Alaska Research and Development
Preface:
The SJR44 Charge and Our Response
2
Introduction
The Organization of this Report, and Our Deliverables
What is Research and Development (R&D )?
Why Should Alaska Care About R&D?
Prerequisites for a Strong State R&D Program
Entangled Values
Next Steps
3
4
5
6
9
10
R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment
Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental
R&D Plan
The Dominant Themes
A Strategy for Natural Environmental R&D in Alaska
Actions-to-Date and Next Steps
11
11
R&D and Alaska’s Human Environment
Approach to Development of a Human Environmental
R&D Plan
The Dominant Themes
Strategy, Action- to-Date, Next Steps
24
24
R&D and Alaska’s Economy
Using Research to Broaden Alaska’s Economic Base
Two Critical Issues: Mapping and Telecommunications
Some Tentative Conclusions
Industrial Snapshots
35
35
41
45
46
R&D and Alaska’s Infrastructure
Policy Issues
Science and Engineering Issues
56
56
59
A Common Need: Resource Assessment and Monitoring
63
Strengthening and Maintaining the Health of State Research Institutions
65
Ways to Ensure the Federal and State Governments Work Together
70
12
18
21
26
32
Appendices on the Web:
A. SJR44
B. “Alaska R&D Plan: Organization and Approach”, 10Sep02
1
Preface: The SJR44 Charge and Our Response
nd
Senate Joint Resolution (SJR) No. 44 of the Second Session of the 22 Legislature of the State
of Alaska (Appendix A) requested that representative state and federal organizations jointly
develop a Research and Development (R&D) plan to:
help expand and diversify Alaska’s economy,
protect the health of Alaskans and the environment of Alaska, and
strengthen and maintain the health of state research institutions.
The parties drafting the plan were further asked to:
identify ways to ensure that the federal and state governments work together
identify and assess areas of high economic potential from resource development and
tourism on federal and state lands, water, and airspace ofrd Alaska
present the plan during the first regular session of the 23 Alaska State Legislature, and
to the US Congress and the President via the US Arctic Research Commission.
Representatives of the University of Alaska (UA), the Alaska Science and Technology
Foundation (ASTF), the North Pacific Research Board (NPRB), and the US Arctic Research
Commission (ARC), met during the summer of 2002 to develop an organization and approach
(Appendix B) to respond to the state’s request. We assigned the task of studying specific topics
to six Working Groups. The Working Group Chairs and the ARC and NPRB representatives
formed a Coordinating Committee to consolidate inputs, discuss issues, interact with the
legislators appointed to participate in the effort, and draft this report. 1 The Working Group
Chairs used surveys and volunteer task forces to assess issues and opportunities in focus areas.
We concluded that it would be important to have an inventory of R&D facilities, experts, and
projects in Alaska, and with the support of the EVOS Trust and UA, have started to compile this
information on the web at http://www.alaska.edu/AlaskaResearch. 2
This report should be viewed as the first step in what we believe is a worthwhile, continuing
effort on the part of the Government of Alaska to more effectively use R&D to improve the lives
of Alaskans and Alaska’s economy, and to help researchers discover new Alaska-based
knowledge of importance to the nation, and to the earth as a whole. In the few months allotted,
through volunteer effort, we have been able to identify some major themes for R&D in Alaska,
and we suggest some preliminary issues that the Legislature, Governor, and UA Board of
Regents should consider. We have used this opportunity to start a number of technical initiatives
and studies, and to begin to build tools to promote the R&D enterprise in the state. We have not
had the time to conduct the workshops and stakeholder interactions essential to implementation
of any “plan”. Thus this is very much a “for comment” draft, which we offer as a starting point
from which Alaska’s Government can fulfill the charge of SJR44.
Working Groups Chairs and ARC and NPRB representatives included: Alaska’s Innovation Resources,
Craig Dorman, UA Statewide; Physical Infrastructure, Jeff Staser, Denali Commission; Social and
Economic Needs of Alaskans, Marlene Johnson, Commercial Fisheries Entry Commission; Environment,
Molly McCammon, EVOS Trustee Council; Alaska Industry, Tom Case, UA Anchorage College of
Business and Public Policy; and Technical and Operating Management Capabilities, Jamie Kenworthy,
ASTF. Other Coordinating Committee members are Clarence Pautzke, NPRB, and Mead Treadwell, ARC.
Rita Colwell and Karl Erb, NSF, provided guidance from the U.S. Interagency Arctic Research Policy
Committee (IARPC). Legislators appointed to participate were Senators Gary Wilken and Lyda Green, and
Representatives Lesil McGuire and Lisa Murkowski.
2
We gratefully acknowledge the developers of this web site, Prof. Kara Nance and Dr. Brian Hay of UAF.
1
2
Introduction
The Organization of this Report and Our Deliverables
We expect that our efforts will be of interest to a wide range of audiences, and have designed
this report accordingly. The Executive Summary is intended to be a stand-alone document for
presentation to the Legislature in response to our charge. It is also targeted at representatives of
the state Executive Branch, Alaska’s Congressional Delegation, UA Executives and Board of
Regents, and R&D decision-makers and sponsors in state commissions, the Federal Government,
and industry. The Executive Report is targeted at their staffs, and essentially summarizes this
document. It contains the central elements of our findings and recommendations. The body of
this longer report, starting with this Introduction, is principally a status report, intended to serve
as the basis for further development of an official state R&D Plan, and a guide to actions that we
believe should be taken even as the plan continues to evolve. Individual Working Group and
Task Force reports, where they exist, are located on the web pages we have developed
(www.alaska.edu/AlaskaResearch). These reports should be of use to those that continue the
overall planning process and to agencies, commissions, task forces, or other bodies that are
concerned with specific aspects of R&D in Alaska. The inventory that we are developing to
support the Plan will also be of interest to individual researchers and to citizens interested in
current research in the state.
We emphasize that this is a draft report, basically an introduction to the work that must be done
to formulate a workable R&D plan for the state. Given about five months, and no money, we
focused on developing what we believe to be a viable approach and started the planning process.
We have relied almost completely upon previous work, where it exists, to identify major issues.
In some cases, such as fisheries and oceanography, health and biomedicine, and some aspects of
industry, we have been able to take advantage of formal R&D planning processes that were
already underway. In others, we had to start from scratch. Thus our recommendations have
varying degrees of “maturity”; but even where they are best developed there remains much to be
done. The best we can hope for here is to have captured some of the major themes of R&D that
must be validated and then further defined.
By its very nature, R&D addresses an extremely large range of unanswered questions, some
inspired by the curiosity of the investigators, others by obvious problems. We tried to address a
wide range of topics pertinent to Alaska. This inclusive approach increases the tendency for our
report to resemble a laundry list. Ultimately, the state R&D Plan will have to deal with all of
these issues. There is legitimate need to address each of them, and a lot of work to be done. For
this preliminary effort, however, we felt it most important to distill the details and simply try to
describe what we believe are the overriding R&D priorities for Alaska.
In this Introduction, we discuss basic aspects of R&D, and point out some fundamental
philosophical and pragmatic issues that will influence the way in which the state must address
R&D. We have not dealt with these issues at length, but try simply to identify them. In the
sections that follow we discuss R&D for each of the three major elements of the “value
structure” called out by SJR44 -- Alaska’s environment, the health of Alaskans, and Alaska’s
economy -- and a fourth, the infrastructure that ties them together. We identify the major themes
or needs for R&D in each, then offer suggestions on how to approach them. Then, as requested
by the legislature, we address the health of our state research institutions, federal-state roles, and
we call attention to some recurrent issues that came up in many working groups.
3
We believe that during our short study we have developed some products of lasting value. First
among these are the papers that address the individual R&D topics. As noted above, these are on
our web site, and can be used as the basis for the next steps in the process. We have found this
web site itself to be a useful tool for interactive development of the papers, and suggest that it be
maintained. Similarly, we consider our inventory of R&D in Alaska to be a very important
deliverable. This data base, at www.arad.alaska.edu, is a node on a broader data management
and distribution platform called the Geographical Information Network of Alaska (GINA,
www.gina.alaska.edu) which is being developed at the University of Alaska. We urge the
Legislature to support the maintenance and continuing improvement of these systems, which we
believe will be essential components of any ultimate state plan. We also express our
appreciation to the many Alaskans who have contributed to these papers without recompense,
and to the UA researchers and staff who have developed the web pages and data base.
We have already started to take action to enhance R&D in Alaska in cases where previous
initiatives have paved the way, or where new opportunities have arisen. These “deliverables”,
many of which were initiated even before this effort began but relate directly to the key themes
we want to emphasize, are discussed further in the appropriate sections. A few major examples
include:
The capacity-building programs of federal sponsors such as the National Science
Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and Department of Defense, under which UA
has initiated new research agendas and is hiring new scientists in biomedicine and
engineering;
A memorandum of understanding among NPRB, the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill (EVOS)
Trustee Council, and UA to share planning and to coordinate resources in support of
common aims, In addition, there is the commitment of these and many other marine
organizations to the development of a Coastal Alaska Observing System (CAOS) as part
of the US Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS);
Discussions regarding joint facility planning among UA and state and federal research
groups in Juneau, Seward, Kodiak, Anchorage and Fairbanks; and
ncreased commitment to federal and international initiatives in climate change through
planning, participation on committees and panels, establishment and promotion of new
global, Arctic, and US programs, and upgraded facilities.
What is Research and Development (R&D )?
At its most fundamental level, “research” is any activity that produces new knowledge. “New”
in this general sense applies to the individual doing the research; thus research is an essential
component of learning at all ages and a concomitant to teaching, whether in formal, community,
or family settings. “Development,” in the same general sense, connotes the creation and
transition to use of a novel item or practice, regardless of its practical value. Just like research,
this is a basic life skill. We believe it important that a fully developed state R&D plan strongly
encourage these practices through education and training, given the importance of knowledge
and innovativeness in today’s world.
More immediately relevant to this plan is the “formal” aspect of R&D, namely R&D that is
practiced as an avocation or profession, or that is supported by a sponsor in the expectation of
results. We found it necessary to be precise in defining this type of activity because different
agencies use different definitions for what they will fund as R&D, or even permit their staffs to
4
undertake. We believe that a state R&D plan should include the full scope of activities that are
needed to create new economic opportunities or answer difficult questions about people, nature,
and their interactions. Thus, we adopted the following definitions. We include all of these
categories when referring to “R&D” as an entity:
-- Basic research: the pursuit of new knowledge, where here “new” means not previously
known to mankind.
-- Applied research: the application of knowledge to solve problems and create new
capabilities.
-- Development: exploitation or maturation of knowledge and capabilities to create products
and systems.
-- Monitoring, observation, assessment, and evaluation: systematic collection, organization,
and assessment of data and information to support the process of innovation.
-- Innovation: discovery and invention combined with exploitation.
-- Test and evaluation (T&E): the process of subjecting knowledge and products to operation
and practice under controlled conditions to determine whether they perform as expected.
We note that there are many different philosophical and cultural viewpoints about the nature and
practice of R&D, and the resultant knowledge. A thorough discussion of this issue is well
beyond the scope of this preliminary report, which is essentially positivist in its approach. We
suggest that during further stages of the development of the Alaska R&D Plan, it will be
important to consider the range of philosophies and approaches to research espoused by Alaska’s
major cultural groups. In particular, we recognize the validity and importance of Alaska Natives’
traditional knowledge, and the need to incorporate its approaches and findings into state R&D
plans.
Why Should Alaska Care About R&D?
In addition to its role in learning and the development of mental abilities, R&D has great
practical importance to the state in at least three different ways. First, it is an economically
significant “industry” in its own right. The University of Alaska, for example, conducts some
$100M+ worth of sponsored research annually, leveraging state funds by a factor of 6:1. Derived
directly from this activity are well over a thousand jobs, the related opportunity to attract talent
to the state from around the world, and improved ability to “grow our own” and keep our best
and brightest here. Most University researchers teach, thus passing on the values and disciplines
of R&D to their students. State and federal agencies themselves conduct about the same amount
of R&D in Alaska as does UA, with similar beneficial impact. Industry does considerably less
R&D in the state (as opposed to the rest of the US where it predominates), but one of the reasons
for this plan, of course, is to increase industry’s contribution to R&D in Alaska.
The second reason to care about R&D is that we in Alaska are blessed with an unparalleled
richness and diversity of human and natural resources. With that richness comes responsibility.
A common saying is, “if we can solve it in Alaska, we can solve it anywhere”. R&D that enables
us to more affordably and more sustainably meet socioeconomic needs while preserving our
human and environmental values is likely to be exportable. Better solutions for basics such as
clean water, reliable transportation, safe housing, and good education and health throughout
areas with much wilderness and few cities are needed by people around the world. We have the
intellectual and cultural capacity to address these issues as well as anyone, and thus we should.
Further, there are earth processes and global challenges that, by virtue of geography, we are
uniquely suited to tackle. Among these are the aurora, earthquakes, volcanoes, and climate
change. Alaska has world-class R&D capabilities about these topics; we have attracted stellar
5
talent in these fields because Alaska is a wonderful natural laboratory in which to study them.
We must similarly promote world-class capabilities in fields such as Arctic biology, biomedicine,
and marine studies. These R&D resources are not only a source of great pride for the state, but
are of great importance to the world. Our R&D plan must enable us to maintain and grow these
resources, for the good of others, as well as ourselves.
Together, we refer to the practice of R&D for its direct economic, educational, and knowledge
benefits as the “R&D Enterprise”. It is worth doing for its own sake, and it helps us manage our
environment, our resources, and our lives.
Beyond such intrinsic values, however, R&D is widely recognized as the principle engine of
economic growth. Even given that fact, however, it can be argued that Alaska could “import”
what we need at less cost than it would take to do it ourselves. After all, Japan thrived
economically for years with a very weak basic research program. Indeed, in many of Alaska’s
major industries, such as oil, mining, and aviation, we do precisely that; we rely almost
exclusively upon knowledge and practices from outside. In some cases this may be fine, and of
course it is impossible for any state or nation to be totally self-sufficient. However, there are
some good arguments against adopting the “import” approach wholesale without very careful
strategic thought: the imported knowledge and practices have often returned less value for our
resources than could have been expected; outside knowledge and practices are often culturally or
environmentally inappropriate or even damaging for Alaska and Alaskans; and conditions in
Alaska are sufficiently different that reliance upon the outside for our ideas may make us miss
important opportunities. We need to look after our own interests. In this draft plan we have tried
to identify those aspects of R&D that we believe should be undertaken within the state to
optimize both the creation of wealth and the preservation of our values.
Prerequisites for a Strong State R&D Program
High-quality research requires the enthusiastic participation of scientists and managers who are
motivated by curiosity and concern for outcomes. However, R&D programs that are designed to
meet the objectives of government must be based on clearly articulated needs and managed to
focus the efforts of all participants on meeting those needs. Progress toward the solution of most
important problems these days requires the collaborative efforts of researchers from a wide range
of disciplines. Without clarity of purpose, effective channeling of effort, and skilled
management, the work of even the most brilliant scientists will be unlikely to meet the needs of
the sponsor. This does not mean that all research must be tightly directed. To the contrary,
individual efforts, particularly those that build expertise, explore questions, and exploit skill
within important disciplines, are the basis for any major research program. But from the
perspective of the state as a sponsor, not all disciplines are equal. Policy choices regarding
which should be fostered are as essential as efforts to build effective multidisciplinary teams.
Our initial guidance to the SJR 44 Working Groups was to rely on previously identified state
needs. R&D programs are relatively easy to develop when they are directed at known targets.
However, we found that, in many cases, state needs had not been defined and were difficult to
determine in the absence of state policy that prioritized goals and objectives and gave guidance
on balancing values. We also found many cases in which state and federal agencies, as well as
interested non-profit or other private sector participants, were working on discrete pieces of a
potential state R&D plan, with no formal coordination and often without knowledge of what each
other was doing. Virtually all of these groups expressed the need for better information on what
6
was already underway. Basically, therefore, much of the foundation we had hoped to rely upon
for our work was missing.
Nonetheless, through surveys and task forces addressing individual topics, we have attempted to
elicit enough consensus to identify themes and issues that are likely to be relevant under a variety
of policy scenarios. During subsequent phases of R&D plan development, however, it will be
important to address the fundamental issues that we found to be missing. Therefore our initial
recommendation is that the state formalize the mechanism and process by which it defines and
prioritizes needs, and then plans, coordinates, and influences R&D. It is particularly incumbent
upon the Administration and Legislature to demand accountability from state agencies to spell
our their R&D needs, complete with benchmarks for return on investment. To this end it should
provide leadership, resources, and adequate time for a deliberate planning effort.
We also note that R&D, like other human enterprises, thrives best when it is promoted by law,
culture, active interest, and money. Where these are weak or missing, important aspects of R&D
will be weak or missing as well. We assert that the status of R&D in Alaska indicates that the
“R&D climate” is a problem for the state:
-- Alaska is unusual compared to all other states and developed nations in the fact that
industry is a only a minor participant in R&D. Indeed, in the annual NSF compilation of
R&D by state, due to the small number of firms that report R&D in Alaska, some cells are
masked to prevent disclosure of information about specific companies.
-- In spite of the large percentage of land owned and managed by the federal government in
Alaska, and federal responsibilities for offshore waters, there are no major national R&D
laboratories or centers in the state. 3
-- State agency R&D labs are small and scattered.
-- The major center for research in the state is at the University, and its capabilities are
concentrated in the Fairbanks campus and are focused on a relatively small number of
disciplines. 4
Overall, the R&D enterprise in Alaska is relatively weak and dispersed, with considerable
duplication and little coordination. There is no effort on the part of the state to monitor,
coordinate, evaluate, or promote R&D as an enterprise, and there are few state incentives to
induce industrial investment in R&D. Strengthening R&D in Alaska is not the mandate of any
state entity. We believe that an Alaska State R&D Plan should explicitly assign such
responsibility, and address ways to encourage R&D practice here.
As an example of efforts to improve the State’s R&D climate, over the last few years UA has
devoted considerable attention to enhancing its R&D capabilities. The University’s initiatives
include participation in several federally funded capacity-building programs, development of
campus master plans that include provisions for industrial parks as well as new research and
teaching facilities, training programs, faculty and staff hires, federal and state initiatives targeted
at new R&D programs and skills, and enhanced interest in the development of intellectual
3
There are on the order of 300-400 federal researchers resident in Alaska, some in federal buildings and
labs, many dispersed in rented space, others in cooperative research units with the University. DOC/NOAA
operates the Auke Bay lab in Juneau, but as a subdivision of the Alaska Fisheries Science Center in Seattle.
Similarly, DOI/USGS has an “Alaska Science Center” in Anchorage, but it is relatively new, and its
components are not co-located.
4
The University does however allocate a significant percentage (roughly 8%) of its general fund
appropriation to research, and this yields good return on investment.
7
property. One of the objectives of this UA activity is to build strength in some of the areas that
will be highlighted in this report, particularly resource-development aspects of environmental
science (e.g., fisheries oceanography and marketing, land resource management), and health and
biomedicine. A second objective is to promote the ability and interest of researchers in turning
intellectual property derived from University R&D into spin-off companies. This type of
entrepreneurial activity is widely promoted in other states and nations, and has been shown to be
the basis for significant economic growth in areas such as Boston’s Rte 128, California’s Silicon
Valley, and North Carolina’s Research Triangle Park. In Alaska, however, university researcher
participation in such spin-offs is prohibited under the Alaska Executive Branch Ethics Act (AS
39.52); thus, we strongly recommend the adoption of a modification to AS 14.40, the UA
governing legislation, to read:
“The provisions of AS 39.52 notwithstanding, the President of the University of Alaska may
approve a contract of hire between the University of Alaska and its employee expressly
authorizing an individual faculty or staff member to engage in the development and shared
ownership of an Alaska based business related to or resulting from research or other
development of intellectual property engaged in as part of the employee’s employment
obligation with the University of Alaska. Such contracts are exempted from and not subject to
collective bargaining pursuant to AS 23.40.”
Another complication to R&D in Alaska is the nature of land ownership. Research questions
don’t respect the jurisdictional boundaries of the various federal, state, and Native organizations,
complicating the process of obtaining permits and approvals. Certain research activities are
limited or prohibited by law or regulation (e.g., sampling birds for viruses on Federal Park lands),
and research must often be designed and timed to avoid interference with other activities (one
example is last year’s oceanographic cruise in the Beaufort Sea that was modified to avoid
interfering with the whale hunt). These are not barriers to R&D, but do require the investment of
considerable time and effort to ensure that the proper procedures are followed. In many cases,
advice and support from a central coordinating organization that was aware of all of the various
concerns, rules, and organizations responsible for environmental stewardship and regulations
would be very helpful.
An extremely important consideration for much research in the state is Alaska Natives’
perception of, and willingness (or unwillingness) to support and participate in R&D. This is
particularly relevant when the research is conducted on native-owned lands, and when it involves
activities in native communities or with native populations. We note three areas of concern. The
first is ethics. The US Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee (IARPC) approved a set of
“Principles for the Conduct of Research in the Arctic” in 1990. 5 There are, however, other
guidelines and codes of conduct (e.g. the “Guidelines for Respecting Cultural Knowledge”,
adopted by the Assembly of Alaska Native Educators in February 2000 and published by the
Alaska Native Knowledge Network, and the recent “Code of Research Ethics” drafted by the
Alaska Native Science Commission). There are substantive differences among these codes and
principles. These differences need to be reconciled.
A second concern more specifically involves research on human subjects. As a matter of law, as
well as sponsor regulation, any such research must be approved by an Institutional Review Board
(e.g. see 45CFR46, Protection of Human Subjects). However, different IRBs may well apply the
criteria in different ways, and research may need to be approved by several IRBs with different
5
See http://www.arcticcircle.uconn.edu/SEEJ/ethics.html
8
cultural perspectives. A third major issue is intellectual property. Native communities
increasingly object to what they perceive as exploitation, through the use of community
information and traditional knowledge (ecological and cultural knowledge, stories, etc.), by
outsiders over whom they lack control. This is an area in which feelings are strong but law is
weak, and a small number of Native villages have refused to be included in statewide or regional
studies. Many communities that are significantly impacted by resource development, or that
have been subjects of past research that failed to abide by the accepted codes of ethics, seek
reductions in the requests of agencies and institutes attempting to conduct research. All of these
issues will need to be thoroughly discussed with representatives of Alaska Native concerns, and
we must attempt to resolve them before many of the projects likely to be recommended in a final
state R&D plan can be implemented.
Entangled Values
Much of the challenge in building an R&D plan for this state comes from the need to preserve
our cultural, spiritual, environmental, and physical health while at the same time strengthening
our economy. Again and again, when we asked managers and decision makers about the issues
for which R&D is needed, they identified not technological problems, but societal, regulatory, or
legal problems. Balancing values in a diverse, democratic society is exceptionally difficult.
Here we include a chart that depicts some factors that must be considered, and a few techniques
we believe could be used to analyze them.
We make no pretense of having grappled deeply with these issues, but we recognize their
importance. What we have done as a substitute, per the guidance of SJR 44, is to organize our
approach around elements of the “value structure” or “value clusters” of Alaskans. That is, we
9
have addressed four essential components of life in Alaska separately. Each of these components
-- the natural environment, social and economic needs of the people, industry and the economy,
and the infrastructure that ties them all together -- has its own set of values. The thought is that
as we generate ideas and recommendations focused on any one of these as the principal concern,
we can simultaneously assess their impact on values associated with the other three. Indeed, we
found that many of our initial questions were best asked by several groups at once in order to
identify areas of potential conflict or partnership at the onset. As with other aspects of our work,
this process is incomplete. Nonetheless, we believe that our methodology -- essentially the
construction of a value-based matrix of opportunities -- will promote disciplined consideration of
alternatives and trade-offs, and thus ultimately lead to a practicable plan, if not unanimity.
Next Steps
We believe that our efforts so far demonstrate that R&D is very important to the future of
Alaska. Only through directed inquiry can we ensure that our full scope of values will be
preserved. As a state we are committed to economic growth and expansion, and are equally
committed to preserving our cultural and environmental heritage. R&D is necessary to enable us
to make the requisite decisions and compromises. We therefore commend the Legislature for
having launched this process and recommend that it provide the resources and leadership to
complete the job.
