity of its war on reality (here: climate change).
It's governance inspired by the Supreme Soviet where the N.B. Palmer needs defunding so that global warming doesn't exist, where DOGE brownshirt wankers must delete Jackie Robinson and Enola Gay memorial web sites (too "diverse"), where ideological "ombudsmen" must now monitor and control all broadcasts (eg. at CBS), where scientific grants have to undergo secondary reviews by unqualified political appointees (imposed on NSF), and where scientific submissions to the CDC's flagship "the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report" journal must now obtain ideological clearance from RFK Jr ... among others.
At this rate, America will soon be as Great Again as North Korea, imho ... and chihuahuas!
So, the British could lease it out to replace the RRS James Clark Ross (sold to the National Antarctic Scientific Center of Ukraine in 2021), or the RRS Ernest Shackleton (sold to the Italians) to be the sister ship of RRS Sir David Attenborough, as the RRS Boaty McBoatface ?
Then, if any scientists want to do work on it, they can pay their way.
So, if some surgeon needs to operate on your appendix or tumor, (s)he can pay for the operation room and the crew (just a couple million $)?
Well, it's a really nasty way to die, so I really hope (for you) that your wish won't be fulfilled...
Industry long ago stopped spending much money on pure research and let government agencies do the science that they can then take and turn into products. The US government does patent a lot of that research so they can control the licensing with preferential pricing for US companies as a way for taxpayers to benefit more than another region such as Asia. Pure research always pays off, but not on a schedule and not in definable amounts so accountants don't like it. If the US deletes science to pay for munitions/armies/social programs, it won't have any of them down the road. Science is something that needs to be a priority all of the time.
> Industry long ago stopped spending much money on pure research
The rarely do anyway. The time-to-market of fundamental research is decades or more, and the ROI/ROC is abysmal. Why lose time and money doing pure research yourself? There are lots of scientists you can buy when they start closing in on something promising, but to get there all those scientists need money, and will remain pure loss-makers for years (or maybe even their whole career). If you value your job you won't invest in their research unless you are sure a breakthrough is imminent.
Never mind the marketing speech, commercial entities only invest in specific short-term projects which indeed have a chance to be quickly turned into profit.
"The rarely do anyway. The time-to-market of fundamental research is decades or more, and the ROI/ROC is abysmal."
There have been industry think-tanks such as Bell Labs that have given us many breakthroughs.
The issue is that ROI/ROC for the research is completely unpredictable. Something considered a lab curiosity might take a couple of decades for somebody to figure out how to make money with it.
> There have been industry think-tanks such as Bell Labs that have given us many breakthroughs.
Yes, but they didn't do 15 years of fundamental research to get there: They were just clever enough to invest into technologies which were almost ready for prime time.
.
> The issue is that ROI/ROC for the research is completely unpredictable. Something considered a lab curiosity might take a couple of decades for somebody to figure out how to make money with it.
Indeed, that was my point. It can even take a whole century for something to become relevant or interesting. No company will found a research lab for longer than their managers' careers in the hope they might eventually, maybe stumble upon something interesting and profit-making.
The problem people seem to miss is that the goal of science is not to make a profit, it's to understand our world. By doing this we often discover things which can be turned into profit.
as orange tango man and his admin are idiots, don't understand science and/or just simply want all MAGA to never get any education so they can keep them in the cult. After all, its what the taliban do, purposely disallowing women education so they can control them and the population. If you all free thinking, its harder to be a dictator. And orange tango man would LOVE to be a dictator and pass on the presidency to his sons.
Watch all the maga fools come out now and expose themselves.
For anyone willing to set aside their Trump politics, I have some reasonable questions:
Several of those questions are irrelevant such as:
"How much more service life do they anticipate out of this vessel?": Is this why they canceled their lease? If the vessel failed, wouldn't their lease cover this?
"What are they still researching after 33 years, as the article doesn't cite any actual accomplishments?": Oh, it was just one study. We only need to study one thing about Antarctica, sea ice, the climate in general, any of that stuff. I'm sure whatever it is was solved already. While they don't tag their discoveries by whether they occurred on this ship or not, a list of recent articles about their work include several about things determined by researchers in the Southern Ocean, including oceanographic, atmospheric, biological, and geological findings.
Your points might be relevant if they had canceled this ship because they no longer needed it. The fact that they still have a planned replacement suggests that they do need it. Okay, but maybe this ship was just too old, although thirty years isn't that unusual, but who knows, maybe it has some faults. If that was the case, they would have said that. The reason for this ship being cut is obvious: they're being asked to work with a lot less funding and this is an expensive thing they can no longer afford. That makes most of your questions wholly irrelevant, since the question should be whether the benefit they provide is worth continued funding at their previous level rather than a significant cut, and specifics about the ship could at most move the item around on the list of things they didn't want to cut but still have to.
> How much research actually requires 45 scientists in the field?
Apparently you think of research like some manual, linear task, requiring a given amount of man-hours. Actually it doesn't work like this. At all: Those 45 scientists are working on (probably close to) 45 different projects (not to mention the resupplying of any scientific bases out there).
It's not like you can jump on the subway any time you need to do something in the Arctic. There is one ship going there twice a year, and everybody who needs to get there has to find a place on it.
.
> Can the same, or better, results be produced using smaller field teams
LOL, that's the "work smarter, not harder" fallacy... A meteorologist team can't be replaced by an astronomer or biologist team, and even among the biologist, some will study the mammals, others the aquatic animals, others the birds. Obviously you can say "what's the point in studying (for instance) aquatic life in the arctic?". Well, it happens some local shrimps do have some astonishing cold survival mechanisms, which might end up as a drug for surviving cryonics. And that's just one random example.
My point is, if you don't search, you won't find. *shrug*
"Those 45 scientists are working on (probably close to) 45 different projects (not to mention the resupplying of any scientific bases out there)."
Max capacity can be rather tight so while 45 people CAN be accommodated, they may not be taking that many at any given time. The number of crew might also fluctuate depending on what sort of gear will be utilized on the voyage.
> number of crew might also fluctuate
I don't think so: 22 isn't that many for such a ship. You have the unique positions like captain, first mate, second mate, third mate, cargo officer, chief engineer, second engineer, third engineer (4th, trainee, etc), then a chief steward, a chief cook, the cook aide(s). There is certainly a medical officer and a nurse too.
That's already about 14 persons, which leaves two teams of 4 sailors (one sleeps while the other works) to do the deck work.
I do not think you can downsize that, especially in that very hostile environment so very far from civilization... For instance why have 4-5 engineers? Because they might need to disassemble and rebuild the 10 t engine smack in the middle of nowhere...
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