We believe that it is important for the state to take a leading role in the assessment and direction
of R&D in Alaska. Federal agencies will sponsor mission-related research to meet national
needs and to fulfill their regulatory and management responsibilities. Individual state agencies
and boards will do likewise. The National Science Foundation (NSF) will support basic research
that enhances our fundamental knowledge, with an emphasis on topics and issues defined by a
combination of the scientific community and national policy makers. University researchers will
pursue their intellectual interests, respond to opportunities for funded research, and provide the
research-based component of higher education. All of these contributions are essential, and
should be promoted and strengthened. We suggest, however, that it is the responsibility of the
state to pulls these various elements together, by developing a thorough understanding of what is
already occurring and the mechanisms by which it occurs, and then suggesting priorities,
encouraging partnerships, identifying gaps, providing incentives, improving the R&D climate,
and supplying resources. Further, knowledge of what is possible through R&D, and an ability to
influence it, is a powerful tool to support policy formulation. We repeat that structured
oversight of R&D is more important for Alaska than for many other states because of the status
of our development and the challenges inherent in balancing elements of our value structure.
As a first next step, therefore, we suggest that the Governor and the Legislature determine an
appropriate mechanism for continuing this analysis and planning process. We are pleased to
have been able to contribute, but we all have “real jobs” and believe that what we have started is
important enough for leadership of its continuation to be the “real job” for designated individuals
and staff, charged in such a way that existing state entities are mandated to pay continuing
attention to R&D issues and to provide full support.
We also believe that if the state agrees that this planning process is worth completing, it should
provide enough resources to support both its mechanics (e.g., staff, development of the web
pages, report preparation and editing) and the logistics of stakeholder involvement. At a
minimum this includes support for travel and meetings. We believe there are also a number of
studies that should be commissioned to support the process; we have encountered many
10
questions that themselves require “R&D” to help establish a firm basis for further action. This
will be important even if a designated leader is not assigned, since our own very limited
resources have been badly stretched by our activities to date. Volunteerism can accomplish only
so much.
Until the Legislature determines its next steps, parts of this initial planning process will continue.
Some Task Forces have yet to report. This initial broad study has identified some major themes
and priorities, and we will focus our attention on them. Where it is within our individual
responsibility and authority, we will continue to base our actions on the findings and
recommendations here, with the intent of implementing the Plan even as it is being developed.
11
R&D and Alaska’s Natural Environment
The natural environment is the starting point for almost any activity in Alaska. It provides
sustenance for the rural population and is an essential constituent of the subsistence-oriented
culture of Alaska Natives in cities as well as in villages. Through commercial fishing, mining,
and oil and gas development and production, natural resources support the bulk of our economy,
and have shaped much of our modern history. Between extractive industries and tourism and
recreation, the environment provides employment for most of our population. Its beauty and
challenges are what draws many of us to the state and keeps us here. In addition, the natural
environment is a subject of study and research to help us understand earth processes and global
change. Different groups within the state value the environment for dramatically different
reasons, which can lead to contention over the laws and regulations that govern development
plans. Thus we treat R&D and the natural environment first, as the basis for all other aspects of
our plan.
Approach to Development of a Natural Environmental R&D Plan
Alaska is a land of vast and varied landscapes: from temperate rainforests, alpine mountaintops
and protected fjords in the Southeast, to boreal forests, taiga and river valleys in the Interior, and
north to the sweeping North Slope coastal plain. Stretching 2700 miles from east to west and
1700 miles from north to south, Alaska has a land area of 586,412 square miles, making it the
largest state in the nation and the only arctic ecosystem within the borders of the United States.
Our state has about 55 million acres of inland waters and its boundaries are defined in large part
by nearly 47,000 miles of coastline bordering two oceans and three seas, as well as numerous
sounds, inlets, and bays. These lands, oceans, and watersheds are home to rich terrestrial and
aquatic life, providing commercial, recreational, and subsistence resources to many of Alaska’s
peoples, as well as to the rest of the nation and the world. It is not a stretch to say that the Alaska
environment, to a large extent, defines the people of Alaska and what they perceive as their
future. For that reason, ensuring the long-term health and sustainability of this environment is
crucial to the long-term health and sustainability of the state of Alaska as a whole.
Given the state’s history and the diversity and importance of its environment, dozens of state and
federal agencies have environmental responsibilities in Alaska. Represented within these
agencies and Alaska’s academic institutions are a multitude of scientific disciplines that deal
with aspects of our environment -- geology, ecology, geography, tectonics, volcanology, forestry,
oceanography, fisheries, climatology--the list is huge. Each major category has a host of
specialties, and many have parallels in Native ways of knowing. Not only does each scientific
discipline have its own set of important questions relevant to Alaska, but there are innumerable
federal, state, and international programs and initiatives to address them. Likewise, there are
thousands of researchers both within Alaska and outside that view our environment as a natural
laboratory and conduct research here. Industry also conducts considerable environmental
assessment in Alaska, to locate and evaluate resources, to satisfy regulatory requirements, and to
ensure that its activities are legal and socially responsible. Infrastructure developers, public and
private, do likewise. Over the last several decades, concern over changes to the environment has
sparked proliferation of non-governmental environmental issue groups, each vigorously
promoting its own set of beliefs. Prompted by all these disparate factors, there is so much
environmental R&D in Alaska, sponsored by so many different sources, and conducted by so
many different research groups and individuals, that it’s nearly impossible to know what is or is
12
not already going on, let alone attempt to form it into a coherent plan and to distill it into
guidance for decision makers.
Faced with such diversity, we decided that it would be unprofitable to construct an
environmental R&D plan with a purely bottoms-up, or discipline-based approach. Rather,
through an informal survey sent to state and federal resource agencies, environmental
organizations, and other key stakeholder groups with an interest in environmental issues, we have
attempted to identify the most important major themes. We also suggest ways to focus the
multiple disparate efforts more efficiently, and we address what we have found to be some major
gaps in the current efforts. An apt analogy might be that with so many trees, we have thus far
overlooked several forests.
The Dominant Themes
1. Fish and Wildlife. By far, the main concern of respondents to our survey was the need for
enhanced assessment of fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats. Fish and wildlife are
mainstays of subsistence, and centrally important to tourism and recreation industries. Alaska’s
fisheries, of course, have the added significance of being the largest and most productive in the
US and supporting a significant proportion of the state’s population. 6
Populations of both fish and wildlife in Alaska are characterized by a diversity of species in
widely varying, and changing, habitat. While there are a relatively small number of
commercially (and subsistence) dominant species, their behaviors throughout their life cycle,
their food webs, their predator-prey and habitat utilization relationships, and the impacts of
human activities on the species are complex and in many cases not well understood. Federal and
state agencies have spent -- and continue to spend -- hundreds of millions of dollars on fish and
wildlife studies. As a result of these efforts, we have quite reasonable stock assessments, and
fishing and hunting are both well managed, particularly when compared to other parts of the US.
What is missing however, and what is becoming widely recognized as critically important, is
adequate understanding of interactions between environmental and ecosystem variables and
target species, particularly given the stresses associated with climate change and the
environmental impacts of other human activities.
Changes in the Bering Sea serve as an example. It is one of the most productive marine
ecosystems in the world, with an impressive diversity and abundance of organisms at all levels.
A dramatic “regime shift” related to large-scale atmospheric processes occurred in the late 1970s,
producing a major reduction in winter seasonal extent and persistence of sea ice, and an increase
in the heat content of shelf waters. Accompanying these physical changes were changes in
spring phytoplankton blooms, consequent variations in zooplankton populations, major increases
in jellyfish, declines in some types of animals and birds, and a major shift in the composition and
balance of fish species. Temporally related changes include the long-term decline of Western
Stellar Sea Lions (80% in the last 30 years) and reductions in the populations of sea otters and
harbor and northern fur seals.
The research community has responded strongly to these changes. Both the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and NSF have sponsored and continue
to conduct major research programs in the Bering Sea, and the North Pacific Anadromous Fish
6
In this section, we will comment on environmental aspects of fisheries related R&D; other aspects such as
technology and market research are covered under the section on economy.
13
Commission launched a five-year international study of the reduced production and growth of
salmon in the area. Given the economic impact of restrictions on fisheries, the US Congress
increased funding for Stellar Sea Lion research by an order of magnitude, to over $40M a year,
and provided additional federal funds to support the state’s salmon research efforts. The North
Pacific Research Board has commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to develop a
long-range science plan for the Bering Sea as well as the adjacent North Pacific and Arctic
oceans; this should be available by late 2004. Yet, in spite of these and related efforts, we still
do not understand the reasons for many of the observed changes, nor are we even close to being
able to predict them.
There are long lists of good questions that can and should be asked about a very large number of
species and geographic locales, both marine and terrestrial. In some cases, Stellar Sea Lions
being an example, the attention focused on a single animal may be the best way to rapidly
produce results. Similarly, interest in economic development or the protection of a particular
species or habitat (e.g. Gorgonian corals along the Aleutians, caribou interference with reindeer
herds on the Seward Peninsula, oil production in ANWR, or development of a natural gas
pipeline) may require intensive study of specific regions. Indeed such surveys, for
anthropological as well as ecological purposes, must accompany virtually any significant
construction project. In general, however, we believe that for the purposes of state planning, it is
far preferable to build a broad and deep capacity for what is coming to be termed “ecosystembased management”.
While this procedure for managing resources based on ecosystem concepts is not yet well
defined, the basic idea is to develop sufficient knowledge of physical, chemical, and biological
processes and their interrelationships that interactions among plant and animal species at all
trophic levels can be understood and modeled, and thus serve as the basis for decisions about
human intervention. This requires detailed, thorough, and lengthy study of habitat, environment,
and the target species themselves, and is based on the assumption that a long-term commitment is
needed to really answer the questions being asked (as opposed to responding to short-term crisisof-the-day needs). Critical elements of an associated research agenda include long-term
monitoring of a wide range of parameters, “process” studies to improve understanding of the
mechanisms of interaction among variables, and models that incorporate the knowledge of
process and are able to assimilate the data from the monitoring systems in order to produce
nowcasts and forecasts, as well as decision-making tools to assist in evaluating cumulative
impacts. NOAA’s National Weather Service is a rough model of the type of “systems” approach
we suggest be applied to a much broader range of variables.
While we recognize that the development of “ecosystem-based management” for Alaska’s
fisheries and wildlife will take decades (if indeed it is achievable at all), we suggest that
approaching the task from this perspective will be more effective and less costly than trying to
address the huge list of important questions about individual species and areas one by one.
Further, we suggest that the monitoring systems, models, and decision-making tools that would
be developed as part of this approach, and the vastly improved coordination among sponsors and
performers that such an effort would demand, would help us address the other major
environmental and economic themes, discussed below, at the same time.
2. Local Impact of Human Activities. In addition to their impact on fish and wildlife, human
activities play a central role in the management of other Alaskan natural resources. While an
“ecosystem based” philosophy is appropriate as an overall approach to management of these
14
activities as well, we cite as examples four aspects of the interaction between humans and the
environment that will be particularly important for Alaska over the next decade, and thus warrant
special, dedicated attention on the part of the state:
-- Cumulative Impacts of North Slope Oil Development (including offshore). An NRC report
on this topic is due in early 2003. At stake in the related discussions (and inevitable
litigation) are the conditions under which industry will likely be willing to participate in
future oil and gas development projects (e.g. at ANWR) and the costs and extent of
infrastructure removal and restoration of the natural environment to a “before
development” state. The overall issue of future US energy supplies obviously has many
dimensions that go far beyond the scope of this report. Nonetheless, just as the Exxon
Valdez oil spill had ramifications that extended well beyond the boundaries of Prince
William Sound, so will environmentally-based decisions about the North Slope have a
dramatic impact on Alaska’s economy and life styles, and the nation’s energy future.
-- Mining. The value of minerals production in Alaska grew rapidly in the 1990’s, and
exceeded seafood starting in 2000. Mining developments are driven heavily by global
economic considerations, but environmental impacts and regulations and transportation
infrastructure influence costs and thus the feasibility and location of investment.
Environmentally-oriented R&D issues related to mining are generically similar to those
for oil and gas, and include local impact, restoration, pollution mitigation, and the impact
of transportation to and from the mining sites. Additional issues for some minerals
include requirements for, and impact of, smelting or other processing. As with oil, much
of the “value added” activity associated with mining is conducted elsewhere (e.g. Red
Dog zinc shipped to Belgium), at least partially because of environmental regulations.
-- Alternative Uses of Wilderness areas and Alaska’s Waters. From an environmental
perspective, one issue in forests, especially in the Southeast, is the availability and
resilience of non-timber products such as mushrooms and herbs. As with fish and
wildlife, this is very much an ecosystem-based management issue. The main alternative
uses of wildlands and marine areas are generally tourism and recreation. Tourism,
however, can have as much, if not more, environmental impact than extractive industry,
and similarly requires regulation in terms both of type and magnitude of use. The cruise
ship industry is a case in point. Recreation, distinguished here from tourism by its
importance to the local populace, has similar environmental issues, as seen in recent
restrictions on snow machines near Denali and in the Chugach, and problems associated
with increased private recreational vessel use of Prince William Sound.
-- City and Village Infrastructure: Health and quality of life are strongly influenced by the
quality and nature of housing, heating, power, water, and waste management. As with the
other issues in this general category, there are environmental as well as technical and
economic considerations associated with infrastructure decisions; these may be
complicated by remoteness, extremes of temperature, ice, snow, or rain, and demographic
changes. Alternatives to diesel-based power and heating in rural communities are of
particular interest because of the impact on the environment of delivery systems (barge,
air) as well as local emissions and spills. Proper waste disposal, again particularly in
remote communities, is also a serious concern. Another issue likely to be of increasing
importance in the near future is the impact of climate change on infrastructure. Melting
of permafrost, seasonal changes in precipitation type and amount, and increased erosion
can cause serious disruption, of which the need to move the village of Shishmaref is the
most dramatic recent example.
Although environment is only one consideration when considering the challenges and
opportunities associated with these types of human activity, it can be the dominant one. Given
15
the importance of these issues to the State, and the nature of associated laws, regulations, and
advocacy groups, it would be imprudent to leave R&D about them up to either industry or the
federal government. In addition to monitoring, modeling, and process studies, we suggest that
for ecosystem-based management the state needs to ensure that it has adequate access to
scientific and technical expertise in the many fields of environmental biology, chemistry,
physics, and engineering needed to understand the environmental characteristics and impacts of
such activities. The analytical equipment needed to diagnose them in both the field and the
laboratory is also necessary. Perhaps most importantly, the state Government should work with
the federal agencies, industry, and local stakeholder groups to ensure that it identifies the most
important issues and augments the efforts of others in a focused way. We should have well
defined state positions on these issues in advance of the need for final decisions or litigation.
3. Climate Change. Alaskans, as well scientists of all nations working in the Arctic, were
concerned with climate change long before it became a topic of national and international focus.
This is due to the amplification of change in northern areas, our vulnerability to change, the
extreme range of conditions across our vast state, and the close linkages between our lifestyles
and nature.
Since the 1960’s, Alaska has experienced a rise in average temperatures of about 5F in summer
and 8F in winter. This warming has resulted in extensive melting of glaciers, thawing of
permafrost, reduction of sea ice, and increased precipitation. In addition to this secular trend, we
are subject to the cyclical impacts of El Niño/La Niña, and Pacific and Arctic oscillations. On a
shorter time scale, both the timing and the nature of atmospheric processes have changed, to the
extent that neither numerical weather forecasting techniques nor predictions based on traditional
knowledge are reliably skillful7. All of these changes have, in turn, impacted our ecosystems and
our infrastructure, and through them our livelihood, particularly for Alaskan Native communities
where subsistence is economically, spiritually, and culturally a central aspect of life.
For all of these reasons, the University of Alaska has developed world-class capabilities in many
of the disciplines associated with climate change and ecosystem responses to it. This expertise,
and the global importance of Alaskan and Arctic weather and climate processes, gives us both
the opportunity and the responsibility to contribute significantly to the massive scientific efforts
needed to understand the nature and cause of change, and to respond to it.
Climate change research is widely recognized as so important, and requires such a wide range of
investigations, that it is better organized at both the national and international levels than most
other areas we discuss. Within the US, the Bush administration has established the interagency
Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) to coordinate and provide direction to research efforts
in the areas of climate and global change. CCSP has two major components. The first is the US
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which was codified by act of Congress in 1990.
The second is the new Climate Change Research Initiative (CCRI), announced by the President
in June 2001, which accelerates key areas of USGCRP research and is specifically designed to
reduce significant uncertainties, improve global climate observing systems, and develop
resources to support policy and decision making. The draft Overview of the CCRI Strategic Plan
states that its goal is “to measurably improve the integration of scientific knowledge, including
measures of uncertainty, into effective decision support systems and resources,” with
7
See Krupnik, Igor, and Dyanna Jolly, editors, The Earth is Faster Now: Indigenous Observations of Arctic
Environmental Change, Fairbanks, AK: Arctic Research Consortium, 2002
16
deliverables starting in 2-4 years. There is a parallel Climate Change Technology Program
(CCTP) to “coordinate and develop a comprehensive, multi-year, integrated climate change
technology R&D program for the United States”. CCSP can be considered the central US
contribution to a broad set of global-scale international programs associated with the multiple
dimensions of climate and its impacts.
In addition to the national and global programs, some initiatives are focused specifically on the
Arctic, both for its own sake, and as a “sentinel” or driving mechanism for broader aspects of
change. The principal US program of this type is the Study of Environmental Arctic Change
(SEARCH). Its science plan proposes a multi-year, multi-disciplinary set of observations,
process studies, and analyses, to be sponsored by nine federal agencies that together form its
Interagency Working Group. NSF’s Office of Polar Programs is expected to be the primary
funding source for SEARCH; to date, the only significant part of the effort that has been started
is the hydrological component, CHAMP.
International cooperation is essential for Arctic studies. The International Arctic Research
Center at UA Fairbanks is playing a significant role in fostering such collaboration through its
close relationships with Japanese government, quasi-government, and university scientists, and
through the promotion of field programs in the high Arctic with Russia and Canada. Recent
discussions among both scientists and government leaders show promise for the eventual
establishment of an international monitoring network in the Arctic ocean, which will be required
to address critical questions about the mechanisms and timing of change. Another important
circumpolar effort is the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment, being conducted under the aegis of
the Arctic Council. UA hosts the ACIA Secretariat, and the US representatives to the Arctic
Council group, that will draft policy recommendations after the science document is in final form
this spring, are from Alaska.
From a local and human perspective, equally important as climate, is weather. US weather
forecasts are based upon the output of global and national numerical models that are run by the
National Weather Service on dedicated supercomputers in Maryland. Guidance from these
models is supplemented by local observations and analyses at NWS offices around the nation;
the three in Alaska are in Juneau, Anchorage and Fairbanks. Although the models are quite
sophisticated, they are generally optimized for predictions for major population centers and for
forecasts of significant hazards such as hurricanes and tornadoes. Their results are significantly
less skillful in areas like Alaska, where observations are relatively sparse and some Arctic
atmospheric processes are not fully captured in the model physics. Further, neither the resolution
of the predictions, nor the parameters forecast, are fully adequate for the needs of Alaska’s
scattered population, either on land or at sea. And as noted above, there has been enough change
in both climate and weather patterns over the past few decades, that traditional methods of
weather forecasting are no longer reliable. To address these issues, university and NWS
representatives have held meetings over the last year to discuss both the human dimensions and
the science of weather forecasting for the region, and have proposed a number of steps toward
improvement. It is expected that some of these (e.g. reanalyses of past forecasts, process studies
to improve the representation of Arctic conditions, and comparison of traditional knowledge with
computational techniques) will simultaneously benefit climate studies.
While the overall responsibility for organizing and funding major climate and weather studies
lies with the federal government, the state needs to help ensure that adequate attention is paid to
regional concerns, and in particular to the central role of the Arctic. In large part this can be
accomplished by promoting and sustaining research expertise in the University and state
17
agencies, and through taking a leadership role in the various national and international fora that
deal with climate issues. Additional state actions to support climate and weather research can
include support for the research facilities and the infrastructure needed for Arctic field work, as
well as provisioning for “climate quality data” in plans for enhanced marine and terrestrial
observation and monitoring systems. Basically, climate will continue to be a major focus of
national and international attention for many years, and it will be important to consistently
emphasize the unique importance of our region to this research and the unique vulnerability and
sensitivity of our people to the impacts of change. As America’s only Arctic State, Alaska has
the responsibility, for both its own sake and for the rest of the world that is affected by Arctic
processes, to ensure that international and national R&D programs pay appropriate attention to
Arctic issues.
4. Contaminants. While Alaskan’s are generally cautious about management of their own
pollutants (although note our cautionary concerns about the impact of community infrastructure),
and the vast majority of the state is pristine, past activities in the state -- notably military -- and
global processes are cause for both concern and research. Regarding local sources, the federal
agencies assigned responsibility for cleanup, together with the local population, have generally
done a good job of identification and planning. Remediation will likely be quite slow, but it is
unlikely that there are many major unknown hazards in most areas. The one major exception is
Amchitka. At issue is the potential for leakage from the explosion cavities, due to geological
changes induced by tectonic forces. ADEC has consistently pressured DOE for assessments that
are based upon geophysical and chemical research in the field, not simply models. A scientific
plan for Amchitka stewardship has been prepared under the aegis of the Consortium for Risk
Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation (CRESP), and DOE funding to start the required
studies is expected this year.
The most serious contaminants, persistent organic pollutants (POPs) (e.g. PCBs, dioxins and
furans) and heavy metals, reach Alaska primarily by atmospheric and ocean transport. POPs and
heavy metals remain in the environment long after they are released, and move from air and
water into soil, plants, animals, and eventually to humans via the food web (POPs accumulate in
fat, whereas heavy metals generally accumulate in organs and muscle). Adverse health effects to
humans and wildlife can result in reproductive, immunological, neurological and developmental
effects, and cancer. In humans, these health effects are more likely to be discerned in fetuses and
children than in adults.
There are many important and unanswered research issues associated with these environmental
contaminants. One set of questions is associated with sources, processes and pathways of
transport, the physics and chemistry of deposition, accumulation and change, and the levels and
concentrations of various pollutants and their byproducts in the air, water, ice, snow, and soil. A
second set concerns the biological and chemical processes by which these contaminants enter the
food web in plants and animals, and the processes of bioaccumulation and biomagnification,
including variations by species, organ, and geographic location. The third set addresses their
effects on people, particularly on those that rely on wild foods for a significant part of the diet,
and even more particularly upon fetuses and infants.
Like climate change, considerable international attention has been focused on these problems.
Spurred by concerns over DDT and PCBs, a Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air
Pollution has provided some controls in many Northern Hemisphere countries for many years;
these controls were extended globally and to additional contaminants in the Stockholm POPs
Convention of 2001. Efforts are underway to develop similar international instruments
18
governing mercury and other heavy metals. Much of the credit for stimulating global interest in
controlling these contaminants is due to concerns expressed by the Northern Indigenous Peoples
who are most directly affected by them, and to the results of the Arctic Monitoring and
Assessment Program (AMAP) of the Arctic Council.
AMAP issued its second report late in 2002. That report initially contained several statements
about the impact of contaminants on the health of Alaska Natives, with which knowledgeable
Alaskan representatives do not agree; the report has been corrected. Much of the reason for these
disagreements stems from that fact that Alaska has not collected, analyzed, or documented
adequate information related to any of the three major sets of questions about POPs and heavy
metals in our environment. US/Alaskan contributions to AMAP have in general been very weak
compared to those of other northern nations, and there is no organized program to study this
problem. Canada, by contrast, has an extremely large, well organized, and active Northern
Contaminants Program. We believe that this is one topic where it is very important for the state
to take the lead in developing, organizing, and funding -- with federal support -- a major research
and monitoring program. Alaska Natives and other rural Alaskans are major consumers of wild
and traditional foods. They need information in order to make informed choices on what foods
they should be eating and whether the presence of contaminants outweighs the overall benefits of
a traditional diet. Similar considerations impact the marketability of Alaskan wild seafood.
Sound, reliable, and adequately specific advice is not now available, and will not be in the
absence of a dedicated research-based program. It is very much in the interest of the state to lead
the requisite research.
5. Natural Hazards. Although not highlighted in the survey, we believe it is important to note
the scientific as well as economic and infrastructural importance of natural hazards (earthquakes,
volcanoes, and tsunamis) in Alaska. The recent magnitude 6.7 and 7.9 earthquakes along the
Denali Fault, although they killed no one and resulted in “only” some tens of millions of dollars
of damage, serve to remind us of our susceptibility to natural disasters from geophysical activity.
The state is a partner with USGS and UA in both earthquake and volcano monitoring. We
believe that it is important to expand and upgrade as well as maintain those networks, and state
support for the associated funding will be important. Further, Alaska is an outstanding natural
laboratory for both marine and terrestrial geophysics and tectonics. UA’s Geophysical Institute
has built a world class reputation in related studies, as well as in atmospheric and space physics.
Maintaining and improving GI’s scientific capabilities and research facilities, in partnership with
state and federal agencies, should continue to be a matter of high priority.
A Strategy for Natural Environmental R&D in Alaska
In spite of the diversity of environmental concerns and variables, and the need for state attention
to some specific issues as discussed above, there are only a few major elements at the core our
recommended strategy:
-- Preserve and enhance scientific excellence where it already exists, and build capacity in
additional key disciplines,
-- Develop partnerships and collaborative processes for coordinating R&D,
-- Establish and support integrated long-term monitoring networks, coupled to process
study models and decision-making tools (and developing the technology necessary for
this), and directed at improved decision making at the ecosystem and regional level,
and
-- Increase the flow and relevance of information to decision makers, including individuals
who are directly influenced by environmental conditions (e.g. weather, contaminants).
19
Indeed, we could borrow the goal of CCRI for Alaska’s own objectives: “to measurably improve
the integration of scientific knowledge, including measures of uncertainty, into effective decision
support systems and resources”.
Although the elements of this strategy are relatively easy to state, we make no pretense that they
will be simple to implement. We are, in essence, suggesting that all of Alaska be instrumented as
a long-term environmental observatory, both for the study of issues affecting local conditions,
and to help understand global dynamics. This will be a major undertaking that will require close
cooperation of all stakeholders and major technological advancements. We believe, however,
that the results would be well worth the effort, and would serve as a model for the rest of the
nation. In the paragraphs below, we briefly discuss each element of this strategy. We also note
that there are two underpinning tasks that will be needed to support both the environmental
strategy, and those for the human environment, economy and infrastructure: high resolution
mapping and statewide communications connectivity. We discuss these separately in a later
section.
1. Scientific Excellence. World class expertise requires both people and facilities. Alaska has
been able to attract experts in many of the requisite fields largely because it is such a wonderful
natural laboratory. From the aurora, to moose, salmon, and earthquakes, we have an abundance
of natural features that inspire curiosity and offer superb opportunities for field work. In addition
to strong research groups in state and federal agencies, UA has world-class researchers in many
areas of geophysics, fisheries and oceanography, and biology and resource management. These
fields are included as areas of distinction in the strategic plans of two of the Major
Administrative Units. There are also several independent non-profit research groups in the state,
and their strength is growing. Additionally, researchers from many other states and nations
contribute to the study of our environment. In general, the researchers have access to excellent
field sites, some of which form critical nodes for our proposed integrated state-wide long-term
observations. We also have excellent computational facilities (in particular, the Arctic Region
Supercomputing Center (ARSC) at UAF), with wideband access to the global grid and adequate
capacity to meet projected needs. Finally, we have exceptional access to information from polarorbiting earth-observing satellites, via UA, NASA, and NOAA facilities.
Where we are weak, is in laboratory facilities. UA’s research labs are, in general, old and
crowded. Proposed capital budgets will not ameliorate the problems for many years. The status
of these labs not only impedes ongoing research, but severely hampers the University’s ability to
hire new top-quality faculty. Federal and state agency researchers are scattered, often in small
groups, and in many cases housed in rental spaces without access to modern lab equipment. In
addition, much of our important analytical work is contracted outside. We urge the State’s
attention to its responsibilities to provide infrastructure for its researchers, and further suggest
that the University, with State and Federal Agencies, develop plans for collocation and shared
R&D facilities and equipment in the major centers, as well as at key field stations. We recognize
the bureaucratic difficulties associated with such cooperation, but also note that none of the
individual organizations will be able, by themselves, to afford the required capabilities. Progress
toward facility consolidation and improvement will require strong state leadership.
It will also be important to build capacity in areas where state research institutions, especially
UA, are now weak. This is discussed at some length in the section on Strengthening and
Maintaining the Health of State Research Institutions, but here we highlight the need for
20
improved and broadened capabilities in marine science and fisheries, land resource management,
and coupled human and natural ecosystems.
2. Partnerships and Collaborative Processes. Co-location is only a partial solution to
cooperation. Further, what is needed is a coordinated effort to organize research campaigns and
sampling schemes, to share and synthesize the various pieces of data and make them readily
accessible, to develop common information tools and models, and to create products that meet
the needs of the various user communities (resource managers, harvesters, industry, subsistence
users, and the general public). We recognize that mission agencies have their separate mandates
and individual planning and budgeting processes. In addition, we know that these are sometimes
drastically at odds even between branches within a single organization. Nonetheless, as
demonstrated by efforts such as USGCRP and the more recent CCRP, as well as by major
science initiatives supported by NSF and others (such as Earthscope, SEARCH and the LTER
program), answering the hard questions posed by environmental processes requires broad
cooperation. Too often in Alaska, development of research programs and capabilities has been
played as a zero-sum game. UA, during its “desert years,” was a particularly bad example of
local parochialism. Achieving the goals that we suggest requires proactive collaboration and
partnerships in R&D planning and execution. In turn, these collaborations and partnerships
demand strong and consistent state support.
3. Long-term Monitoring. Monitoring has traditionally been viewed as an “unscientific”
activity. However, perhaps strongly stimulated by climate studies, the research and resource
management communities have come to recognize the value of high-quality observations over a
sufficiently long period to distinguish, and measure variations associated with, important natural
cycles. This is the only way that we can even begin to hope to tease out the impacts of natural
versus human-induced change. In many cases this long-term monitoring means not just seasons,
but decades of commitment. This need is recognized by new Federal initiatives such as the
Integrated Ocean Observing System, the National Ecological Observatory Network, the National
Biological Information Initiative, and CCRP. To reiterate the point above, such long-term
networks can be achieved only through extended partnerships.
We have begun to envision the nature of an Alaska state-wide environmental resource
observational network. Logically, it should have seven major components, one each for in-situ
or ground-based marine, terrestrial, subsurface (oil and gas, minerals, permafrost, tectonics,
etc)atmospheric and space, and human observations, and two others that supply remotely sensed
satellite data and archived samples to the other five. Information from these “systems” should be
made immediately accessible to all users through the web, via a common portal (UA is designing
GINA with this purpose in mind). Data from process studies that take advantage of and enhance
the long-term system would likewise become part of the widely accessible data base. The ARSC
would serve as the principal center for the development of models to exploit the data8. While we
don’t wish to underestimate the difficulties inherent in implementing this vision, we have already
made considerable progress on initiating the marine component, as discussed below, and note
that there are several currently unconnected Alaskan monitoring networks (e.g. for seismics,
weather and climate, and hydrology) that could serve as the basis for an integrated terrestrial and
atmospheric observational system; perhaps, with considerable overall savings in logistics costs.
Similar synergies should be possible for space and satellite observations. Overall, we believe
that a commitment on the part of the state to lead the development and management of a
8
See the discussion and figure in the section on A Common Need: Resource Assessment and Monitoring
21
statewide set of environmental monitoring networks could be one of the most far-reaching
actions that it could take in support of all aspects of R&D, including economic development. 9
4. Information Flow: At present, much of the information collected through field studies in
Alaska is available only to the investigator or organization that collects it. Frequently even the
final product of this fieldwork is in the form of a report that never gets into the catalogued
statewide library system, let alone peer reviewed journals or the world wide web. UA is
developing procedures to insure that at least its own researchers’ output is appropriately
documented and accessible. As part of this study, we have developed and started to compile the
Alaska R&D (ARAD) inventory of ongoing R&D projects, facilities, experts, and associated
literature. As noted above, UA has sponsored the initial stages of development of GINA to make
remotely sensed data more widely and cheaply accessible, and ultimately to serve as the portal
for data from the envisioned monitoring networks. While these initial efforts will help, careful
design of data bases and decision tools will have to be an essential component of any efforts to
improve R&D cooperation, let alone to develop comprehensive monitoring networks. We also
recognize the need for early and continuous involvement of community representatives from
around the state, to help define the types of environmental information our people want and need,
and to ensure that it is provided in useful, timely, and accessible ways. Further, if our State’s
needs are to be adequately addressed in national and international programs, Alaskans must be
vigorous proponents, particularly of the importance of Native peoples and the Arctic.
Actions to Date, and Next Steps
We have already alluded to some of the efforts that are underway in support of our suggested
strategy (even if not inspired by it - we simply note that they are commensurate with what we
believe is appropriate for a state R&D Plan). These projects include ARAD and GINA, upgrades
to the ARSC, discussions with NOAA and NASA on wideband fiber connectivity and access to
satellite resources, leadership of the hydrological component of SEARCH, work with Russia and
Canada to establish ocean monitoring systems in the Arctic, and initial meetings to develop a
plan to improve weather forecasting for Alaska and the circumpolar Arctic, and to prepare an
Alaskan proposal for NEON. Perhaps the most significant step, however, has been the
development of a consortium of federal and state government agencies, Native Alaska entities,
academic institutions, non-governmental organizations, and private industry to establish a
Coastal Alaska Observatory System (CAOS), which we envision evolving into the marine
component of an integrated Alaskan environmental observing network. We discuss CAOS
briefly as an example.
The impetus for CAOS was provided by a national meeting in late 2001 to discuss the US
Integrated Ocean Observing System, IOOS. Although Alaska’s coast and waters are as extensive
as the other eight regions envisioned for IOOS combined, CAOS would fulfill IOOS objectives
(ranging from climate change and sustained use of living resources to homeland security) from
our borders with Canada and Russia, to the North Pole. The CAOS concept was broached to a
wide range of interested parties at the Oceans and Watersheds symposium in Anchorage in April
9
In addition to the payoffs from improved assessment of development opportunities, minimization of
impact from extractive industry, and improved safety and health of Alaskans, the monitoring systems
themselves would provide new business opportunities in areas such as network design and operations,
instrument and sensor development, data base construction and management, modeling, and field site
installation and operations. As similar networks are constructed elsewhere, e.g. as part of IOOS, such skills
are exportable.
22
2002, and given the positive and broad response, an organizational meeting was held in
conjunction with the annual Arctic AAAS meeting in Fairbanks in September. Governance and
Implementation Committees have been formed, a user group meeting is planned for April 2003,
and a search for a CAOS Director to be hosted at UAF’s SFOS is underway.
Given the size of Alaska’s coasts and waters, CAOS is envisioned as comprising 3 major
regional segments (Gulf of Alaska, Bering Sea, and Arctic ocean, with further local
subdivisions), each served by an interlinked set of “nodes,” all with geographic responsibilities,
and some with lead responsibilities for aspects of the science planning and process studies. An
example of the latter could include marine fisheries expertise concentrated in Juneau, with the
new NOAA lab, UAF School of Fisheries and Ocean Sciences (SFOS) fisheries group, UAS
marine biology, and ADF&G. Similarly, estuarine research could be centered at Kachemak Bay
(National Ecological Research Reserve and headquarters for the Alaska Maritime National
Wildlife Refuge). Prince William Sound Science Center would continue to focus on the ecology
of the Sound from Cordova. Barrow, through the Barrow Arctic Science Consortium, could lead
the Arctic node. EVOS’s Gulf of Alaska Ecosystem Monitoring Program (GEM) could lead
efforts in the GOA. NOAA’s Pacific Marine Environmental Lab and Alaska Fisheries Science
Center could continue and hopefully expand their monitoring and research efforts in the Gulf and
Bering Sea. Kodiak could support sustainable harvest studies in local waters as well as be the
center for fisheries technology. Seward could play a critical role as the homeport for the Arctic
Region Research Vessel (proposed replacement for UA’s current UNOLS vessel, R/V Alpha
Helix) and thus be the central point for access to the open ocean and the major shore lab site for
the oceanographic researchers that would use the ship. In addition, Seward would serve as a
center for mooring logistics, data management, marine mammal research (based on the Alaska
Sealife Center’s husbandry facilities), and shipboard training (AVTEC). At this point in the
CAOS process these are just conceptual ideas, but they indicate a likely direction of evolution,
and we have, in some cases, started discussions with local leaders and agency representatives
about their roles in the network. CAOS is also a major factor in the ongoing strategic planning
process within SFOS.
We have also started to build the partnerships requisite to coordinated planning and execution of
marine research. One such effort is a draft Memorandum of Agreement between UA, the EVOS
Trustee Council, and the NPRB, which commits the parties to working together to meet research
priorities and data and information needs. This MOA will be open to other interested partners.
One of Alaska’s great competitive strengths is the large amount of dedicated funds for marine
research managed by NPRB and the EVOS Trustee Council, as well as those from the Pacific
Salmon Commission’s Northern Fund, the Alaska Sustainable Salmon Fund, and the Prince
William Sound Oil Spill Recovery Institute, plus funds managed by UA SFOS via the Mineral
Management Service’s Coastal Marine Institute, the Pollock Conservation Cooperative Research
Center, the Rasmuson Fisheries Research Center, and the NOAA-supported Sea Grant and
National Underwater Research Programs. Harnessing these efforts, as well as Federal and state
agency programs in a collaborative effort to address the many pressing marine issues in the state,
should enable Alaska and CAOS to be national leaders in the development of IOOS, and major
players in the evolving Global Ocean Observing System.
CAOS has been launched, but is in the very early stages of its development and is thus still
susceptible to being derailed. We therefore urge strong state support for this effort, and for
leadership of it within Alaska, by an Alaskan organization (UA would be a good candidate),
where it can best be integrated with other statewide monitoring and data management systems,
and couple closely to education and training. In addition to the overall CAOS efforts, the
23
partners are continuing their own planning efforts, notably the EVOS Trustee Council’s work to
establish GEM, and NPRB’s evolution and the continuation of its science planning with the
NRC. Planning for and development of other monitoring programs and systems that can evolve
into CAOS nodes will also continue, as will efforts such as GINA and ARAD that contribute to
the marine component of our suggested monitoring network.
Other next steps will include discussions with potential partners for other components of the
proposed statewide network, to lead to the development of a more thorough and structured vision
of its objectives and organization. As with CAOS, near-term efforts to this end will include a
combination of individual efforts (e.g. the preparation of a NEON proposal, continuing work on
the ACIA and other Arctic Council projects, and discussions leading to the development of an
Alaskan counterpart to Canada’s Northern Contaminants Program) plus attempts to develop
memoranda of agreement, form consortia, discuss joint facilities, and build momentum toward
interest in integrated networks. We have started with the marine component because of the
impetus provided by IOOS, plus the mutual interests of several of the major players. We will
attempt to use this as a model for efforts on the terrestrial, atmosphere and space, human, and
satellite sensing components.
24
R&D and Alaska’s Human Environment
Alaska’s communities range from modern, cosmopolitan Anchorage, to villages of a few dozen
people surrounded by huge tracts of wilderness. The state’s population includes members of a
wide variety of ethnic groups, a large contingent of military personnel, and many temporary
workers who come for the excitement of the land or the lure of well paying jobs. Alaska is
unique in the US in its large geographic areas in which indigenous people, again of many
cultures, comprise most of the population; yet virtually all Alaskans have access to modern
communications and means of transport. Most rural residents frequently visit large towns and
cities, and most urban Alaskans greatly value opportunities to go to the bush . Thus Alaska is an
unusual amalgam of western and indigenous, and rural and urban cultures, with the problems
and joys of both, as well as the tensions associated with their intersection.
Approach to Development of a Human Environmental R&D Plan
With a population of 626,932 and a land area of 571,951.26 square miles (according to the 2000
US Census), Alaska is blessed with little overcrowding and few traffic problems. However well
over half the State’s residents, some 380K, live in, or adjacent to, the cities of Anchorage,
Fairbanks, and Juneau. Anchorage municipality alone is home to 260K. Another 95K live in
towns of 5-15K, and 19K in towns of 1-5K. The rest of the population is scattered in nearly 300
villages. Of the 349 communities in the State, fewer than 50 are on the road system, and only
about 20 are on the state ferry system. 10 Overall, Alaska’s population increased 10% since the
1990 census (although there has been a net out-migration since 1994). The fastest growth is
occurring in the urban centers of Anchorage and the adjacent Matanuska-Susitna Borough. The
greatest percentage decline has been in Aleutians West, and was associated with military base
closures. Overall, there is a slow, but inexorable migration toward population centers, driven by
a combination of jobs, schooling, health facilities, and increasing reliance upon modern
technology.
Alaska’s population is as diverse as it is geographically scattered. The cities boast a wide mix of
cultures, with a significant population of Koreans in Anchorage and a large number of Filipinos
along the coastal arc. Military personnel (some 18K+ in 2000) and their dependents, a quasiethnic group by virtue of their demographics, contribute significantly to the labor pool and
expenditures around the major bases near Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Kodiak, and can be the
source of significant disruption when bases are closed (e.g. Adak) or built up (e.g. Fort Greely
near Delta Junction). Alaska Natives are particularly significant contributors to the state’s
diversity and its value structure not only because they comprise almost 17% of the population,
but because unlike most other groups, they often reside in towns, villages, or even regions where
they are a significant percentage of the population. Indeed, Alaska Natives are a majority in 10 of
Alaska’s 27 census areas. Indigenous cultures themselves are diverse, as reflected in their 21
languages and five major cultural groupings.
Alaska’s political, land ownership, and resource management structures are also varied. There
are 17 boroughs with 49 city governments and 83 unincorporated places, and 10 additional
unorganized “census areas”, with 96 city governments and 92 unincorporated places. Two
hundred and twenty four Alaska Native Villages, Communities, Associations, Councils, or
These numbers vary depending on source. Here, most statistics are from “Trends in Alaska’s People and
Economy”, prepared by UAA’s Institute of Social and Economic Research for the Alaska 20/20
Partnership, October 2001
10
25
Organizations are recognized as separate “American Indian Tribes” by the Federal Government,
and there is one Federal Indian Reservation. Each of these entities has associated rights of
sovereignty. Of Alaska’s 375 million acres, the Federal Government owns 221 million (151
million are in National Parks, Refuges, and Forests), the state owns 105 million, and the 12 instate ANCSA corporations (and more than 200 village corporations which have surface
entitlements) own 44 million acres. 11 Resources are managed by a number of federal and state
agencies, and in some cases regulatory authority is shared with indigenous groups.
Such diversity of culture, demography, accessibility, and governance naturally leads to a wide
array of social and economic needs of the people, and of challenges to delivery systems. School
sizes vary from as few as eight children, to several thousand. Local medical and social welfare
support ranges from perhaps a single paraprofessional, to full-service primary-care hospitals.
Some vitally important social and economic needs, such as subsistence, are almost unknown in
the US outside of our state, and even here, harvests of wild foods range from less than 20 pounds
per person in Anchorage and Fairbanks North Star Boroughs, to some 700 pounds average in the
Wade Hampton census area, where wild foods account for about 44% of an individual’s
economic well-being. 12
As was the case with the natural environment, the range of scientific, social scientific, and
humanitarian disciplines within which R&D is conducted in support of the needs of the human
environment is very large. Similarly, a large number of federal and state agencies, academic
institutions, NGOs, and commercial entities are involved in both R&D and service delivery.
Further, there are indigenous counterparts to western knowledge for most important human
issues. Here, more than for many of the natural environment themes, formally organized Native
groups and organizations, ranging from village councils, to village and ANSCA corporations, and
the Alaska Native Tribal Health Consortium and regional non-profit corporations, are fully
capable of performing R&D and supporting their peoples’ more immediate needs. Thus, as for
the natural environment, a completely bottoms-up, or disciplinary approach, to developing an
R&D plan was felt to be inappropriate.
Our working group on “Social and Economic Needs of Alaskans” elected to commission task
forces to examine human needs in a number of areas. As noted above, the papers from these
groups are located in our “Appendix” on the web. For some topics, such as law enforcement and
justice, our respondents felt that there were no significant issues that needed to be discussed at
this time. Some topics, such as history, gender, and governance, were ignored for this initial
effort, in spite of their importance. Others topics, such as health, biomedicine, and social welfare
have been the subject of intensive review and discussion in this report and in others. The groups
that are addressing these issues have structured plans and formal timelines which include
extensive stakeholder interaction. These timelines call for submission of their report in April,
and thus we are able to make only very preliminary comments at this time. As for the natural
environment, and in at least two instances directly related to it ( resource management and
contaminants), some major themes emerged. We will focus on these themes in this initial draft.
11
Trust lands (municipal, UA, mental health) account for another 2 million acres, and 3 million acres -- an
average of almost 5 acres per citizen -- are in individual private hands.
12
And where the Permanent Fund Dividend accounts for 21% -- three times the state average -- of per
capita income from wages and transfer payments.
26
The Dominant Themes
1. Resource Management. Our discussion of fish and wildlife, and human activities in the
Natural Environment section emphasized the importance of adopting an ecosystem-based
approach to management. Here, we stress that people and their culture are important, often
dominant parts of the ecosystem. One of the key issues, and most urgent challenges for resource
management in Alaska, is to understand how coupled human and natural systems interact to
enhance or erode the resilience of regional ecosystems. 13 The intent is to seek strategies that
simultaneously enhance the sustainability of ecosystem services, economic output, cultural
integrity, and other important sources of social well being, on regional scales. This requires not
only the development and integration of knowledge about the biological basis of sustainable
resource supply and the extent to which these supplies may change (e.g. due to climate change,
as we discussed above) but also knowledge of the historical and cultural use of the resources, the
impact of the introduction of new technology, and the valuation of the resource in both the
monetary and the non-monetary marketplace. Long-term sustainable use of resources requires an
understanding of current and projected patterns of use and associated cultural values.
These issues are important throughout the world, and Alaska is an excellent “laboratory” in
which to address the intersection of cultural, political, economic, and ecological change in ways
that have direct relevance to our own state as well as other regions. Further, these are
particularly relevant topics in which to exploit potential synergies between western science and
traditional knowledge. Local knowledge of the indigenous people who have lived on the land for
hundreds or even thousands of years provides information over much larger temporal scales ( via
oral history) and at broader spatial scales than is available from modern instrumentation. Native
knowledge also adds new observations and perspectives on social-ecological relationships, and
extends our capability to understand changes that are occurring and their consequences to
society. Western science can complement this knowledge with precise numerical measurements,
correlation with chemical and biological impact, and comparisons to other areas. In addition, it
can help explain process and the reasons for change, and ultimately can develop models with
which to forecast or explore the logical consequences of policies. Clearly, traditional knowledge
and western scientific knowledge can be complementary.
The rural-urban, western-indigenous divide, which R&D can help bridge, is exemplified in
Alaska by differences in federal and state regulations regarding subsistence activities. The
implications of value-based differences in the approach to resource management and
development in the state, however, extend far beyond this one issue. Our large urban population
centers are governed by monetary/policy/regulation-based economic systems, while our rural,
and particularly indigenous people -- who form the majority in much of our state -- are steeped in
a cultural, non-monetary resource valuation ethos. We believe that R&D oriented toward
understanding the intersection of these value sets, and actions to increase the degree of
correlation between them, is a matter of great importance both to our state, and to other
developing economies. We acknowledge that the problems associated with the rural-urban,
western-indigenous differences in our state are extremely complex and require considerable
insight from a wide range of disciplines and cultures. These issues are as difficult as they are
important, for all three of the challenges posed by SJR44. We simply argue that the nature of
coupled natural and human systems in the contexts of resource management, sustainability, and
resiliency, has to be a focal theme for an Alaska R&D plan, if -- as stated at the start of our
13
We acknowledge the contributions of a proposal from Prof. F. S. Chapin of UAF for an EPSCoR research
focus area in Regional Resilience and Adaptation, to this section.
27
Executive Summary -- the State is to expand its economy while preserving those human and
natural values that make the state so attractive.
2. Health and Biomedicine. We first note that just as in resource management, there are many
human cultural and physical aspects to the contaminant theme, which was addressed under our
discussion of natural environment. Subsistence, particularly for Alaska Natives, has social,
spiritual, and educational aspects; however, at the bottom line, the questions regarding
subsistence from a health standpoint are: who eats what, when, and how. Occasional ritual
consumption of some organs, even if laden with POPs or heavy metals, has vastly different
implications for health than a steady diet of plants, fish, and animal flesh with much lower levels
of accumulation. Similarly, there are seasonal variations in contaminant load, different cooking
methods induce different chemical changes, and some foods are of most concern during
pregnancy. Consumption patterns and nutritional makeup of the diet has not been consistently
documented across Alaska. The health benefits of traditional or wild food must be part of the
research agenda in order to intelligently weigh dietary benefit with risk. Thus, R&D about
hunting, fishing, storage, cooking, and dietary practices—those that that above we referred to
above as the “third set” of questions regarding contaminants—are at least as important as studies
of physical, chemical, and non-human biological processes and characteristics.
In spite of their importance for both commercial fishing and subsistence, contaminants rank
relatively low on the overall list of health issues in the state. Health Alaskans 2010, the State’s
overall strategy for improving the health of Alaskans, only included contaminants as a subset of
“food safety,” one of its 26 focus areas. Of greater concern in that report are chronic diseases
like heart disease, cancer, stroke, and diabetes, which are the leading causes of death and
morbidity in Alaska and the rest of the United States, and conditions like obesity, substance
abuse, and tobacco use. Other major health issues include behavioral and mental health-related
problems (e.g. suicide, child maltreatment, alcohol abuse {including fetal alcohol syndrome},
and violence) , unintentional injuries (which are the leading cause of death of Alaskan children
and adolescents, and are also intolerably frequent in many of our occupations and avocations like
fishing, snow machining and flying), and the problems inherent in providing health and social
services to our population (particularly in wilderness or “frontier” regions). Further, although
trends are improving, there are still glaring health disparities between Alaska Natives and the rest
of our population. We also need to be concerned about “emerging infectious diseases,” the
spread of disease associated with climate change and migration patterns, and possible
bioterrorism. These issues are as pertinent to the health of people as they are for the health of
plants, fish, and land animals.
Research discussions have focused on improving inquiry into relevant questions in the following
areas:
-- Chronic Diseases: Like most other regions of the US, Alaska’s leading overall causes of
death and illness stem from chronic diseases such as heart disease, kidney disease, cancer,
stroke and diabetes.
-- Behavioral health: Alaska has staggering rates of suicide, child maltreatment, substance
abuse and violence. The suicide rate for young males in some parts of Alaska is among the
highest in the United States. Yet there are similarly situated communities in Alaska that are
virtually free of these problems. What makes these communities resilient compared to their
neighbors? What are the most effective service delivery methods blending cultural values
and traditional western concepts? Since many of the more significant disparities among
segments of our population are in the areas of behavioral health, the intersection of
28
indigenous and western beliefs and practices, including the accumulated impact of
historical interactions, will be important R&D issues. The Alaska Native health community
is and should continue to make essential contributions to these issues, and the people
themselves must partner with the researchers in their efforts.
-- Emerging Infectious Diseases: Hepatitis, tuberculosis, pneumonias, HIV, strep and
Heliobacter pylori are public health concerns in Alaska. Unusual epizootic diseases erupt
in rural villages where people have continuing exposure to feral animals. Severe and
catastrophic weather events are characteristic at high latitudes, and they render animals and
peoples susceptible to unpredictable opportunistic infections. West Nile virus and other
infectious diseases can be spread by animal migration and it is unknown how this might
effect the Arctic US. Increasing threats from bioterrorism present unique challenges in
Alaska because of the great distances and isolation. The Arctic Investigations Program at
the CDC in Alaska and well as the State’s Division of Public Health has done a quality job
in surveilling for and investigating infectious disease for many decades. More should be
done to enhance research efforts in this area.
-- Injury Control: Unintentional injuries are the leading cause of death of Alaskan children
and young adults. Alaska is a dangerous place to live, work, and recreate because of the
challenges of its natural environment and lack of access to health care. Vehicle and plane
crashes, drowning, fires, poisonings, gunshot wounds, snow machines and all- terrain
vehicle injuries, and even dog bites account for Alaska’s alarmingly high rates of death for
unintentional injuries.
-- Genomics, proteomics and bioinformatics: These are basic modern techniques that are
fundamental to the study of many chronic and infectious diseases, and are equally relevant
to natural environmental studies in fisheries, forestry, agriculture, and wildlife biology.
Given the relatively small scale of the Alaskan research enterprise in these areas, R&D
here will likely focus on diseases and behaviors for which Alaska can make potentially
unique contributions, or on topics that research outside of the state is unlikely to
adequately address. Examples include diabetes and obesity as related to traditional Alaska
diets, and the increasing consumption of western foods by indigenous people; the
molecular-to-behavioral mechanisms associated with the reduction in metabolic rate and
other bodily processes in hibernation , using ground squirrels and bears as model species
(with relevance to human protection from injury due to stroke and heart attack, as well as
the study of memory, sleep, and neurological mechanisms of daily and seasonal timing);
and the impact of contaminants on DNA and chromosomal structure, and associated
mechanisms of cellular repair.
-- Toxicology and other aspects of environmental health (particularly as related to Arctic
and high-latitude conditions): Important health-related topics in Alaska include the impact
of contaminants, the development of improved infrastructure for water supplies, sewage
and waste disposal, and air quality in housing, particularly as it affects asthma and other
respiratory problems.
-- Rural and Frontier health delivery: Alaska has only 1.1 persons per square mile, compared
to the 79.6 persons per square mile in rest of the US with. Many health-related challenges
and innovations are directly associated with Alaska’s natural environment and remoteness.
A few examples where R&D can make significant contributions include the study of
epidemiology in sparse populations and in communities designed for harsh winter
conditions, life style and occupational practices that result in our high rates of death from
unintentional injuries and ways to ameliorate them, emergency treatment in the wilderness,
seasonal syndromes and cold-induced injuries, health and social-care delivery to remote
regions with a very low number of health care providers (including issues of recruitment
and training), and advances and innovations in telemedicine (where Alaska can make
29
major contributions to delivery procedures, provider training, and scope of practice
because of the quality and extent of it telemedicine system).
-- Justice and Human Services Research: There are many important issues that intersect
between the justice, human service and health system. For instance, what are effective
interventions for juveniles in rural communities? What is the best practice for child and
family well-being in rural and urban Alaska? How do vulnerable adults, such as the
mentally ill or those with FAS or other disabilities, interact with the justice system and
what interventions are working to keep them out of the system?
-- Aging and Disabilities: Alaska has a small, but rapidly growing, aging population.
Similarly, persons with disabilities are living longer and are in community settings with
independence previously thought impossible. Research in rural aging and disabilities is an
area of great need in our state.
-- Capacity Issues: As Alaska takes on an increased role in health, behavioral health, and
biomedical research it must also build its graduate education programs to provide for a
substantial research talent pool. UA is one of few state universities in the nation that does
not have a PhD program in behavioral health. Plans to support an efficient but tailored PhD
program in Psychology should be supported to enhance research. In addition Masters
programs in public health, social work, and many other relevant areas are underway. In
addition, the research role of medical students and residents enrolled through the WWAMI
program should continue to be developed and supported.
-- Adherence to Human subjects research protocols: All research in Alaska regarding human
subjects should strictly adhere to local IRB approvals.
-- Ongoing, research information sharing: There is no centralized consistent source of
published, unpublished, and grey literature of relevance to Alaska’s health, justice, and
human services. The State should support projects, such as the National Library of
Medicine Arctic Website, to make information accessible. This also provides
accountability of researchers to communities. A periodic forum for presentation of health
and human related research is also needed.
3. Education and Training. Although education and training are often treated separately, and
education is generally subdivided into K-12 (or K-14) and higher education, at this stage of our
planning there are enough common issues between education and training in our state that they
can be addressed here as a single theme. Difficulties in teacher recruitment and retention (and
associated low achievement) are common problems, as are the complexities associated with
distance delivery. There are new requirements for professional “certifications” and throughcareer upgrades for many jobs and at all levels of education. The life skills and traditional
knowledge so important in rural communities need to be integrated into education and training at
all levels. There is need to share facilities and opportunities among providers. The techniques
and concepts of education and training are becoming more closely integrated as many young
adults try to balance the learning-skill aspects of secondary and tertiary education with practical
classwork that makes them more competitive in Alaska job markets. Thus, although there are
issues peculiar to each, some of which we address below, there are also some common
underlying challenges.
Perhaps the most basic and perplexing question is, why -- given all the attention and effort over
the past several decades put into trying to fix the acknowledged problems of poor educational
achievement in the US, particularly at the K-12 level -- has improvement been so minimal? In
spite of the promises and potential of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), we suggest that this question
remains unanswered, particularly for Alaska Natives and rural schools. In spite of dedicated
30
efforts, and the general acceptance of Alaska Standards for Culturally Responsive Schools,
which are explicitly designed to improve relevance and acceptability, significant disparities in
performance remain. A closely related question is: What will be the impacts in Alaska of recent
changes in law and regulation? 14
The University of Alaska is principally responsible for teacher education in the state. 15 Because
research by UA faculty plays a significant role in education program development in the state,
our task force concentrated on this facet of R&D. Associated research agendas include:
-- Teacher retention: Retention appears to be closely associated with student achievement.
At issue is not just retention in general, but the need for teachers with expertise in given
areas (e.g. math and science and, most particularly, special education).
-- Recruiting Alaska Native Teachers: UA has received major grants to develop programs to
recruit and prepare Alaska Native teachers, and the research associated with these grants
focuses on identifying practices that inhibit or promote success. A closely related issue is
professional certification for teacher aides, and methods to transition these aides, who are
often the most stable element in the school system, into the teaching profession.
-- Culturally Responsive Teachers and School Practices: “Alaska Standards for Culturally
Responsive Schools” serves as a basis for programs. Research questions look at the
development of teacher practices, teacher candidate perceptions, development of curricula
and learning experiences to advance cultural understanding, and assessment of the impact
of cultural heritage programs on retention and other success measures.
-- Preservice and In-service Education: At issue is the balance between content and
pedagogy in teacher education, and associated performance of traditionally and nontraditionally (e.g., fifth-year MAT) prepared teachers. The basic questions include: What
makes a good teacher; and what is the impact of the alignment of teacher preparation
programs with NCATE standards?
--School Quality and Teacher Impact on Student Learning: NCLB emphasizes
accountability, standards, and teacher success defined by student performance. These raise
significant issues in the Alaska environment, where small numbers may bias results, where
there is a wide diversity in classroom environment, and where there are many students
whose first language is neither English, nor a language (e.g. Spanish) in which a
substantial amount of educational material and ESL experience is available.
Understanding the impact of the testing movement, and the contribution to school success
(beyond improved test scores) that the testing movement has made are very important. The
answers to these questions may soon affect the fundamental makeup of primary and
secondary education in the state.
-- In-service Professional Development: This can be seen either as a threat or as an
inducement by teachers, depending on how the training is related to teachers’ perception of
their needs. Identification of the best methods of mentoring beginning teachers is an issue
of particular importance, given Alaska’s retention problems and the need to import so
many of our teachers.
14
Examples of these changes include the provisions of NCLB, the required adherence to NCATE
standards, the Alaska Quality Schools Initiative, and the requirement for equity in facilities and opportunity
when there are at least the required minimum number of children eligible to attend elementary and
secondary school in a district’s attendance area.
15
UA currently prepares only 30% of the state’s teachers, although the new Bachelor’s in elementary
education program should soon improve this statistic.
31
-- Teacher Leadership: Teachers are more likely to stay at a school when they feel that they
have an influence on local decision-making processes. At issue is how to fully engage
teachers, and how to fashion local school culture into communities of learners.
-- Classroom Research: There are two very different aspects of this issue. One concerns the
best way in which to prepare teachers to research their own effectiveness and make
necessary adjustments. The second is how to best enable teachers to incorporate research
practices into their teaching. Both require that teachers understand and appreciate research
as a fundamental concomitant to learning, both for themselves and for their students.
These, in turn, are further aspects of the development of a “learning community.”
-- Technology Proficiency: Again there are (at least) two aspects to this topic, namely, use of
technology for teachers’ professional development, and in support of students’ content
learning. Issues include integration of technologies into curriculum design and instructional
strategies, preparing teachers and students to incorporate rapidly advancing technology into
their learning and life practices, and the use of technology in assessing effectiveness.
In addition to its role in teacher preparation, and thus its influence on K-12 education in Alaska,
UA is also the dominant provider of tertiary and postgraduate education in the state, and through
its community campuses throughout Alaska, as well as its outreach program, shares
responsibility for technical, professional, and workforce training with other state organizations
like the Alaska Vocational Technical Center (AVTEC) in Seward and the Alaska Technical
Center (ATC) in Kotzebue. Commonwealth North has recently completed a study of UA, and
over the last few years the University itself has sponsored a number of independent assessments
of many aspects of its programs. As a learning community itself, UA continuously evaluates the
relevance of its educational programs to the state and its people, compares itself to peers
throughout the rest of the nation, and develops practices to improve its attractiveness to Alaskans
and to assess the quality and effectiveness of its programs and the success of its students. One
example of a recent action by UA to respond to state needs was its commitment, with the support
of communities and industry, to double the output of nurses over the next five years.
Examples of just a few of the R&D issues associated with the University’s role in higher
education and workforce training, which should be important in the context of a state R&D plan,
include the following:
-- Are the missions of each of the three major administrative units (MAUs; Fairbanks,
Anchorage, and Juneau) clearly defined, and are the disciplinary focuses at each MAU
complementary and effectively balanced? Do the MAU strategies clearly identify the
disciplines where they wish to build and maintain expertise, and does their allocation of
resources reflect their stated priorities? Are these strategies supportive of the needs of the
state as a whole, as well as to the communities in which the campuses are located? Within
disciplines that are important at more than one MAU (e.g. education, health,
environmental studies, Alaska Native programs), is there effective partnership and
alignment of roles among them?
-- What is the appropriate balance between education and research at each of the MAUs, and
what is the best method of integrating these two components for the sake of both student
learning and recruitment and retention of excellent faculty?
-- To what degree, and how, should the University provide preparatory education that
supplements, or accommodates deficiencies in, secondary education programs, for both
traditional and non-traditional students? How do such programs influence the philosophy
and practice of open enrollment?
-- What are the best methodologies for integrating professional qualification and training
programs with higher education? What are the implications of various models for credit
32
toward higher degrees, workforce relevance, meeting professional and national standards,
and attracting and retaining students? Are there evolving job markets and requirements
where more integration between scholastic and practical education may be relevant, or
where “training” and hands on experience could substantially enhance the value of a
traditional undergraduate or graduate program? For example, do models such a Maritime
Academy, or workforce apprenticeships and internships have relevance to Alaska? If they
do, how can the University work more effectively with other vocational and trainingoriented centers in the state, and with industry?
-- From the standpoint of management and use of faculty and facilities, is the current
structure of community-focused education and training within the University optimized?
Are there ways, in Alaska, to increase community involvement in, and support of,
community campuses? Are the course offerings designed to meet the most important
community and state needs? Furthermore, is local entrepreneurship encouraged when the
University refrains from offering training that can be provided by small companies or other
local organizations, such as community organizations or NGOs?
One pervasive issue for education and training in Alaska is distance delivery. Distance delivery
is essential in our state, both because of our size and dispersed population, and because of the
need for many of our students to accommodate other activities -- from subsistence to paying jobs
-- while learning. While there are many pedagogical, social, cultural, technological, and cost
challenges associated with distance delivery, solving them in Alaska would create opportunities
for exporting our success to many other areas around the world. Alaska has made a major
commitment to telemedicine, and there are reasons to assert that distance education deserves
similar treatment. A consortium was formed several years ago to improve distance education in
the state, and UA has devoted significant effort to the topic. We believe that much more can and
should be done to facilitate distance education, and that R&D needs to address policy and
organizational relationships as well as issues more directly associated with delivery. There are a
large number of these latter issues, including the communications systems for delivery, teaching
methods, faculty proficiency, integration of distance and traditional programs, and cultural
relevance and acceptability. Properly designed and implemented, we believe that distance
education can play a major role in the transformation of our towns, villages, and even cities into
“learning communities,” and that such a transformation will be required to solve many of our
recognized educational and cultural problems. We therefore consider it an issue of first-order
importance for the state R&D plan.
4. Rural Economic Development. The three traditional options for economic development in
rural Alaska are exploitation of natural resources, tourism, and native crafts. All face significant
challenges to their development. Oil, gas, and mineral exploitation requires extremely large
capital investment and major infrastructure development, may significantly impact the local
natural environment, and are subject to global market forces that can quickly erode profitability.
Salmon fishing, once a reliable source of cash income both for coastal communities and for
inland boat owners, now faces challenges of variable stocks and a market dominated by highquality farmed fish. Other fishing opportunities are available under quota systems, but require
significant investment and different processing and marketing technologies, and are not as
broadly available as salmon. Locally run tourism companies faces stiff competition from the big
cruise companies and from Alaska’s many national parks. Likewise, in spite of the appeal of
native crafts and other cottage industry products, there is a limited market for these items.
33
Many R&D issues about rural economic development involve the formulation of policy, rather
than simply technology. This is similar in nature to questions about infrastructure, as discussed in
some detail below and in the Working Group 2 Appendix. DCED’s RAPIDs, and Alaska
Economic Information System web sites describe capital improvement projects throughout
Alaska, but note that less that one percent of them are oriented toward economic development.
At issue are the nature, order, and characteristics of rural capital investment that may have the
potential to increase economic opportunity--should such economic growth be desired by the
affected communities.
One of Alaska’s unique competitive advantages is its 12 land-entitled ANCSA Corporations.
These corporations are Alaska’s largest land owners, and together with selected village
corporations, had combined revenues of $2.5B in 2000, employed 10,600 people, had a payroll in
Alaska of $350M, and distributed $64.5M to their shareholders. Their business strategies have
evolved since their formation in the 1970’s, from resource extraction toward more diversified
business operations, portfolio management, and investment in businesses not associated with
their land base, both within and outside of the State. Our task force on diversity and economic
development suggests that the ANCSA Corporations should assess ways in which they can
increase sustainable development to benefit Alaska, through the establishment of an ANCSA
Research Center. It also suggests that a common theme of both regional and village corporations
is an interest in eco-tourism or tourism that focuses on Alaska’s Native cultures. An interesting
hypothesis for research is that if a larger number of visitors are attracted to Alaska because of its
cultural diversity, then maintaining and enhancing indigenous cultures and the attractiveness of
rural communities would be key elements in sustaining expansion and diversification of Alaska’s
economy.
In general, considerable attention has been focused on assessment of available resources,
improvement of rural infrastructure and services, the problems of the salmon industry (e.g. via
SJR28), state assistance to major projects (e.g. via the Alaska Industrial Development and Export
Authority), and opportunities for local improvement projects through federal grants. What we
believe is missing, and would be a worthwhile component of a state R&D plan, is a coordinated
study of the interrelated elements that could contribute to rural economic development, including
market opportunities, potential competitive advantages and available strengths (e.g. those
associated with strong rural health programs), investment strategies, policy considerations, needs
and interests of the communities themselves, and roles of major players, including ANCSA
regional and village corporations.
Human Environmental R&D in Alaska: Strategy, Actions to Date, Next Steps
The core elements of our natural environmental strategy -- scientific excellence and capacity
building, partnering and collaboration, long-term monitoring, and information flow – apply
equally to our human environmental strategy. In particular, we have emphasized that people are
a significant part of the ecosystem, and need to be considered on an equal basis with physics,
biology, chemistry, etc., when developing ecosystem-based resource management approaches.
One specific implication of this is that long-term monitoring schemes must include studies of the
practices and characteristics of individuals and communities--whether they are urban, rural,
western, or indigenous. The same consideration applies to studies of contaminants, and to many
other aspects of health, education, and resource management. The implication is that it is
extremely important for the affected and involved people to “buy in” to R&D plans, and to have
a role in decisions about the plans and their implementation. As noted above, this will require
considerable effort, particularly when the R&D involves indigenous people who have been
34
adversely affected by past R&D practices. Thus our comments regarding the next steps for the
natural environment strategy also apply here. We do note that ANSC has begun to develop
regional Alaska Native science strategies. Further, UA researchers have recently started to
actively build new collaborative research partnerships with Alaska Native communities and
Tribal Health Corporations in one of their health initiatives, the NIH funded Center for Alaska
Native Health Research (CANHR) (see below). We hope to benefit from this experience for our
future efforts, including a newly proposed NSF research focus area in regional resiliency and
adaptation.
The major players in health, social welfare, and biomedically related R&D include virtually all
the members of the Healthy Alaska Partnership Council who helped develop Healthy Alaskans
2010. These include our hospitals and clinics around the state, the NIH, the Center for Disease
Control and Prevention’s Alaska Investigations Program, and many other state agencies and labs.
We expect that the task forces will soon produce specific recommendations. However, at this
point, it is worth noting that the University of Alaska has focused its research capacity-building
programs largely upon related skills and disciplines. This was done by successfully competing
for four key multi-year grants to build physical infrastructure through the purchase of equipment,
and to augment intellectual infrastructure with 16 new faculty members. These programs include
research focus areas in the Experimental Programs to Stimulate Competitive Research of NSF
and DOD, and in NIH’s Biomedical Research Infrastructure Network, Center of Biomedical
Research Excellence, and Specialized Neuroscience Research Program. Similarly, the major
capital projects for both the Anchorage and the Fairbanks Campuses, partially supported by last
year’s General Obligation Bond, are specifically designed to build educational and research
strength in relevant disciplines. Simply put, UA has bet the future of its research growth
potential on building excellence in biomedical and health-related areas. A bet of this magnitude
and importance will require consistent support and resource focusing by UA management and
Regents, and continuing support from the state, to ensure its success.
Although we have mentioned a number of R&D issues associated with education, with the
exception of distance education, where UA is revising its management structure with the intent
of improving performance, questions are either being researched by individual faculty members
or remain to be addressed. At issue is the degree to which the state wishes to engage in a serious
R&D program in education, as it has in health, and the mechanism for developing the associated
research enterprise. To date, emphasis has been very heavily focused on implementing federal
and state programs and initiatives, complying with law and new mandates, and attempting to
improve the delivery and productivity of both teacher training and student learning. We believe
that serious attention to questions about the educational process is extremely important as an
adjunct to delivery, and hope that the further evolution of this plan will lead to treating education
R&D in the state in much the same way as we have health and biomedicine R&D. Further, we
suggest that the UA management and Board of Regents address the questions raised by this
report as well as those presented by Commonwealth North as part of their own strategic planning
processes.
Rural economic development is in much the same state as education. There are quite a number
of programs oriented at development, including those focused on the infrastructure that could
enable it, and the resources that may support it. However, little structured attention to the subject
as a serious strategic R&D issue involving all related aspects of business planning, marketing,
strategic alignments, and cultural implications has occurred. Below, we discuss possible
approaches as they relate to infrastructure, industry, and the overall enhancement and
diversification of Alaska’s economy. The rural aspects of development are important
35
components of the overall problem. We also want to call attention to the recommendation of the
diversity task force that the ANCSA Corporations establish a research center to help understand
their own dynamics and to assess ways in which they can increase sustainable development to
benefit the state, thereby benefiting the long-term interests of their shareholders. These
Corporations could be one of the state’s greatest competitive advantages. As the corporations
have matured, the types of questions discussed above become both more relevant and more
appropriate.
36
R&D and Alaska’s Economy
The economy of Alaska is heavily dependent upon oil. While we are fortunate to have this rich
resource, which has and will continue to greatly benefit our state, many other Alaskan resources
and industrial opportunities are underutilized, underdeveloped, or undervalued in the current
economy. This is due to a number of factors, including a paucity of risk capital available in the
state, and few individuals with the business savvy needed to develop them. However, through
better application of the leadership, knowledge, and services available from UA, ASTF, and
other state agencies combined with the impetus provided by a State R&D plan, we can
realistically build a diversified, technologically sophisticated economy.
SJR 44 requested a plan for using R&D to expand and diversify Alaska’s economy. This
portion of the report addresses this charge by first discussing the nature of industrial R&D in
Alaska, next commenting on two critical issues, mapping and telecommunications, and then
providing snapshots of individual industrial sectors.
Using Research to Broaden Alaska’s Economic Base
Economy development has been defined as the expansion and diversification of the state’s
economic base, with the base being defined as the traded goods sector and the export of
professional and technical services including research and technology. Statewide business
groups (the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the Resource Development Council, the Alaska
Hi-Tech Business Council, and ASTF) have formed the Economy Group of the 20/20 process
with the goal of expanding exports and replacing imports. 16
Alaska’s potential to broaden its economic base through research seems large because the morebalanced research investments of other regional economies have yet to happen here. To get the
broadest view of the problem of growing the economic base, we must consider the problem from
two perspectives: (1) the ability of the knowledge base, primarily located at the University and
federal research operations in the state, to connect more strongly with the existing industry base,
which is seeking new technology to apply to their business; and (2) use of existing technology to
apply to new industry. This is depicted in the following figure, which also distinguishes the
complementary roles of ASTF (lower left) and UA (upper right):
Basic
Applied research
New
Knowledge
base
Industry
Existing
Applied
Research
Economic
base
Existing
New
Technology
See “A Market Sustainable Future: A Closer Look at Alaska’s Economy” and ASTF’s “Long Term
Economic Development Strategy”
16
37
Alaska’s Research Base
R&D in Alaska has different goals, mindset, and balance than does R&D in the Lower 48. In
other states, private R&D dwarfs publicly funded research. This being the case, most R&D is
focused on wealth creation rather than environmental monitoring. With more local corporate
R&D it would be easier for industrial clusters to emerge with symbiotic relationships between
corporate needs and university expertise. Alaska, because of a limited industry base, a resource
economy with limited manufacturing, and a large federal investment, has yet to realize many of
the benefits of a technology-intensive cluster economy.
Nationally 74% of R&D is done by industry; in Alaska it’s only 7%. University research is 57%
of research in Alaska but is only 14% nationally. In addition, one-third of research in Alaska is
funded by federal agencies compared to 8% nationally.17 Research in Alaska is heavily slanted
toward basic research, and the size and concentration of research in Alaska is low. In 1999,
Alaska ranked 49th of the 50 states, with only $152 million in federal R&D expenditures; Alaska
also has just $245 in R&D spending per capita compared to the national average of $850 per
capita. 18
The strong investment of federal agency research in Alaska has, as expected, led to an emphasis
on monitoring and assessment of the natural and human environment over wealth creation. With
a large amount of the land in Alaska publicly owned and with the federal role in the state being
to monitor and regulate environmental impacts, the focus of research is unlikely to shift much in
the near term. So how can Alaskans think more strategically about research and the formation of
stronger industry clusters?
Step I: Understanding “Value Adding”
Economic logic indicates that we must add more value than cost to our natural and intellectual
resources so that Alaska products are competitive in world markets. If Alaska’s economy as a
whole, both public and private sector, adds more value than cost to what Alaska produces, the
state will grow wealthier and become more capable of supporting the research and education
infrastructure that continues to provide a value-adding economy. It has proven far easier for
Alaskans to call for a value-adding economy than to organize profitable investments that achieve
that goal.
“Value-adding” is a common term for this economic strategy. The term is used here as a
manufacturer would use it, that is to process primary resources into intermediate and final
products that command a higher price than the cost of the materials and processes used to create
that product. Considered another way, adding value embeds knowledge or technology into a
product so the product Alaska exports reflects its intellectual capital and certifiable quality.
Step II: Constructing Value-Added Chains for Key Alaska Products
Currently, over 40% of the state’s economic base is oil and oil revenues, 3% is mining, and less
than 1% is based on timber and forest products. 19 Alaska’s economy is based on products where
17
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Research Statistics, Science and Engineering
Indicators. 1999 data
18
NSF Report, ASTF High Tech Index
19
Scott Goldsmith, ASTF Long Term Strategy
38
the raw form of the product (crude oil, gold) contains the majority of its value. Timber and fish
products, which require processing, are minor contributors. Clearly, the fact that oil and mining
are also much more expensive products than fish or lumber contributes to the relative
unimportance of these latter products in our economy. However, the fact that little processing or
refining is done within our state also plays an important role. Most of the margins and profits in
the salmon and timber industries occur at the processor. To build these and other industries, we
must pursue more manufacturing and processing capability. The development of the technologies
that allow for manufacturing and processing in state is dependent upon R&D, but hold great
promise for building Alaska’s business base.
Step III: Trying to Think Strategically – Adding Technology, Business Know How, and
Ownership
It is clear that capturing value involves more than the knowledge and technologies that allow us
to create new industries and make existing base industries more competitive. Alaska also needs
business owners and managers with the ability to put projects and enterprises together. In
addition, Alaska must think like a corporation when considering the size and agenda of its R&D
budget, and must work to create wealth for its shareholders and jobs for its communities by
strengthening existing businesses and starting new businesses that will show returns on the
original investment. Finally, we must be sure that our R&D investments go towards businesses
that are located in Alaska, or are Alaska owned or controlled. Combining technology, sound
business practices, and a vested interest on the part of Alaskans should help us build a valueadded economy.
Components – Capital, Business Know-how/Management, and a Skilled Work force
Beyond the Technology Base: The Rewards of Providing Capital, Management, and Workers
A business enterprise, as well as an economy, needs a number of critical ingredients besides
technology to grow: capital, business know-how or management, and a skilled work force.
While the knowledge or technology base of the state is described in detail throughout this report,
a brief review of other critical ingredients that allow for increased capture of economic value is
helpful.
Capital and Ownership
Most of the major players in the state’s economy are out-of-state global corporations with branch
plants in the state. Almost all of the capital (and therefore ownership) and leadership for the oil,
mining, and seafood industries are brought to the state from outside. A state benefits from
having industry owners present in the state and from having home-grown executives. As a case in
point, the philanthropic leadership of the state (which has so significantly benefited Alaska’s
educational and cultural institutions) has come largely from wealth made in Alaska’s service
industries (banking, hotels, and retail), which are Alaska-owned and Alaskan-managed. This
philanthropic leadership is not paralleled by the basic industries that are owned/managed by outof-state parties, even though it is these industries that drive our economy.
The state is relatively weak in risk capital and the capability to lend to early stage (pre-collateral)
businesses. Alaska is one of only a few states without venture (pure equity) funds or a Small
Business Investment Corporation (SBIC) located in the state. ASTF is the only source of seed
39
capital for technology-based early-stage firms. Alaska Growth Capital was launched with $6 M
of capital from ASTF and the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation, and is the one private-sector
institution able to do equity and high-risk lending. Although the Alaska Growth Capital base has
now grown to over $10 million, it is limited to considering projects under one million. One
possibility is that the state’s native corporations, due to their size and growth, will become more
important providers of risk capital in the state. This is ideal, because they are Alaskan-based
corporations with a long-term stake in the state’s future
Capital has to be priced to accommodate the risk of the investment so that margins are low for
asset-based lending, higher for the middle-risk market of lending to less than fully collateralized
lenders (such as many seafood and timber manufacturing projects), and high to compensate for
the risk of early-stage mining or technology projects. In Alaska we have little capability to
structure or finance early-stage deals, which puts Alaskans out of the opportunity to receive the
higher returns from successful investments (while admittedly also exposing us to the losses that
are more likely to occur in early-stage deals) and limits the growth of new industry. By
increasing the risk capital available to Alaskans, we should see an increase in the number of
enterprises that help increase the ownership and management capability of Alaska firms.
Skilled Workers
In the last few years the state and university have made a promising start at strengthening the
identification of training and career paths for workers in the processor, health, and information
technology fields. All of these efforts have formed their own industry-education consortiums and
each needs to continue to be supported and scaled up.
In part because executives are more mobile than production workers and also because Alaska has
few large corporate headquarters here, it is a much harder, but still critical challenge to identify
the management and entrepreneurial skill sets necessary for the next generation of entrepreneurs
40
and executives for Alaska’s enterprises. We must also have some assurance that those talents, if
grown, will be captured in the future economy.
Corporate-university programs and exchanges around the country reflect existing, rather than
future economies, so it is not surprising that industry and technical managers familiar with
information technology, advanced manufacturing, and entrepreneurial programs in Silicon
Valley, Pittsburgh, and Austin are ahead of the efforts in Alaska. It’s much harder to establish
such programs when corporate headquarters and R&D functions are not located here.
Nevertheless, more university support and structure could encourage senior-level project courses
in engineering, business, and the sciences that are supported by industry. These courses would
encourage the integration of disciplines and further university involvement with industry. 20
Employers report that ideal technology workers and managers are often Alaskans that have
grown up in the state or spent significant time here, have worked in competitive enterprises
elsewhere, and then have come back to Alaska, bringing enhanced capabilities and connections
to Alaskan firms. Having the University and all post-secondary Alaskan institutions keep a
robust data base of all graduates and make it available to state employers seeking defined skills
would be one way to expand the existing graduate placement capability of the university. This
database could be maintained throughout a graduate’s career, so it that would continue to serve
the state’s employers.
Two Critical Issues: Mapping and Telecommunications
Mapping and telecommunications connectivity are two cross-cutting issues that affect both the
capability to use the research base to build the economy, and the competitiveness of the research
base itself.
Mapping
Alaska remains the least mapped state, with few areas mapped to national mapping standards of
1:24000. Other states’ mapping projects have been funded by the state and by private industry,
primarily agriculture and resource industries, with each footing approximately one-half of the
bill. However, because Alaska is characterized by little private land ownership and a small
customer base, only a few urban areas and parts of the north slope have been mapped to the high
resolutions of 1-5 meters needed for land use planning, and many resource applications.
Even for those areas mapped, the lack of a common statewide geographic data base means that
individual customized map products usually created for a single application are never available
for a common archive. And the absence of an accurate digital elevation model results in data
that cannot be accurately geocoded to the right elevation, or an inability to take information from
two different sources and accurately geocode it. Data providers have been frank about the
inefficiency and high cost of this way of doing business. Each of those customized products
have different licensing restrictions on the use and transferability of data.
A number of pieces are needed for Alaska to move into the modern geographic information
world:
-- Agreement on a common template for a data base.
20
See Working Group 6 paper
41
-- Policy direction to map the state to high resolution and to accurate elevations; and to enter
the information into a data base that can be shared across user groups
-- Agreement on what areas of the state need 1-3 meter resolution and which can use 5-10
meter resolution.
-- A strategy for public support of an accurate digital elevation model, so that all geographic
data can be accurately geo-coded and so the data can be aggregated for a statewide data
base.
-- Better coordination of public mapping agencies so they can work more efficiently with
private vendors to lower volume pricing, and so that wider use licensing is put in place. A
coalition that includes the providers of satellite and airborne data, some state agencies, and
university researchers have outlined a plan to accomplish this, but there is not yet a
consensus on a systematic way to proceed. Until there is a consensus, final pricing and
licensing arrangements cannot be worked out.
Policy regarding the establishment of a web-accessible geographic information base for both
public and private sectors should be developed in 2003 and promulgated with the expectation
that the state can be accurately mapped within three to four years.
Telecommunications
By a number of measures (per capita use of Internet, digital state government, share of income
devoted to telecommunications, etc.) Alaska leads the nation in demonstrating the importance of
telecommunications and in our commitment to the use of technology to shrink the challenge of
large distances and a dispersed population. Yet the promise of telecommunications to bring
greater service and efficiencies to public services and private enterprises is constrained by three
forces that influence each other: connectivity, market and industry structure, and IT skills.
Connectivity
Broadband fiber network is available in Juneau, Fairbanks, Mat-Su, and Anchorage, and along
most of the Railbelt, but there is less robust connectivity and higher costs away from the road
system. Three possible expansions to the fiber system include: lighting up the fiber along the
pipeline, more connections to the two modern Seward-Washington fiber optic cables, and a
currently speculative alternative to a planned dedicated Aleutians route connecting Shimya with
Seward, via a land route through the Bethel-Lake Ilamina area across Cook Inlet.
Earth stations in most rural villages now provide fairly reliable 56 K to ¼ T1 service to users.
However, at these speeds the applications requiring nearly full motion video images, such as
telemedicine diagnosis, collegiate education, or TV quality images, are not yet possible.
Market and Industry Structure
With the universal service fund that supports phone service and the e-rate that subsidizes Internet
service for schools, medical clinics, and libraries in off road communities and poorer areas (as
measured by percentage of children in federally subsidized lunch program), Alaska enjoys the
highest per capita support for telecommunications service. Unfortunately, the e-rate has created
a digital divide within rural villages, separating those with subsidized Internet service from those
that have to pay much higher rates for unsubsidized service.
42
With the longer-term future of the universal service fund in doubt, and with telecommunications
service moving to the less regulated and lower cross-subsidy market of Internet-based services,
the challenge for Alaska will be to grow an economy and a larger customer base that will
continue to build a more robust telecommunications industry. An additional challenge is that
while Alaska sees the same regulatory wars between local exchange carriers and long distance
carriers as other states, the smaller customer base in both on-road settlements and off-road
villages can make providers more reluctant to invest in upgrading the infrastructure.
In short, in the highly politicized environment of the telecommunications industry, individuals
from different perspectives can agree that Alaska has a shrinking window of subsidized support
that can be used to build the infrastructure and grow the market. An increased market it needed to
close the cost and service gap between users in Alaska and users in other locations.
From a user’s perspective, a firm on the fiber network in Anchorage or Fairbanks wanting a
dedicated T1 line (necessary for high-end applications) and a rural business or residence that
wants non-e-rate subsidized Internet service at 56 K will both pay significantly more for their
service than they would in the lower 48. From the perspective of providers, the long distance
carriers and local exchange companies are weakly capitalized, in part because of a small
customer base, and in part because Alaska (unlike other rural states like Montana and Wyoming)
did not fully benefit from the telecommunications capital boom of the 1990’s, where many rural
communities accessed broad band fiber just because they were located along the way between
urban centers.
In sum, Alaska will have to be more strategic and purposeful in its regulatory and customerdevelopment strategies to effectively enhance its level of service, which is necessary for
competitive services.
IT Skills
Even with a solid telecommunications infrastructure and advanced Information Technology, the
chief constraint to the promise of telecommunications can be the education and skills of the
individuals that integrate the technology in order to provide better applications, services, and
products.
A majority of the best computer science graduates leave the state upon graduation in search of
better career opportunities at IBM and Silicon Valley, so Alaska employers report a continuing
scramble for the higher end IT skills such as network administrators, voice over IP, software
applications programmers, and higher end web services at Alaska firms. There is also a shortage
of trained certified technicians in Alaska’s small communities and off road villages. These small
settlements ideally would have trained technicians so that systems could be maintained locally,
eliminating the need to fly technicians from urban centers to the villages.
A focus group of IT employers in addition to surveys administered by the High Tech Business
Council confirm that in the last few years, significant progress has been made to provide more
vendor-certified technicians (MCSE, Novell, Cisco) at the entry level of IT careers. The
challenge will be to continually upgrade the skills of IT workers to keep the skills pipeline filled.
Employers seek employees that combine vendor certifications, strong project management skills,
good communication and other soft skills with some general business savvy and common sense.
The courses needed for IT careers and those necessary for a general education are often taught in
different colleges at a campus. The ability of a student to understand employer requirements and
43
then to combine credits and courses into a single degree is often a daunting challenge. The
ability to transfer credits between colleges into the integrated IT education will be important for
the university if it hopes to produce graduates who can flourish in IT careers. As discussed
above, the maintenance of a robust data base of all University graduates will allow us to track our
success, and will also provide a mechanism for Alaskans to identify and recruit talent. Employers
are also challenged to offer the salaries, career advancement training, and cutting edge work that
will keep IT talent in the state.
In the last few years a number of consortiums (Alaska Processor Industry Consortium {supported
by large employers}, the Alaska Hi-Tech Business Council, and the IT fellows program
{supported by tech firms and ASTF}) have worked to bridge the school-to-work divide and to
help define clear career pathways that will allow educators and employers to work more
efficiently with each other. But the pace and scale of these efforts will need to be expanded to
grow an economy that can support a more technology-based economy.
The collapse of the prices of telecommunications stocks and the market realization that too much
capital has been chasing too few customers means that for the next few years, at least,
telecommunications will not be the high growth area which attracts above-average levels of
investments. Rather, it is resembling a more average industry sector that has to be market
sustainable and must use IT skills and connectivity to enhance its productivity.
With its high federal and industry subsidies, Alaska will not be exempt from these larger market
forces. So a more robust relationship between IT educators and employers will be necessary to
increase and retain IT talent and firms in the state.
Some Tentative Conclusions
As expected, the state’s research and technology base reflects Alaska’s existing economy. This is
not currently an economy that is capable of growing significantly by adding more value to
Alaska’s resources and by embedding more technology and intellectual capital in what we sell to
the world.
The predominance of federally funded research, the paucity of private R&D in the state, and
Alaska’s land ownership pattern will continue, as expected, to serve funder needs and will focus
more on human and natural environmental health than on local wealth creation. The amount of
research funding in the state will continue to be some function of the power of the state’s
congressional delegation, the capability of the state’s researchers, and the national interest in the
arctic environment and north pacific strategic location. So, while Alaskans will have some
ability to influence each of these factors, our future is clearly not entirely in our hands.
Using part of our research base as a strategic asset is part of an economic strategy to exert more
control over our economic destiny and to create more sustainable wealth. Such a strategy has the
important additional benefit of allowing us to self-finance research topics, both economic and
non-economic, where Alaskans need ongoing knowledge. Such investment assures a more
pragmatic knowledge base—one that does not merely reflect federal priorities that are subject to
political and policy changes.
A major challenge to the attempt to build research or finance infrastructure in the state is that in
the global economy, the three critical inputs of capital, technology, and – in part- workers, are
increasingly mobile and will be moved or attracted to the locations where they can earn the
44
highest return or wages. If Alaska’s competitive advantage is limited to its natural resources,
then we must be acutely aware of the fact that the price of those resources will reflect lower cost
third world locations where wages are significantly lower and environmental responsibilities may
be more cheaply met or disregarded.
As a higher cost, higher quality of life location, Alaska will choose or back in to some form of a
strategy that seeks to combine resources, technology, capital, and business know-how to produce
competitively priced intermediate or final products. We must consider how, in a global
economy, with investment increasingly seeking lower wage locations, Alaska can compete and
how Alaska can move beyond its branch plant economy. Since Alaskans do not want to compete
with lower wages and salaries, they will have to compete by adding value and increasing the
amount of intellectual capital in the state. They will have to attract, or more likely spawn and
grow, more of the missing headquarters and R&D functions that other local economies have in
their economic base.
To grow a more robust economy requires at least two steps:
1. We must determine how at least part of the state’s research base can serve as the
Technology base for building a more value-adding economy.
a) In the declining salmon and timber sectors, our educational infrastructure and business service
sector have to become at least as capable in the manufacturing or processing of resources as we
are in the assessment and harvesting of those resources or we have no future in those sectors.
b) Since information technology and skills are critical to the management of any competitive
business, a more robust IT capability must be organized in close conjunction with the leading
needs of the employer community.
2. The state has to focus at least as much on the risk capital environment as it does on the
technology base if more Alaskan firms are to be launched to be part of the supplier base.
Without risk capital, the state will have few corporate headquarters and R&D functions.
Increased management and intellectual capital in the state can produce both higher wage jobs,
and more importantly the rewards of ownership.
Industrial Snapshots
This section of our report attempts to identify some R&D opportunities, interests, and needs of
several of the major industrial sectors in Alaska. As opposed to the other sections where we tried
to define major overarching themes, we felt that there were sufficient differences among the
various industries that individual analyses were warranted. There are, of course, commonalities
in business practices and management techniques between the industrial sectors, which we
discuss as R&D issues in their own right. In addition, there are many aspects of industrial
development and wealth generation that rely heavily upon, or influence opportunities for,
infrastructure development (e.g. aviation’s needs for connectivity, improved community and
regional runways, etc.) or R&D associated with the human and natural environment (e.g. in
fisheries). We have attempted to address these topics in the appropriate sections, above.
We note that what we were asked to begin to develop under SJR44 is a state R&D plan, not a
state economic development plan, or even a state Science and Technology (S&T) plan that is
designed to foster capabilities from which to jumpstart specific new high-technology businesses.
45
These are very different beasts. Thus, while this section of industrial snapshots will hopefully
shed light on opportunities to expand and diversify Alaska’s economy, it is not in itself a
roadmap to wealth generation. The ideas from this report need to be integrated with many other
inputs, including state economic development and infrastructure policies (e.g. access to mining
sites), workforce training plans, and others, to even begin to serve the function of wealth
generation.
We also note that, as in other sections of this report, our efforts here are very immature, just a
first step in the process. Further, in this initial effort we have left out some very significant
private enterprise contributors to Alaska’s economy such as construction, vehicles,
communications and IT, manufacturing, craft-based and similar cottage industry, arts and
entertainment, retail and wholesale, non-fish wild products such as berries and reindeer, and the
entire service and supply sector. Nor have we contacted Chambers of Commerce or state or city
economic development organizations for their input. Finally, we note that we neither expected,
nor found, any “silver bullets” that will transform Alaska’s economy dramatically in a short
period of time.
Aviation Technology: Like other international businesses, the major airlines -- passenger and
commercial -- and aircraft manufacturers rely almost exclusively upon sources outside of the
state for their R&D. Similarly, federal organizations with aviation responsibilities and interests - FAA, DOD, NASA, DOT and the USCG -- do virtually all of their basic research outside the
state, either in their own labs or in industry. Their interests in Alaska are therefore either for
applied work, or more often for test and evaluation. Our remote areas with minimal surface
infrastructure, varied terrain, severe and constantly changing weather, a mix of small and large
private, commercial, and military aircraft (including wide-bodied jets), generally low density of
air traffic, well contained air space, and minimal flight restrictions in isolated areas, make Alaska
ideal for both civil and military aviation T&E.
From the state’s perspective, promoting the testing and implementation of new aviation
technologies is of fundamental importance. Many of our communities are accessible only by air
during much of the year, and air transport is the mainstay for mail, supplies, emergency services,
and routine passenger transport. Tourism and recreation industries also depend heavily on air,
and private recreational aviation is widespread. At the same time our accident rate is the highest
in the nation, and the aviation infrastructure -- outside the main commercial routes –is woefully
inadequate. For example, the Alaska Aviation Coordination Council points to a need for some
$90M/year to build and maintain basic infrastructure throughout the state.
In addition to basic airport improvements, which we discuss under infrastructure, R&D needs for
safety and operational improvements include situational awareness and decision making
(especially via the CAPSTONE program), communications between air traffic control and the
cockpit throughout the state, airport illumination and security (with minimal power requirements)
for remote areas, improved shore protection, more and better weather measurements (including
weather cameras) and forecasts, remote site fuel to support search and rescue operations, and
enhancements to the currently nationally used Alaska-developed model of FAA’s National
Airspace System. The FAA has recently established elements of the General Aviation Center of
Excellence at UA, and, particularly through UAA’s Aviation Technology Division (ATD), this
center can play a significantly enhanced role in coordinating and conducting much of the
envisioned R&D. UA is considering acquiring a turbine powered aircraft certified for flight in
known atmospheric icing conditions, and has proposed a federal initiative to develop a UA-based
46
Transportation Research Center within which ATD’s R&D activities could be expanded. We
believe there are significant opportunities for more vigorous participation in FAA and, perhaps,
DOD and NASA R&D, through better use of current and planned UA facilities.
We also believe that there are three other quite different aspects of aviation R&D with potential
for Alaska (although these will require much more analysis and evaluation than we have been
able to conduct at this point to determine whether they are viable projects). The first is hybrid
airships for remote area cargo movements. Such technology could be important for oil, gas, and
mining industries, and for remote area logistics, and may act to supplement or replace barges.
The second is the use of robotic platforms for environmental monitoring. Development of these
capabilities in conjunction with the evolution of the long-term monitoring systems recommended
under our section on natural environmental R&D, could both improve our own data collection
capabilities and provide exportable services or products. Third, there is a need for improved
computer models of aviation infrastructure and operations. Researchers at the Arctic Region
Supercomputing Center have already developed a prototype model of military training airspace,
and this may be extensible to a variety of other civil and military aviation applications.
Logistics: Alaska’s natural geographic advantage for air transport is augmented by laws
permitting air cargo offloading, transfer, and transshipment at Anchorage and Fairbanks.
Further, by air, Alaska is very close to Asian markets. If in-state processing, transport, and
storage problems could be solved, there should be significant opportunities for air-shipped fresh
or live seafood. Alaska’s unique advantages in logistics include experience in Arctic oil field
work, and close connections with Russian developers and managers in Sakhalin and eastern
Siberia.
The state has yet to fully exploit the full potential of logistics. The logistics task force has begun
to look at opportunities and should have some specific recommendations later this spring. Initial
indications are that profitable directions for research include: feasibility models for US and
international distribution supply hubs; studies of Alaska supply chain capabilities and associated
policies for public and private project planning and for sequencing of major projects to maximize
utilization of Alaska companies; road and airport improvements in Anchorage and Fairbanks to
promote and improve the economic feasibility of hub activities; and logistic opportunities
associated with other facilities in the state (e.g. Adak and northern shipping routes). The basic
conclusion to date is that there is significant potential for expansion of logistics-based business.
Military and Aerospace: Despite the large number of military bases and military personnel in
the state, and some capable facilities, the Department of Defense does little R&D here. Two
small Army R&D units are headquartered at Ft Wainwright. A detachment of scientists from the
Army Corps of Engineers’ Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory (CRREL) in
Hanover, NH, works principally on environmental protection and remediation issues, and
conducts basic research on snow, ice, and permafrost. CRREL also stationed a scientist at UAA
for a year. This scientist and his colleagues started an Alaska Engineering and Design
Information System (AEDIS) -- essentially a set of electronic maps, or GIS, of parameters and
analytical tools relevant to construction throughout the state -- which should prove extremely
valuable for industry as well as DOD. The second unit is the Cold Regions Test Center (CRTC),
which conducts most of its test and evaluation at Fort Greely. CRTC focuses on winter,
mountain, and northern region developmental testing of Army equipment, clothing, and weapons,
and has some capacity to support civilian testing as well. CRTC and its parent unit, the
Development Test Command in Yuma, Arizona, have been discussing expanded cooperative
47
research with UAF that focuses on the Army’s increasing use of wheeled vehicles. CRTC is
looking to construct an automotive test track in the Fairbanks-Ft Greely area, and both UAF and
the City of Fairbanks are interested in cooperating to expand the amount of commercial cold
weather vehicle testing done in the area.
In addition to the missile defense site under construction at Ft Greely, which will have
operational as well as test responsibilities, there are three significant aerospace-oriented R&D
facilities in the state. These are UAF’s Poker Flat Research Range, which has been primarily
dedicated to the launch of sounding rockets for auroral and mid-to-upper atmospheric research,
AEDC’s Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation, with its low earthorbit launch complex in
Kodiak and program to facilitate development of full service satellite ground station facilities in
Fairbanks (the AADC charter does not mention R&D), and the High Frequency Active Auroral
Research Program observatory (HAARP), near Gakona. HAARP has been jointly sponsored by
the Air Force Research Lab and Office of Naval Research to study the physical and electrical
properties of the ionosphere which can affect communication and navigation systems. The
current HAARP facility has one quarter of the planned capability, and with the help of the
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, it will be completed over the next few years. This
should significantly enhance its value for research. Together with some very sophisticated radars
and other ground and satellite support instrumentation around the state, the research capabilities
at UAF’s Geophysical Institute, and our geographic advantage for accessing polar orbiting
satellites, Alaska has considerable unrealized potential for significantly expanded aerospace
R&D, for civilian, defense, and homeland-security purposes.
Technology: Technology-based companies thrive only through their inventiveness, and R&D is
essential to their survival. Not counting the telecommunications industry, there are 321 such
technology companies in Alaska, generating some $300M in annual revenue and employing over
2500 Alaskans. In spite of these numbers, our Task Force entitled their report on technology
R&D “Alaska’s Invisible Industry” because of the lack of state focus on promoting and
expanding technology-oriented companies as a basis for wealth generation. Alaska does have a
Small Business Development Program, but it is not closely linked to state agencies (none of
which have a mandate to assist technology development in the state or to encourage innovation
through a state-based companion to the federal “Small Business Innovative Research” program).
Further, the University plays a relatively minor role in technology development, compared to
many other states. We have already noted one reason for this, namely the current state conflict
of interest rules which preclude UA researchers from profiting by moving their inventions into
commercial enterprise. This conflict of interest rule discourages partnership with industry and
virtually eliminates opportunities for UA research based spinoffs.
UAF has recently taken several steps to improve its ability to foster technology-based industry in
the state. These include: investment, with federal support, in a Center for Nanoscience
Technology, which should improve capabilities for microelectronics and sensor design and
manufacture; a MOU with the Center for Cold Regions Housing Research, whose facility will be
located on the Fairbanks campus; and discussions with the City and CRTC as mentioned above,
for cold regions automotive R&D. Further steps to improve university-industry coupling,
assuming legislative action to remove the current ethics restrictions, could include assessment of
the potential commercial value and business opportunities associated with R&D at UA, closer
attention to intellectual property issues including protection of commercial interests, more
involvement of management and economics faculties in analyses and business plan development,
assessment of opportunities for “industrial park”-like activities to promote start-up companies
48
and collaborations, and closer interaction with technology industries and their consortia in the
state. The Alaska Science and Technology Foundation could be very helpful in promoting these
activities and advising the state on policy measures and opportunities for other state agencies to
play a more active role in technology development. Essentially, we suggest that this is another
aspect of industry where we have not fully taken advantage of existing opportunities.
Energy: The energy industry has two main sectors in Alaska: resource extraction -- with three
components, oil, natural gas, and coal -- and resource utilization, which covers electricity
generation and distribution, natural gas distribution, renewable resource development, and some
of the unique aspects of rural energy. The best source for understanding R&D needs for the
resource extraction sector is the report from the conference entitled “Future of Fossil Energy in
Alaska - Road Mapping Energy Research for Alaska”, held at UAF in April 2002. This report,
which should soon be issued by the Office of Fossil Energy at the US Department of Energy, is
available in draft form under the conference section at the UAF Arctic Energy Technology
Development Laboratory’s web site, www.uas.edu/aetdl. For ease of access to the users of this
report, here we quote the results of the three road-mapping sessions. Each of these sessions
identified barriers to development and technology research priorities:
The barriers identified in the oil session include: (a) inadequate publicly available geologic and
engineering information and the lack of geologic data for many potential oil and gas basins in
Alaska; (b) complex regulatory process administered by a large number of agencies; (c) lack of
public and government understanding that Alaska’s oil resources are finite, have limited life, and
that access and time to develop are critical to the future of oil development in Alaska; (d)
inadequate communications between all stakeholders; (e) a large portion of the remaining
discovered oil resource is heavy oil and will be difficult and economically marginal to develop;
and (f) the high cost of hydrocarbon exploration and production in Alaska.
Technical research priorities that were identified to address the barriers were: (a) development
of a regional geologic framework for new basins in Alaska and development of common
databases to expand data availability for new basins as well as developed basins; (b)
technology for economic production of heavy oil; (c) improved understanding of potential
environmental effects of climate change on infrastructure, vegetation, wildlife, and development
of plans and technology to deal with the change; (d) development of dismantlement, removal,
and restoration (DR&R) technology and strategy (see the comments under the natural
environment - human activities section); (e) carbon dioxide sequestration options and
technology requirements; (f) technology and research data to improve the regulatory process
and to ensure that regulations are factually based; (g) improved understanding of the impacts of
development on wildlife; (h) development of baseline data before development starts; and (i)
cleanup and spill mitigation technologies for offshore application.
Many of the technical issues related to oil recovery in Alaska remain unchanged from earlier
workshops. Development of oil resources in Alaska’s high-cost, fragile, and harsh
environment continues to be a challenge, but significant progress has been made in the last few
years through the adaptation of advanced technology such as extended-reach drilling and
multilateral wells for production of heavy oil.
The challenges and barriers identified in the gas road-mapping session included issues related
to sales of conventional gas from the North Slope, and to natural gas development from
alternative sources such as methane hydrates and coal bed methane. Barriers and challenges
49
included: (a) resource identification and production throughout Alaska; (b) environmental issues
related to infrastructure development and maintenance; (c) infrastructure, construction, and
transportation costs that control the economics of development of gas resources; (d) marketing
of gas including identification of local, regional, national, and international markets; (e) public
policy including regulatory and permitting issues; and (f) dissemination of public information
and education.
The technical research areas identified included: (a) resource quantification, characterization
and technology development for production of gas hydrates and coal bed methane, including
drilling in rural areas; (b) technology related to process improvements for gas-to-liquids (GTL)
conversion technology, GTL product use, and GTL transportation in TAPS; (c) environmental
research related to CO2 capture and sequestration technology, including its use for enhanced oil
recovery; (d) arctic engineering related to pipeline construction such as collecting geotechnical
data, developing improved stream-crossing technology, and evaluating geological hazards; (e)
public policy issues where UAF can play a vital role as education liaison and as an unbiased
broker of data and analysis; (f) socioeconomic studies related to communities and pipeline legal
issues; and (g) restoration technologies related to removal of gravel, restoration of streams and
permafrost, and re-vegetation.
The gas group also developed a list of the highest priority study areas that UAF could pursue.
These were: arctic engineering research, resource and reservoir identification studies focused
on coal bed methane, natural gas hydrates, and conventional natural gas, gas-to-liquids
engineering, and public policy issues.
The barriers identified in the coal road-mapping session included: (a) permitting issues; (b) air
pollutants and ash disposal; (c) mining issues such as impacts on permafrost, sampling within
the mine, real-time analysis, and access; (d) regulatory issues such as the Jones Act and its
impact on shipping costs; (e) determination of coal characteristics and matching quality to
market needs; (f) processing issues related to fines generation and grinding size; (g) coal
conversion processes such as low-rank coal-water fuels; (h) marketing problems resulting from
the perception that low-rank coals are inferior and the due to the distance of Alaska coal from
major world markets; (i) health and safety risks to public; (j) utilization of aging power plants
and real-time quality control; (k) negative public perception of coal; and (l) transportation cost
and lack of infrastructure.
R&D Priorities were divided into high, medium, and low priority areas. The high priority
category included (not in any particular order): (a) determination of mercury levels in Alaskan
coal and its impact on power plant emissions, (b) ash utilization; (c) low rank coal-water fuel
demonstration and commercialization; (d) coal drying; (e) cost-effective small-scale technology
for remote-power generation using coal such as fuel cells, small-scale gasification, novel mining
strategies for small-scale mining, and co-combustion of coal with waste materials; (f) cold
weather road dust control; (g) combustion optimization and testing; (h) issues related to use of
low-rank coal in power plants; and (i) real-time online analysis.
The medium priority R&D areas included non-destructive analysis, CO2 sequestration, dealing
with fines, spontaneous heating, combined IGCC and GTL plants, blending of Alaskan coal with
other coals, wear-surface materials, opacity versus grain loading, background water metals and
toxicity, flocculants in cold water, market analysis of future Alaska power demand (20+ years),
and sulfur adsorbent materials for Alaskan coals for small systems.
50
The resource utilization sector notes that major changes in the US electricity industry that may
be applicable to Alaska include the development of small-scale renewable (e.g. wind or
wind/diesel combinations, and high efficiency small hydro generators) sources of electrical
energy and new technologies for on-site power production (residential and commercial), and insitu cogeneration (combined heat and power sources). Other rapidly advancing technologies in
areas such as ceramics and fuel processing are on the verge of making solid oxide fuel cells a
realistic candidate for applications in remote as well as urban areas. Implementation of these
developing technologies in Alaska is hindered by lack of local experience with them, distances
between fuel sources and end-use locations, and Alaska’s climatic and geographic
characteristics. The major needs and opportunities are for continuing research in materials and
their performance under Arctic conditions, and test and evaluation of the evolving approaches in
Alaska. Like the resource extraction sector, utilization companies could benefit from improved
coordination, information sharing, and state support.
Additional insight into some of the unique R&D and related problems associated with rural
energy were provided by the road mapping sessions at the “Rural and Affordable Energy for
Rural Alaska” Conference held in Fairbanks in September 2002. A major conclusion of the
conference was the need to continue discussions among all constituencies involved, to bridge
cultural as well as technological gaps. The Northwest and North Slope areas are setting models
for this process through their annual summits, supplemented by committee work throughout the
year. Although the final report is not yet posted, the highest priority issues, as suggested by a
combination of the rural utilities and user groups, agency representatives, vendors and university
researchers were:
-- Financial: Revision of the PCE formula to reward efficiency and capture benefits locally.
This will require not only increasing the endowment, but researching true costs, including
contributed capital, and developing standards to reflect them;
-- Diesel fuel: R&D on cold weather fuel operations, additives, recovered heat, types of fuel,
and blending to ensure reliable and safe operation in cold weather;
--Diesel technology: T&E of new diesel engine system designs including: diesel hybrids,
various operational scenarios, and system components to reduce emissions, increase
efficiency and reliability, and reduce maintenance and operation costs; and
-- Natural gas, coal and biomass: project packaging to attract funding, particularly for small
villages and projects to employ appropriate new technology.
Finally, another aspect of energy that has not been adequately explored is the potential for
Alaska to exploit its abundant energy resources within the state to attract energy-intensive
industry. Iceland’s use of its abundant geothermal and hydro energy for aluminum smelting is a
model. Examples that have been very briefly discussed during the development of this report
include:
-- exploitation of the geothermal potential near Unalaska and Dutch Harbor,
-- electrolytic production of hydrogen using excess electricity from Tyee or from a
geothermal source, followed by in-state hydrogen distribution for clean transportation or
rural fuel cells; and
-- in-situ generation of electricity by burning North Slope coal, then using the CO2 effluent to
displace methane from the hydrates (thus sequestering CO2 while generating an additional
energy resource) and the electricity for GTL processing; excess power could be transmitted
to urban areas, or used for additional hydrogen production.
51
Although such schemes are merely conceptual at this point, we believe that it would be
worthwhile to conduct the R&D and analyses to assess alternative innovative approaches to
using Alaska’s abundant energy resources within the state.
Minerals: Alaska has commercial quantities of 13 of our nation’s strategic minerals. However,
with world market conditions in flux, the presence of world-class deposits and favorable
geological conditions are not sufficient by themselves to spur investment. A related deficiency is
the dissolution of federal programs in mining research, and the associated decline in research in
academic institutions. Although a road-mapping conference similar to that for fossil fuels has
not been held (but would be well worth the effort), some of the findings from that exercise would
appear to apply to minerals as well. For example, refined mapping and assessment of reserves,
R&D on permitting and marketing issues, effects of climate change, DR&R requirements and
other environmental impacts, transportation and associated road dust control, and opportunities
for in-state value-added operations such as refinement and smelting are worth pursuing. Other
R&D opportunities that should be examined because of their relationship to existing capabilities
in the state or their broad applicability include resource and mine characterization using
computer modeling and advanced visualization techniques, ventilation and underground air
quality, alternate power sources, and automation and robotics.
Forest Products. The robust Alaskan timber industry of the 1950’s and 1960’s, characterized by
access to a cheap supply of logs, primary production of pulp and lumber, and an ability to utilize
just about all of the tree, is gone and extremely unlikely ever to return. While Alaska has almost
20% of the nation’s forest lands, 5.4 million acres are withdrawn for national parks, wilderness
areas, and wildlife preserves, leaving only 3% of the forest in available commercial-quality
timberland. Due to closures associated with the decline of our industry, the entire production of
Alaska’s mills is approximately the size of one mid-sized mill in Washington or Oregon, the state
is a net importer of forest products, and the lack of integration in our remaining industry in the
Southeast results in high levels of waste both in the forests and at production plants. The future
global wood industry will be dominated by large-scale mills and factories on the $100-500M
scale, and will feature computer-assisted production of a family of wood-based products. For the
remaining segments of the timber industry, market opportunities would appear to be dressed and
dried material for engineered wood products, and graded shop lumber for the south-central
markets.
R&D can help with the Alaska timber industry’s problems, to a degree. Perhaps the most
important challenge is to perform a combination of the destructive testing of full-size dimension
lumber, as well as the moisture, specific gravity, and basic properties research that are necessary
to create new grading rules and design values for Alaskan species. Although our forests grow
high-quality trees, their technical qualities have yet to be fully documented, and as a result they
are graded and marketed as low strength species. A second priority is to test railroad ties from
Alaskan species that are treated using the double diffusion process. If successful, they will
qualify for use by the Alaska Railroad Corporation. Market and business planning research
could also help. Further, as discussed above, it should be worthwhile to conduct research and
demonstration projects on non-timber forest products (including herbs, shrubs, mushrooms, bark,
etc.) and on eco-tourism opportunities that are compatible with subsistence needs and Alaska
Native cultural concerns.
Fisheries: We addressed environmental aspects of fisheries earlier. To reiterate briefly, longterm monitoring and associated process studies and numerical models of fish and their habitats
52
are one of the highest priorities for R&D in Alaska. State organizations have begun to work
together more closely to this end, through coordinating their individual programs and jointly
planning the Coastal Alaska Observing System. The North Pacific Research Board (NPRB),
which served as the Task Force for this section of the report, plays a major role by virtue of its
Congressionally mandated responsibilities. These responsibilities include recommendations for
research to be funded in part by interest from the Environmental Improvement and Restoration
Fund. The priorities for this research will include fishery management and marine ecosystem
information needs in the north Pacific Ocean, Bering Sea, Arctic Ocean, and lesser related bodies
of water.
NPRB established its initial research priorities in the summer of 2002, and these have been
incorporated in their request for proposals for $14M of research to commence in 2003. Briefly,
these priorities are in the areas of (a) marine ecosystem structure and processes, (b) endangered
and stressed species, (c) fish habitat, (d) fishery management and economics, (e) bycatch, (f)
stock assessment and recruitment processes, and (g) contaminants. NPRB also has
commissioned the National Research Council to develop a long-range science plan for the area,
and this should be available in time to help shape NPRB’s research agenda for 2005 and beyond.
NPRB also plans to play a leading role in mapping out science plans and activities of other
federal and state agencies that relate to its mission, coordinating with Alaska Native groups and
science programs, and encouraging education and outreach.
Another major fisheries-related effort is under the aegis of the Joint Legislative Salmon Industry
Task Force chartered by SJR28 of the 22nd Alaska State Legislature. Its goal is to evaluate the
State of Alaska's statutory framework for Alaska's wild salmon industry and the current industry
practices, and to make recommendations for statutory, regulatory, and structural changes that
will improve the industry while recognizing Alaska's coastal economy. As opposed to NPRB,
which is focused primarily upon ecosystem related issues, this Task Force is addressing issues of
markets, finance, quality, production, and governance. While its recommendations are targeted
principally at statutory and regulatory changes, they do suggest the need for additional
information in some areas, as well as an assessment of existing fisheries education, training and
research programs, and the identification of additional efforts needed in order to develop new
programs to address the needs of industry. These recommendations coincide with an ongoing
strategic planning process within the UA School of Fisheries and Ocean Science, which had
already tentatively identified the need for a statewide (as opposed to just UAF/SFOS) education
and research program at the University, with closer attention to marketing, economics, business
management, processing and process engineering, and technology, as opposed to the more
narrow traditional focus on the natural sciences.
Overall, we believe that fisheries-related R&D, in all of its facets and for all of Alaska’s waters
and marine resources, is one of the most important areas for continuing state attention and
support. Federal, state, local, NGO, industrial, and Alaska Native organizations have started to
work more collaboratively on fisheries issues, and it will be important to maintain an active
dialog.
Finance: The financial sector encompasses depository institutions (22 do business in Alaska),
small loan (3 in Alaska) and finance companies (16 serve the state), the two state-chartered Trust
Companies, plus the insurance and real estate industries. In general, Alaskan financial
institutions are early followers, but not developers, of new delivery channels and services.
However, local institutions must aggressively pursue technological solutions to remain
53
competitive against the larger national financials with branches in Alaska. There is adequate
capacity to serve the financial needs of most Alaskans, both in consumer and business financial
needs. Alaska has progressive trust laws with significant tax and estate planning benefits, and
numerous loan guarantee programs. Home loans are readily accessible and there is considerable
stability in the real estate market.
The most significant problem in Alaska’s finance sector is in securing needed insurance coverage
at an affordable price. Worldwide challenges to the insurance industry compound Alaska’s
traditional challenges of geography, risk, and low volume. Limited access to coverage is a
significant deterrent to local business growth and the entry of new players. Partnering with
outside markets will be essential to attain the critical mass needed to attract and retain carriers
for a full range of coverage. If Alaska could develop such a consortium, it could become a
growth industry for the state. Similarly, Alaska could be an attractive location for international
financial management services, although access to markets, experience, and expertise are
perceived barriers.
Common to many other industries, lack of accurate maps and titles is an impediment to rural real
estate development. Access to electronic appraisal and recording information are among the
telecommunications deficiencies. Our Task Force also notes that utilizing qualified local
institutions for the state’s financial management services would assist in the growth of local
businesses and could result in better service and more affordable overhead.
Travel and Tourism: Tourism makes significant contributions to state revenues, and provides
opportunities for small and rural businesses, artists and crafters, retailers across the state, the
major cruise ship and tour companies that rely on the state’s road system and port facilities, and
the service industries that support rental and private car, RV, and boat traffic. Our survey
suggests that research on the economic contributions of the various components, with real-time
statistics and visitor surveys by economic entity and community, would be very helpful. Permit
reform and evaluation through improved coordination among the many responsible state and
federal agencies, and research into additional tourist opportunities on state and national property,
are also needed. Additional deficiencies cited in the travel industry’s response to our survey
include recent closures of state parks, poor management of statewide rest stops and turn out
facilities, and a lack of coordinated long-term plans for funding and development of the Alaska
Marine Highway System.
We commented in our sections on both natural and human environment, that we need R&D to
better assess impacts and opportunities associated with the intersection of a variety of tourism
and recreational activities with our cultural and environmental values. Examples include the
growing interest in eco-tourism (which could perhaps be exploited on ANCSA corporation lands
in ways that enhanced indigenous cultures) alternative forest uses and products, and the impact
of cruise ships, snowmachines, and other vehicular activities on both marine and terrestrial
ecosystems. Recreation and tourism are extremely important components of resource
management, and the findings from all three of our “value clusters” suggest that it would be
worthwhile for the state to work with public and private stakeholders to define a long-term R&D
plan designed to promote their contribution to the state’s economy while preserving our
environmental and cultural values.
54
R&D and Alaska’s Infrastructure
Infrastructure -- roads, airports, ports and harbors, communications, hospitals and clinics,
housing, power, water supply, sanitation -- creates economic opportunity, and strongly
influences Alaskans’ quality of life. R&D itself needs infrastructure -- laboratories, computers,
instruments, sensors, ships—and Alaska’s climate, geography, and natural hazards create many
R&D challenges for infrastructure. But, these same challenges prompt innovation; witness
North Slope Oil developments and the Trans Alaska Pipeline. Infrastructure is thus a vital link
between the value clusters of natural environment, human environment, and economy.
Our working group notes that infrastructural developments play a determining role in the way we
live, work, and play. Infrastructure has a major impact on our human and environmental values,
is central to our cultural as well as economic well being, and indeed plays a role in our identity as
people. New infrastructure can create new opportunities, raise our standard of living, or destroy
the things we value most. Infrastructure decisions raise thorny economic issues, since most, by
their very nature, are a mix of public and private good; who pays, and how, are contentious
questions that rarely have completely clear, objective answers. Because of the pervasive
influence of infrastructural developments, plans should be clearly based on policy. There are
many technical issues associated with any new development, but these are often minor in
comparison to the social, economic, and environmental considerations. Thus, stakeholder and
community involvement in decisions regarding local infrastructure are essential. This is
particularly the case in our rural areas, where infrastructural additions and changes can have
extremely profound impact on the entire community. Urban infrastructure is critically important
from the standpoint of wealth generation and poverty mitigation, but the relative impact of any
one change is generally much larger in remote villages.
Our approach to infrastructure was somewhat different than that for the other “value clusters” -natural, human and economic -- that it interconnects. Each of those, plus our analysis of the
needs of R&D and innovation themselves, raised their own infrastructure-related R&D issues.
Our infrastructure Working Group complemented many of these findings, but also focused
attention on the policy issues, and provided an extremely useful tutorial on many of the factors
that influence infrastructure decisions, particularly for rural areas. Here we briefly summarize
their major points, which have a strong bearing on the need for economic and social R&D. We
then discuss some of the more technical challenges associated with infrastructure development,
operation and maintenance.
Policy Issues
The starting point in formulating a rural infrastructure R&D policy is a clear and
comprehensive perspective of the role that infrastructure is expected to play. Often
infrastructure is seen either as an essential condition to economic growth, or as a key element in
social programs. And while the choice is seldom either-or, whether one puts emphasis on growth
or poverty alleviation may have significant policy consequences. Some key facets of the impacts
attributable to rural infrastructure include:
-- Economic: Economic impact operates through lead and lag effects. Lead effects relate to
investments necessary to make others worthwhile; e.g., roads that provide access to
markets, and open other opportunities. Lag effect investments make it possible for
communities to “cash in” fully on the impact of earlier improvements. The distinction is
important because of implications for appropriate levels of government intervention,
55
typically higher for lead effect investments. Since impact is usually a combination of the
two effects, the extent of intervention often becomes a matter of policy and judgment.
There are also synergies between different types of infrastructure improvements (e.g.
health programs depend on the availability of power for light and refrigeration).
Understanding synergies is often as much of an art as a science, and thus in decisions about
timing it is essential to educate beneficiaries about what they can expect from different
projects, and empower them to make the choices; the challenge here is to ensure that
empowerment is real, and not a disguised way to hand out subsidies. A third task is to
determine how much is enough. Again there are value judgments, since this often involves
trading peoples’ time for money. Reasonable conclusions require systematic and detailed
monitoring of projects, coupled with econometric analysis. Overall, the, economic aspects
of rural investment policy require clear understanding of the economic role of rural
infrastructure, effective decision making processes, and strong monitoring and evaluation.
All of these would benefit from both fundamental and program-specific R&D.
-- Social: There are some clear direct links between social policy and infrastructure, e.g.
clean water and health, transport and emergency aid. There are also some subtle indirect
links involving time allocation or impacts on nutrition and education. To improve our
understanding of both, R&D is needed on three issues: affordability, and thus the ability to
reach all segments of a society; employment, both during construction and through new job
opportunities, including the labor rates associated with the jobs; and vulnerability to
natural and economic hazards, balanced between mitigation of impact and attacks on root
causes.
-- Other impacts of rural infrastructure which are more diffuse yet perhaps the most
important in the long term, include changing attitudes and mentalities, building up social
capital, bridging political, social, ethnic or religious gaps, exposing bad or corrupt
management techniques, and providing opportunities for communities to develop better
governance. Again, understanding these, and balancing them against social and economic
impacts, requires R&D.
Many of these considerations apply equally to urban development, when the intent of the
infrastructure is to eradicate poverty and advance wealth creation. Poverty itself however is
multidimensional, involving perceptions of risk, vulnerability and powerlessness as well as
material consumption. Alaska has some unique characteristics that demand R&D to help
understand the dimensions of poverty and wealth generation, and their links to infrastructure.
Two basic features of Alaska’s infrastructure needs that are fundamental to the formulation of
policy, are extensiveness and heterogeneity:
-- Extensiveness: the dispersion of our needs results in high costs; individual project or perunit costs may be relatively low, but policy must consider the global financial implications
of extensive programs, for both capital investment and operations and maintenance
(O&M). Financing alternatives, sustainability, and technology are intertwined in issues of
cost competitiveness. Dispersion also means that management of rural and urban
infrastructure has to be decentralized; here, trade-offs are inescapable, although one basic
principle is not to ignore existing institutions.
-- Heterogeneity: This manifests itself in two major ways, through the nature of the services
provided and the size of the group that benefits from the investment. The first
distinguishes between public and private good characteristics. Roads are examples of the
former, telecommunications the latter. Thus the private sector can be expected to play a
dominating role in telecommunications investments; however rural infrastructure is seldom
on its own seen as a profitable investment, mandating R&D into regulatory, financing, and
56
assistance schemes to encourage investment and help small firms access the market. Size
of the beneficiary group directly impacts the nature of participatory and management
approaches. The difficulty in accurately reflecting beneficiaries’ views and preferences
increases exponentially with the size of the group, influencing in particular the institutional
aspects of policy. Inventory of the overall situation in terms of physical accessibility or
access to the infrastructure, demand for its services, and institutional capacity to manage it,
is a necessary starting point for policy formulation. R&D on each of these issues, and on
their linkages, is needed.
Once the role of infrastructure has been determined, and considerations of dispersion, nature of
service, and group size analyzed, there are three main challenges to the policy formulation
process that must be addressed globally as well as individually. These challenges are the
sustainability of individual projects, their replicability as “programs,” and their poverty
alleviation impact. The specifics of the challenges are as follows:
-- Sustainability: This challenge results from the confluence of design, administrative, and
financial problems. Economic considerations of small projects usually imply design to
relatively low standards, increasing maintenance intensity. This demands skills, and local
capacity, which in turn necessitate accountability and financing of maintenance. The
difficulty and lack of glamour of maintaining rural investments has traditionally made
government a poor candidate for the job, resulting in the need for local communities to
develop a strong commitment and sense of ownership. This is more difficult at regional
than at community levels.
-- Replicability: Critical weaknesses can occur on financing and technical assistance fronts.
Relatively low costs of individual projects can distract from the large cost of infrastructure
programs. Pilot operations relying on federal or state funds are likely impossible to sustain
at the state level. What is needed is an institutional framework that encourages
communities, the private sector, or local government to undertake the programs. This
requires resolving the financing problem. Artificially removing this constraint introduces a
fatal flaw in replicability. Technical assistance works much the same way. Financial,
human, and administrative resources are limited, thus programs must rely on beneficiary
financing, information dissemination, existing institutions, and the private sector to the
maximum possible extent.
-- Poverty: Sustainability and replicability hinge on community autonomy for financing and
implementation. This can favor communities with better human and financial resources,
and leave out the poor. This must be addressed without undermining community and local
government initiative, which often entails shifting from a dependency to an empowerment
mentality. Understanding the links between poverty and infrastructure in Alaska requires
R&D in areas such as vulnerability, social capital, governance, and empowerment.
Unmet needs for infrastructure in Alaska relate to a wide range of governmental, technical,
social, and economic disciplines. Our Working Group suggests the following areas for R&D:
-- Institutions: Most unsuccessful infrastructure programs can be traced to inadequate
allocation or acceptance of responsibility for governance, management, finance, or
operations. However, there are no standard models, and solutions are both region and time
specific; yet, there are at least three basic criteria: (a) appropriate level of decentralization,
which is a direct consequence of dispersion; this dictates that decisions be made at the
lowest practicable level, although experience has shown that local governments
representing multiple communities are typically the weakest link; (b) appropriate reliance
on the private sector, recognizing that with the exception of roads, most infrastructure
projects provide services in the nature of a private good; further, at the micro-project level,
57
the modus-operandi of local communities is often much closer to that of the private sector
than to that of state and federal government; (c) accountability, which can not be taken for
granted but must be enforced through well-designed mechanisms that include transparency,
audits, participation by all subgroups of the beneficiary community, and wide
dissemination of achievements.
-- Finance: Well-conceived financing mechanisms strengthen accountability, are the key to
sustainability, replicability, and poverty alleviation, and are conducive to the cost savings
that entice communities to prioritize their needs forcefully and explicitly. As with
institutions there are no blueprints, but there are some basic principles: (a) maximizing cost
recovery which is the simplest and often the only effective way to ensure availability of
resources for O&M. Providing infrastructure at full cost, imperfect as it may seem, at least
gives the poor a choice, and often a choice that will prove less costly than to have no
access at all, or to rely on more costly alternatives; (b) maximizing beneficiary
contributions to investment costs increases the likelihood that decisions are made in a
responsible way and provides the sense of ownership that guarantees sustainability and
influences design standards and construction methods. At issue for R&D is the appropriate
role and level of subsidies; (c) encouraging private sector financing which is the most
effective way to promote replicability. There are challenging questions associated with
mechanisms to allow adequate cost recovery, simple and fair regulatory mechanisms, and
financial intermediation channels.
-- Measurement and Evaluation: The dispersed and small-scale nature of most rural
infrastructure investments means that many communities can afford them on their own, yet
also precludes straightforward replication of even well-tested projects. To stimulate local
leadership and initiative, it is essential to ensure not just that money is spent in the way
intended, but that the impact of investments is in line with expectations. As emphasized
throughout this discussion, the links between infrastructure and economic and social
development are complex, and vary between communities and over time. Policy
formulation must therefore be an adaptive process, based on effective learning
mechanisms, thus on monitoring and evaluation conducted by research-oriented
institutions with a long-term and broad perspective of development.
Our Working Group on infrastructure notes that with so many agencies involved with
infrastructure, the risk of duplication of effort, and contradiction in policy, is high. Some
agencies have responsibility for one type of infrastructure, others more global aspects. Thus we
recommend that the state clearly delineate the areas of responsibility of the various groups, and
under a single designated coordinator ensure that all participate, and that sector agencies focus
particularly on investments serving large groups of beneficiaries within their area of
responsibility, while agencies with global responsibilities concentrate on cross-cutting issues,
such as those discussed above.
Science and Engineering Issues
Perhaps the most pervasive and costly impacts on Alaska’s infrastructure are associated with
environmental changes -- weather, climate, and tectonic processes. Our climate has warmed,
and will continue to warm. Associated with warming is likely to be increased rainfall, and
melting of permafrost, with significant changes in ground stability and hydrology. Engineering
challenges include design standards and construction techniques for roads, drainage, bridges, and
structures, engineering guidelines for specific locales that account for anticipated changes,
techniques to more inexpensively slow or stop permafrost melting, and to minimize
58
destabilization of structures, and damage and costs from failures of foundations and roadbeds.
These entail significant basic research into materials, soil structures, ice and permafrost
dynamics, and hydrological processes, as well applied and engineering studies. A major longterm concern is the potential for large releases of methane from melting of terrestrial clathrates.
Other impacts associated with warming include loss of sea ice and changes in storm patterns and
frequency, which already are impacting coastal communities and airports. At issue are
technologies for shoreline protection, less expensive access to rocks and gravel, and efficient
methods to move entire communities when essential.
Climate change also influences vegetation distribution and disturbances. The sustained
infestation of spruce bark beetles, previously limited by cold, destroyed over 2 million acres of
forests on the Kenai Peninsula since the early 1990s. Northern expansion of shrubs into the
tundra has been clearly demonstrated, and additional large-scale transformation of landscapes is
likely. Alaska has already experienced increases in fire frequency and intensity, and additional
warming is likely to further increase the risk of fire. These changes threaten all of Alaska’s value
clusters, and clearly impact infrastructure when they occur, as they will more frequently in
inhabited areas. R&D needs to tap and integrate disciplines such as ecology, forestry, and
remote sensing, as well as improve the technologies and socioeconomic aspects of fire fighting.
UAF’;s GI and IARC are in the process of expanding their efforts in fire analysis and warning.
Earthquakes, we were reminded forcibly in late 2002, will continue to impact Alaska’s
infrastructure. In addition to the basic research issues associated with geology and tectonics,
there is a continuing need to refine and improve design standards for traditional components of
infrastructure like buildings and roads, and to develop them for new facilities such as the
proposed natural gas pipeline. Alaska’s basic state seismic network badly needs to be
modernized and expanded. Further, we have not conducted sufficient high-resolution seismic
and geological studies near our major cities and installations (e.g. the missile defense site at Ft
Greely) to ensure that we understand the likelihood of damage as a function of earthquake
magnitude and location, and have applied correct design guidelines. With the potential for a
world record 9.5 earthquake in the Anchorage area, California standards (suitable for quakes on
the order of the magnitude of last year’s quake on the Denali Fault) are obviously inadequate.
Nature and geography pose unique challenges to transportation in Alaska. In addition to our
vast distances, much of our land is unsuitable for normal road construction due to soil,
permafrost, or hydrological conditions; our rivers freeze and flood, and terrain limits runway
length in many of our communities. Severe winter conditions and the need to protect tundra
create unusual engineering, scientific, and technological challenges for rural transportation and
for oil and gas development on the North Slope; traditional practices of using ice roads and
frozen rivers to enhance winter access to rural communities will be severely impacted by climate
change, as has been demonstrated this winter and last, and procedures such as pumping of tundra
ponds may be unsustainable. Further, major engineering projects such as the missile defense
program and the potential gas pipeline create major challenges to the carrying capacity of our
current ports and highways. The concept of a multi-modal corridor that includes fiber and rail
along the gas pipeline route has generated many R&D challenges, in both engineering and policy
and regulations.
UA researchers over the past year have interacted with Alaska DOT personnel to define research
themes and priorities for a proposed Transportation Research Center. DOT’s R&D focuses on
59
near-term applied problems, and the intent was to identify longer-term Alaska-specific issues so
that they could be systematically attacked. Examples include:
-- transportation systems and operations: improved inter-modal operations, closely tied to
economic development and improved throughput and performance of existing facilities;
-- transportation infrastructure and construction: improved maintenance methods and new
construction techniques that are cost effective but still result in high-performance
pavement and bridges capable of withstanding traffic in extreme weather conditions,
engineering practices for rural roads to reduce maintenance requirements and improve the
ability of local governments and communities to operate and maintain them, and
construction techniques that minimize environmental impact and simplify permitting;
-- intelligent transportation systems: suitable for Alaskan conditions that employ real time
data acquisition and analysis of traffic and road conditions to optimize traffic operation,
management, and safety;
-- mechanical systems and fuel technology to evaluate engines and fuels that are less
expensive and more environmentally friendly under extreme weather conditions;
-- transportation safety, including advanced concepts of driver performance, automation, and
crash testing, and improvement of road friction and traction under snow and ice conditions;
-- marine transportation: geotechnical, structural, architectural, and coastal engineering
studies to improve the design and operations of river and sea ports in Alaskan waters,
integration of marine transportation into intermodal systems, and analysis of marine
transportation policies and training requirements to promote commerce and economic
growth, including the potential of northern sea routes; and alternative occupational
opportunities for displaced fishermen;
-- air transport and general aviation: security against incursions at rural airports, alternative
low cost options for lighting and passenger and freight facilities, and ways to better
integrate air transport into an intermodal transportation system, including development of
spatial aviation infrastructure and transportation models.
As noted above, telecommunications are generally perceived to be in the nature of a private
good, thus developments are generally dominated by the private sector. There are some
exceptions, however, an example being the Alaskan telemedicine system. There are several
additional areas where public and private interests converge. One is very wide bandwidth
connectivity, to support data and computer operations of NASA, DOD, NOAA, and the
University, as well as other state and federal agency users. While the lines will typically be
provided by private industry, at issue are policies and procedures for lower cost shared access
and guaranteed service, Alaskan participation in Internet II, and extension of wide band service
to research sites outside major cities. A second example is distance education. Greater
commonality of technology, and wider bandwidth of access across the state would improve our
ability to deliver education and workforce training. Current delivery techniques range from radio
and telephone, to the web, to TV via Alaska 3. UA will be unable to meet content and
progression needs across the state and effectively involve teachers from all campuses and
disciplines until this problem is solved. Indeed, because our efforts are so divided and thus
inefficient, we can be “outcompeted” for distance education by outside providers who can take
advantage of Alaska high-end markets. If the problem is solved, however, distance education and
training could become an exportable industry.
Another major communications need arises from our recommendation to establish integrated
long term monitoring networks across the state. Each group that currently takes remote
observations -- e.g. DOT, NWS, AVO, seismologists, hydrologists, oceanographers -- is on its
60
own for communications, resulting in extreme inefficiency, low productivity, high costs, and
considerable interference. Scalable wireless networks taking advantage of satellite connectivity
and technologies such as those employed in ADS-B (Automatic Dependent Surveillance
Broadcast) for aviation, offer opportunities as well as R&D challenges for statewide monitoring.
R&D for aviation communications and associated improvements to the FAA’s National Airspace
System, which was mentioned earlier under aviation technology, also deserves to be
reemphasized here.
Alaska also faces some unique challenges in housing, which should be addressed by R&D. In
addition to cost, modularity, and simplicity of construction, which are important for housing as
well as for other facilities in remote areas, examples of issues for which R&D are needed include
material durability under Alaska’s variable conditions of rain, cold, and ice, monitoring and
evaluation of energy-rated homes and residential heating systems, improvements to indoor air
quality, particularly in existing, poorly ventilated structures, additional cost effective preventive
measures to correct safety and health hazards that produce serious disease and injuries in
children, sufficiency of current practices in combustion air supply for atmospherically vented
heating appliances, domestic rain catchment systems, home waste management systems in ice
and permafrost, and elimination of moisture intrusion, or procedures to prevent condensation
from degrading structural components.
Strategies and proposals are evolving in the state to address some, but not all of these R&D
challenges. As in virtually all other areas, a common problem is lack of effective coordination;
in some instances, this has been exacerbated by bad past experiences. The state can help by
promoting partnerships, taking the lead to clarify and prioritize needs and responsibilities, and
identifying opportunities for sharing. Also in common with many of our earlier themes, the
proposed integrated long-term monitoring networks will make essential contributions to
infrastructure R&D, as will efforts within agencies and UA to focus resources on critical
scientific and engineering disciplines. Many of those needed here are not glamorous; structural
engineering and soil mechanics are less glitzy than bio-nano-info-tech. Nonetheless, from the
posture of needed State R&D, world class expertise in Arctic engineering is essential.
In addition to the long-term monitoring networks, among the initiatives we believe it is important
to promote, as part of an integrated state strategy to improve R&D in science and engineering in
support of infrastructure, are the following:
-- UA’s proposal to establish an official US DOT Transportation Research Center (TRC) .
All three MAU’s have been involved in defining this effort over the last year, and the
proposal has been coordinated with Alaska DOT. While the proposed funding for this
effort is relatively small, creation of a recognized Center would significantly improve
coordination and overall management oversight, and provide impetus toward long-term,
dedicated efforts. It is notable that the current UA Center for General Aviation Research
would be a significant player in the TRC, as would the cooperative R&D planning between
UAF and Army’s CRTC. It is also important to note that one of UA’s capacity-developing
Research Focus Areas under the NSF Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive
Research directly addresses related engineering expertise. We suggest that even in
advance of requested federal support, the state recognize TRC, and with UA take steps to
define and implement an effective management structure for it.
-- The Alaska Engineering Design and Information System (AEDIS), a node of GINA, has
been initiated as a joint project between CRREL and UA. State support, and state agency
participation in this effort, would move it forward more rapidly and inclusively. We
61
envision AEDIS as the repository for much of the information, knowledge, standards, and
guidelines that will evolve from other infrastructure-related R&D projects.
-- Cooperation among state and federal agencies, UA, and a number of private non-profit
groups, in particular BASC, to reduce costs and increase access to wide-band fiber and
wireless communications throughout the state. Efforts in this direction have, to date, been
informal, but show significant promise and should be encouraged and supported by the
state. Evolution of the envisioned system will require public-private partnerships, but
could dramatically improve education and aviation safety throughout the state, and enable
the state-wide environmental monitoring networks, as well as contribute significantly to
quality of life. UA has recently submitted a proposal to NSF for funding to develop a
“Wireless Arctic Network Prototype: that addresses many of the basic issues.
-- The Cold Climate Housing Research Center. An industry-based non-profit corporation
conceived and developed by members of the Alaska State Homebuilders Association,
CCHRC has received grants from the Alaska Housing Finance Corporation as well as state
and federal housing agencies. Its facility will be located on the UAF campus to encourage
collaborative R&D, student internship, interaction with other programs like AETDL, and
spinoff development. CCHRC is an excellent model of industrial initiative and deserves
strong state support.
62
A Common Need: Resource Assessment and Monitoring
Even before SJR 44 was written, many research organizations in the state had started to join
forces to develop CAOS, the Coastal Alaska Observing System. As the work to develop this
report proceeded, it became clear that the underlying needs that provided the impetus for the
national Integrated Ocean Observing System (IOOS), for which CAOS will be the Alaska
regional segment, are equally applicable to many other Alaskan issues, in all four themes of our
study. In that sense, it is interesting to examine the seven “societal goals” of IOOS in the context
of the SJR44 charge, to simultaneously improve the state’s economy, environment, and human
health:







“Improve predictions of climate change and variability (weather) and their effects on
coastal communities and the nation;
Improve the safety and effectiveness of marine operations;
More effectively mitigate the effects of natural hazards;
Improve national and homeland security;
Reduce public health risks;
More effectively protect and restore healthy coastal marine ecosystems;
Enable the sustained use of marine resources.”21
With the exception of the work “marine”, these goals would appear to apply equally well to
issues concerning land, atmosphere and space, natural resources, and people, and thus to our
interests in infrastructure and economic development as well as the natural and human
environment.
With this thought in mind, as our study progressed, the concept of an overall Alaska Observing
Network, or Alaska Resource Assessment Network, evolved. Further impetus to this construct
was provided by the President’s Climate Change Research Program, promulgated for public
comment in November 2002, which also called for integrated observing networks on a regional
scale. As with IOOS, the thrust of CCRP, with its companion CCT(echnology)P, is for economic
development, safety, and security in conjunction with preservation of environmental and human
health values. Thus it began to appear that our idea was not only logical from the Alaskan
perspective, but also could serve as a model for emulation in other parts of the nation.
Further, although our proposed ‘strategy’ that incorporates maintenance of excellence and
capacity building, partnerships and collaboration, long term monitoring networks coupled to
process studies and predictive models, and improved information flow, was initially developed in
the section on Natural Environment, the survey that led to this approach was also used by our
group that was looking at Industry, with similar results. And, as we started to examine the needs
for infrastructure and economic development, it became even more clear that both this strategy,
and the accompanying Alaska Observing (or Resource Assessment) Network, were effective
organizing principles for many of the issues in all four themes. Thus, the development of such a
network has become a major recommendation from this report. Certainly it is not all that is
required to meet state needs; however, it would appear to be a cornerstone for R&D in Alaska to
meet a very wide range of them. Also, because developing such a Network will be a major effort
“Implementation of the Initial US Integrated Ocean Observing System”, Part 1: Purpose and Governance,
Prepared by Ocean.US under the Auspices of the National Ocean Research Leadership Council, January
2003
21
63
that will require participation and contributions by numerous federal, state, private and industry
groups throughout the state, it is simultaneously an effective mechanism for meeting the SJR44
charge to find ways to ensure that federal and state governments work together.
Following the model set by CAOS, we suggest that the overall network be developed in
segments, each focused on a particular theme or aspect of the environment. Land resource
management, a terrestrial counterpart to CAOS, is one such logical segment. Another, we
believe, should focus on sub-surface resources and characteristics. Oil and gas resources,
methane hydrates, and minerals are an extremely important constituent of this segment; and
while it is not expected that they will change sufficiently rapidly to require ‘monitoring’ in the
same sense as, say, weather, nonetheless our industrial panel (via AETDL’s road mapping
workshop) identified the need for much higher resolution definition and mapping of such
geological resources. Further, there are some dynamic aspects of the subsurface environment –
e.g. permafrost and tectonic processes which produce earthquakes and volcanoes – that do indeed
require high resolution long term monitoring, process studies, data management, and models.
Similarly, atmosphere and space, and humans (for purposes ranging from economics, to
subsistence diet benefits, to health, to education) are additional logical ‘segments’ for the overall
network.
Similar analysis indicates that all 5 of these ‘in-situ’ monitoring ‘systems’ will need to be
supported by satellite observations, and by archives (such as those in our museums and other
physical repositories, e.g. of geological samples). Further, although for manageability it is
logical to deal with each of these elements separately for purposes of development of the
Network, they are obviously all closely interrelate, so boundaries between them must be loose,
and the managerial mechanisms designed for each must work closely together. We depict this
concept in the following figure.
64
Strengthening and Maintaining the Health of State Research Institutions
State agencies, many Alaska Native profit and non-profit corporations, a few small private
institutions, some Alaskan companies, a number of NGOs, and even many borough and
community governments conduct or participate in R&D to some degree. Several boards,
commissions, councils, foundations and industry consortia in Alaska, notably the NPRB and
EVOS Trustee Council, which participated in developing this report, sponsor or otherwise
influence R&D. However the only “state research institutions,” in the sense of entities funded
and chartered by the state specifically to conduct R&D, are UA and ASTF.
Some actions within the purview of the state would assist all organizations in Alaska that
conduct or sponsor R&D, including the federal agencies and commissions. We have discussed
some of the deficiencies in Alaska’s R&D climate and capacity in earlier sections, and briefly
address means to rectify them here. We then will discuss actions specific to the University.
- State Oversight. Two consistent themes in this report are the lack of state prioritized needs and
policies to guide R&D, and incoherence among ongoing efforts. We have stressed the need for
the Administration and Legislature to provide coordination and oversight through an office or
mechanism whose mandate includes the improvement and deployment of R&D in the state. This
is an essential first step in addressing the SJR44 charge to strengthen state capabilities.
- Facilities. Many branches of science require sophisticated analytical and experimental
laboratories, and access to information and computational resources. While ARSC, UA libraries,
and broad band access to the web may adequately address the latter, Alaska is weak in the
breadth and extent of its analytical capabilities, for both service and research. Modern research
equipment is both expensive and complex. None of the federal or state research institutions by
themselves can afford the human or financial resources to acquire, operate, and maintain what
they need in the state. Therefore the only feasible solution, if the state wishes to lessen its
reliance upon outside resources and improve internal capacity, is to promote partnership and
facility sharing, within compatible disciplines and in locations where clusters of common interest
and need exist.
Some partnering already occurs, for example through cooperative research and sharing
agreements between UA and state or federal research institutes. State acceptance of our
recommendation to promote the development of a statewide set of observing and monitoring
networks will provide additional momentum toward coordination and sharing, to help ensure
consistency of data quality and standards as well as to meet multiple needs at sampling sites. We
recommend that the state actively promote dialog among UA, industry, state and federal
agencies, and other participants (e.g. the hospitals for health and biomedical research, Alaska
Native groups for contaminant analyses and other topics of particular interest, and industry when
there is likely to be significant demand for service-type analyses or where industry would like to
access research-quality labs for its own interests) to define areas of common interest and need.
State and federal cooperation will be required to rationalize planning, budgeting, and financing.
This will not occur without a dedicated and consistent effort on the part of the state. The payoff
should be not just better facilities and analytical capacity, but a much more coherent and
integrated, less wasteful, and more trusted R&D enterprise.
- Incentives. One of Alaska’s major deficiencies is the very small amount of industrial R&D in
the state. ASTF is currently the only state mechanism with the capacity and charge to invest in
65
industrial R&D development. The state should consider other mechanisms that favor and
promote the in-state development of R&D capability. These can include funding of “cooperative
research centers,” tax incentives, land use provisions, simplification of permitting, preferential
contracting to in-state companies or consortia, access to facilities and equipment via industrial or
R&D “parks” connected to the University or other R&D clusters, and direct state support and
promotion of joint industry-UA-state or state/federal R&D projects. 22 An example of the latter
could include state support via its congressional delegation, and joint funding through an
appropriate state agency such as DCED, of the R&D programs and road-mapping conferences
now supported by the Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory’s Arctic
Energy Office via UA’s Arctic Energy Technology Development Laboratory.
The University of Alaska is the state’s principal R&D resource. To reiterate, nationally 74% of
R&D is done by industry; in Alaska it’s only 7%. University research is 57% of research in
Alaska but only 14% nationally. Thus if the state wishes to strengthen the health of its R&D
institutions, it must start by focusing on the needs of its University, while ensuring that UA’s
priorities and abilities are commensurate with state needs.
Lacking such direction from the state, however, UA’s research capabilities have largely been
driven by the interests and initiative of individual scientists, and by the availability of federal
funding. While this has built some great strengths, it has also resulted in a situation where many
of the faculty have little interest or experience in the specific needs of the state, particularly in
technical disciplines that may be of direct economic benefit. In turn, industry in the state has
gone elsewhere for its R&D needs, exacerbating the disconnections. Further, a significant
number of the researchers and research institutions in UA have relied excessively upon support
from Alaska’s congressional delegation. In some cases congressional earmarks are essential to
start an initiative or build capacity. Reliance upon this process, however, can undercut efforts to
build competitive capability and quality, bias funding agencies and their reviewers against UA
researchers, and make UA “prey” to outside industry and academic institutions who see UA
participation in a project principally as a mechanism of obtaining congressional support.
Over the last few years, UA has introduced several new programs to enhance its R&D
capabilities. There is now a major commitment to building competitive capacity in key
disciplines. The Presidential Professorships have made a significant difference in some areas. A
critical move in the direction of excellence has been participation in competitively awarded
research-capacity-building programs run by NSF, DOD, and NIH, which are often referred to by
the generic term EPSCoR, or Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. The
research focus areas in these programs address state needs in cold weather engineering, and
health and biomedical topics. UA’s facility plans, and associated capital requests to the state,
reflect this emphasis; in particular, UAF has made a very major commitment to the development
of biomedical capabilities, in particular genomics, proteomics, bioinformatics, and toxicology, as
discussed in our section on human environmental needs. These are strategic multi-year
commitments, and UA will need to continue to focus on them for the long run if it is to achieve
its objectives. This focus must be consistently reflected in organization and management as well
as in allocation of resources.
In discussing a strategy for the natural environment, we stressed the importance of preserving
and enhancing scientific excellence where it already exists. In some broad and important areas
22
Cooperative Research Centers are an Australian mechanism for building academic-industrial partnerships
in topics of particular interest to the nation. See www.dist.gov.au/crc
66
of research, for example fisheries/oceanography and geophysics, UA research institutes such as
SFOS and the GI already have sufficiently recognized quality and competitive capability that
they are ineligible for participation in the EPSCoR-like programs. It is particularly important
therefore for the state and UA not to neglect their needs for support and encouragement while
building in other directions. Research excellence should be rewarded, and it is important for
management to pay close attention to trends or actions that may endanger existing strengths.
For much the same reason, UAF as the single PhD granting institution in the state should remain
the principal research campus. Strength in other areas needs to build on and enhance excellence
at UAF, not detract from it. Collaboration and partnership, not competition, are essential.
UAF’s strategy identifies a number of disciplines where it desires to maintain its reputation for
excellence. As with biomedicine and cold weather engineering, where the intent is to build
capacity, resource prioritization and management focus on the part of UAF, combined with
complementary support from Statewide and the other MAUs, are essential to maintain quality.
Given the breadth of state needs and demography, however, it will also be important over the
long run to build research capacity at the MAUs in Juneau and Anchorage. Just as in the case of
UAF, clarity of direction, priority, and focus on critical disciplines and skills are essential. The
MAUs must make and stick with hard choices. Campus-based expertise in a state with Alaska’s
resources must be complementary. State-wide programs for education as well as research, with
clearly defined roles for each of the MAUs, will be required in some disciplines; in others,
expertise can be centralized in a single location. The state via the UA Board of Regents should
ensure that such allocation of responsibility and focus appropriately addresses state needs, while
maintaining educational and research excellence in selected fields.
Although this report is just the first step in the development and validation of a state R&D plan,
it has identified a number of areas where we believe the University should focus on improving its
R&D capabilities in support of state needs. We emphasize that such focus should not diminish
the University’s support of individual scientific curiosity and initiative, or detract from
strengthening areas of excellence not on this list, such as Alaska Native languages and culture, or
climate research. Rather, much as already started to a degree in the capacity-building programs,
these are areas which deserve special attention.
- Marine Science and Fisheries. With over 45 thousand miles of coastline and the nation’s most
important fisheries, Alaska must have a world-class program in all disciplines of marine science
and fisheries. Assessment of fisheries and wildlife resources and their habitats was the number
one priority of the organizations surveyed regarding needs for environmental R&D in the state,
and the University must play a leading role in that effort. The UAF School of Fisheries and
Ocean Science (SFOS) bears the principal responsibility for defining the steps needed to enhance
UA’s strengths in this area. This is an field where UA is starting from excellence, but excellence
that needs to be significantly strengthened and expanded in scope.
SFOS has begun a strategic planning process to this end. Some important steps already taken
include initiation of the effort to develop the Coastal Alaska Observing System, CAOS, as part of
the US IOOS; the MOU with (initially) NPRB and the EVOS Trustee Council to coordinate
planning and resources; and national leadership to acquire an Arctic Region Research Vessel to
replace the aged Alpha Helix. The CAOS concept -- a monitoring system coupled to models
yielding nowcasts and forecasts for a wide range of users -- is particularly important, and will
require the development of “centers of excellence” at a number of locations around the state, and
67
collaboration of many federal, state, and private research-capable institutions, as well as support
from many coastal and riverine communities.
SFOS’s research program historically has focused on basic studies of fish and marine mammals,
stock assessment, and the major oceanographic disciplines of biology, physics, and chemistry.
While there is some expertise within UA (though not necessarily SFOS) in fisheries economics,
marketing and processing, limnology, ocean engineering, and marine geology and geophysics, a
comprehensive program that addresses the needs of the state requires that these now disparate
elements be better integrated in both educational and research programs. We envision the
evolution of a formal state-wide marine science and fisheries program with components at all UA
campuses, in many departments, and at many of the CAOS nodes, directed by the Dean of SFOS.
Collaboration and partnership will be essential. In turn, only through the development of such an
integrated program, focused on the needs of subsistence users, industry, and regulatory agencies
as well as on the science itself, can UA play the requisite R&D leadership role with state and
federal agencies.
- Land Resource Management. This is the terrestrial counterpart to the above recommendation.
It addresses a range of expressed state needs, from climate studies to contamination, regional
resilience to resource development. If anything, the disciplines and departments involved are
even more diverse here than for fisheries, where at least it is clear that SFOS should take the
lead, and where CAOS has proven to be an effective mechanism for coordinating the interests of
most of the players. Again, UAF has noted expertise in a number of the relevant disciplines, as
well as some world class facilities and programs such as the LTER sites. It has initiated some
innovative new interdisciplinary programs in both education and research that are focused on
resource management, and is seeking to build capacity through the EPSCoR focus areas, both
directly and in conjunction with skills that are equally relevant to biomedicine and health.
The overall issue of land resource management is too broad to be useful for structuring a single
programmatic approach to strengthening UA R&D expertise. However it is an appropriate theme
for focusing the attention of many elements within the MAUs. The land component of the
Alaska Observing Network that we have recommended be developed -- the terrestrial counterpart
to CAOS -- can be an effective mechanism for integrating the various efforts and enhancing
collaboration. There is a need for many different process studies, but monitoring systems and
models that attempt to integrate the data and knowledge of process to provide guidance to
decision makers and the public, can be shared. UA should take the state lead in coordinating the
definition of this component of the observing network, perhaps in conjunction with its efforts to
prepare a proposal for an NSF National Ecological Observatory Network (NEON). The intent is
to develop a unifying mechanism that can help clarify roles of the various departments and
MAUs, and simultaneously enhance opportunities for collaboration with state and federal
agencies.
- Cold Regions Engineering. Alaska’s needs for R&D in land, water, and air transportation, in
energy extraction and utilization, mining, rural infrastructure, and healthy and safe homes and
workplaces -- all themes that have been emphasized in this report -- imply that expertise related
to the unique problems of our geography and climate should be the strategic focus of UA
engineering departments. One of the EPSCoR research focus areas starts to address some of the
needs for new faculty and programs. UA’s Transportation Center initiative and the Center for
General Aviation Research are new efforts that have significant potential, if effectively
developed and managed. Energy is central to the state’s economic future, and DOE’s Arctic
68
Energy Office at UAF has started to define and draw attention to the needed R&D, as well as
deficiencies in the University’s ability to respond. While these nascent efforts hold promise, we
believe that cold regions engineering and in particular energy technology for remote areas (for
both industrial and mining aw well as community/residential purposes) deserves much greater
emphasis in both management and resource allocation at UAA and UAF. UA could do
considerably more, both on its own and in conjunction with industry, to develop these skills that
are so important to both the state’s economy, and the quality of life of Alaskans.
- Health and Biomedicine. We have already noted that biomedical disciplines are a main focus
of UAF’s capacity building and facilities programs; elements of these disciplines are also being
built up at UAA and UAS, commensurate with their fundamental importance in all aspects of
modern biology and chemistry, and their importance to the state. Our task force panels that are
addressing these topics will not complete their work until later this spring. However their
discussions are based on an earlier strategy development process that focused specifically on UA,
so the fundamental commitment to these fields has already been made.
One significant remaining issue is the balance of capabilities between the campuses, and in
particular, solidification of the health focus at UAA. Difficulties in the WWAMI program,
important to the training and recruitment of doctors for Alaska, have highlighted the need for
prioritization of this area. Significant strides have been made in nursing education, and they
should serve as a model for the required further definition, focus, and commitment in other
health-related areas. Other aspects of health delivery would seem to be appropriately centered in
Anchorage, while the “wet lab” aspects of biomedicine require the disciplinary skills and very
expensive laboratory facilities and equipment to which UAF is already committed, and which
should not be duplicated. Strengthening behavioral health R&D will likely entail close
collaboration between UAA and UAF.
- Education. The focus within the education programs at all three MAUs has, appropriately,
been preparing teachers for Alaska. UA has introduced new degree programs to improve both
quality and throughput. We note, however, that there are some pressing research issues that are
either unique to Alaska, or otherwise unlikely to be adequately addressed by programs outside
the state. These include several aspects of the problem of teacher retention and associated
student achievement, and the failure, despite years of effort and emphasis upon cultural
responsiveness, to significantly improve the interest and performance of Alaska Natives in
education. The mere fact that we continue to do poorly in these areas implies that we need to
find ways to do better. This will require focused research.
Two other aspects of education in Alaska require R&D attention. One is the likely impact of
new approaches to standards and testing in Alaska’s educational environment. An R&D
program that addresses this issue should be started very soon, to ensure that we have the data
needed to understand, if not anticipate, the effects of the new rules. A second is distance
education. UA must improve its performance in reaching the rural audience, and in meeting the
demands of an urban population that needs workplace training as well as formal education. This
requires R&D in both technology and pedagogical techniques. Our previous discussion of
education raised a number of additional questions about UA’s educational and training
performance that are best addressed by and within the university itself.
As opposed to the natural sciences where there is a strong research tradition at UA, research as
an enterprise has not been strongly fostered within the Education schools, or for that matter many
69
of the other liberal arts, social science, and humanities colleges, schools, and departments at UA.
While all three MAUs are working to improve their performance in this regard, we find the need
for significantly strengthened research in education to be particularly compelling.
- Coupled Human and Natural Ecosystems. Universities traditionally build expertise along
disciplinary lines. Most of the issues raised in this report, however, require interdisciplinary
analysis and integration. Economic diversification and enhanced value from natural resource
extraction, for example, simply can not happen in the state without close attention to human and
environmental impcts. SJR44 recognized the importance of such considerations by calling for
the simultaneous improvement of the economy, environment, and human health.
UA has started to develop capacity to deal effectively with such tough interdisciplinary issues
through a new NSF supported Integrated Graduate Education and Research Training (IGERT)
program focused on regional resilience and adaptation, complemented by an even newer
EPSCoR proposal to extend the IGERT educational/graduate student focus into faculty research.
Similar concerns about adaptation and impact are starting to permeate national programs in
weather and climate change, and opportunities for competitive grants should continue to grow.
In spite of these positive beginnings, the pedagogical and research vocabularies, techniques, and
even reward systems differ greatly between natural sciences, engineering, social sciences and the
humanities. It will take years of dedicated effort to develop the new paradigms and approaches
needed to holistically address the ‘entangled values’ of economy, environment, and human
activity. New ways of thinking, teaching, and researching are required; this is truly an
intellectual frontier. Expertise in total ecosystem sustainability is badly needed everywhere. UA
already has taken some important steps to build capacity in these difficult skills, and with
continued effort and support has a truly unique opportunity for world leadership.
In addition to strengthening its R&D capabilities and leadership in these six thematic areas, UA,
with state support, can undertake some specific R&D-oriented initiatives to stimulate within
Alaska both aspects of R&D that we have stressed in this report: enhancing the state economy,
and fostering knowledge to improve protect the health of Alaskans and Alaska’s environment,
while contributing to the solution of important national and international problems.
- UA Research to Broaden Alaska’s Economic Base. By virtue of its already extensive research
base, UA possesses some valuable intellectual property. Among its new initiatives is UAF’s
Center for Nanoscience Technology, which is explicitly designed to foster the development of
microelectronic technology, which can lead to new, high-tech business in the state. Similarly,
the Arctic Energy Office’s program is designed to stimulate UA-industry cooperative projects.
UA should work with industrial leaders in the state to assess other opportunities, including
- an in-depth assessment of the commercial potential of research already underway,
- mechanisms for expanding the nascent technology hub in Anchorage and “tech park” in
Fairbanks,
- closer relationships between engineering and science, and business and economics faculties and
institutes, and
- support for the change to AS 14.40, the UA governing legislation, needed to enable UA
researchers to participate in business development in areas related to their research (footnote 5).
70
- UA Research as a Knowledge Enterprise. One of the major recommendations from this report
is the development of an “Alaska Observing Network” to conduct and coordinate the long-term
monitoring, process studies, data management, and modeling needed to address many of the
R&D themes we have identified. The backbone of the envisioned network would comprise five
monitoring “systems,” one each consisting of in-situ sensors and data collection programs
focused on oceans (this is evolving as CAOS), terrestrial resources, atmosphere and space, and
humans, plus one that would collect and provide satellite data to the other four. All of these
would feed their data into a central data management system that would also serve as a portal to
data collected by other researchers, and both provide data to and collect it from process studies.
This data would in turn feed and support computer models designed to produce analyses,
nowcasts, and forecasts, and to answer questions posed by decision makers. We note that the
concept of an such an integrated observational network or “enterprise” on a regional scale,
designed to address simultaneously a wide range of physical, chemical, biological, and ecological
questions both individually and globally, is also a central theme of the US Climate Change
Research Program.
Fielding and operating such a network will require the coordinated efforts of a very large number
of federal and state agencies and other participating and sponsoring organizations. Only UA in
the state, however, has the breadth of disciplines needed to envision, define, coordinate and
manage the entire complex of systems. UA already manages or participates in most of the
existing monitoring systems, sensor networks, and data collection and evaluation processes in the
state and its waters; it coordinates or operates the wide band and remote communications links
and satellite data receivers needed for the science; it operates the ARSC where the major models
would run; and it has started to develop the data management and portal system in the
Geographical Information Network of Alaska (GINA). It will require a major, long-term
commitment on the part of UA to lead such an effort. However the observing network is a key
component of the state’s R&D future, and the University will benefit significantly from it.
71
Ways to Ensure the Federal and State Governments Work Together
The state and federal governments own some 87% of the land in Alaska, and share responsibility
for regulating activities throughout the state and its waters. While the agendas and interests of
federal and state agencies do not always coincide, both need information about the land, water,
and its natural and human resources. Thus we believe that R&D, as outlined in this report, is the
common ground for collaboration. State and federal agencies are much more likely to come to
common conclusions if they base their analyses and decisions on information that has been
jointly collected in a cooperative research program. And when there are disagreements in
interpretation, at least the differences can be traced back to a point of common origin.
We therefore believe that our basic recommendations for R&D to meet state needs,
simultaneously offer the best opportunity for ensuring that the state and federal governments
“work together to identify and assess areas of high economic potential from resource
development and tourism on federal and state lands, water, and airspace of Alaska,” as requested
by SJR44. To restate the basic points:
-- State promotion and coordination of R&D will ensure that the state is aware of, and can
provide guidance to, federal as well as state, university, industrial, and other R&D in
Alaska.
-- Collaboration and partnership, particularly when it involves shared laboratory facilities
and equipment, ensures common understanding and standards. Collocation also naturally
encourages cooperation and sharing.
-- Expertise at the University of Alaska is equally accessible to federal and state agencies,
and UA can serve as a common ground for partnerships and cooperative units and
programs.
-- The centerpiece of our “R&D as an enterprise” recommendations, development of an
Alaska Observing Network, or Alaska Resource Assessment Network, requires close state
and federal cooperation for definition, management, funding, and operations. It is an
inherently joint venture. The best of our current observing systems (e.g. the Alaska
Volcano observatory and the state seismic network) are based on state-federal-UA
partnerships; CAOS is being designed from the start as a collaborative venture.
Federal and state cooperation in R&D toward the development of economic potential must also
be based on financial burden sharing. Most R&D in Alaska is now supported by the federal
government, and is therefore directed primarily toward federal interests. Because many of these
R&D programs and even facilities are designed to develop value that is captured largely outside
of Alaska, this is appropriate. Further, the state can not hope to match either the programmatic
breadth or the resources of agencies like NIH, NSF, DOI or DOC. The state does, however,
have the responsibility to contribute financially to the degree that the R&D serves its particular
needs. There are four principal state roles:
-- Oversight and coordination of R&D in the state, to improve its efficiency and thus costeffectiveness, for both federal and state governments; while the state can not direct federal
R&D, it can help the federal agencies optimize their efforts, and reduce their costs through
partnership, coordination, and sharing.
-- Incentivization of industrial R&D. Expanded industrial participation in R&D is not only
critical to sustainable economic growth, but to the degree that the objective is to exploit the
economic potential of state and federal lands through tourism and resources development,
72
industry should share the costs of the R&D that identifies opportunities and improves
feasibility.
-- Provision of adequate facilities. The federal government will not fund directly facilities
for state agency and university R&D. However much of the capital outlay can be
recaptured through indirect cost recovery from federally supported research, and the
expanded economic base associated with a robust R&D program. Further, the federal
government does either rent or build facilities for its own personnel. To the degree that the
state can provide opportunities for collocation and facility sharing, a significant portion of
its own capital and O&M costs can be offset.
-- Cost match, and start-up costs. Many federal programs require a cost match. To the
degree that the state desires to attract such funds, it must provide the needed resources.
Similarly, the state should bear the burden for building capacity and maintaining
excellence in areas where it wishes to attract additional long-term federal support. Federal
programs like EPSCoR can help, but their rules are not always commensurate with state
needs.
Ultimately, capturing the “high economic potential from resource development and tourism on
federal and state lands, water, and airspace of Alaska” is a political process. R&D can not be
expected to resolve all of the associated issues. It can, however, provide a solid and shared
foundation of knowledge for making decisions and building consensus. Further, cooperation in
R&D can largely be conducted out of the political limelight, while building bridges among
constituencies. At its best, the R&D process -- and certainly the basic research component -- is
unbiased and transparent. R&D should be conducted in such a way that its results are trusted by
all factions. Only if the state and federal governments cooperate in building the basis upon
which decisions can be based, can they be expected to work together to achieve common
economic and political goals.
73