1548 



IGY CONCEPT REPLACES THAT OF TPY 



The success of the First and Second Polar Years, at intervals of 50 

 years, led to expectations that a Third International Polar Year 

 (TPY) would be held in 1982-83. However, before even half of another 

 50-year period could elapse, it became apparent to some observers 

 that the accelerating pace of technology and the fact that available 

 basic data in the Earth sciences had been largel}^ exploited were 

 making further international observation efforts desirable. Early in 

 1950 Lloyd V. Berkner ^e proposed that the TPY be held in 1957-58, 

 25 years after the SPY, and coinciden tally a period for which unusual 

 solar activity was predicted. 



The idea was widely discussed among scientists and scientific 

 organizations, and in May 1952 the International Council of Scientific 

 Unions (ICSU) established a special committee to take charge of 

 planning for a Third Polar Year. Invitations to participate were sent 

 to ICSU member nations and to the U.S.S.R. The response was only 

 moderate, however, and included the suggestion from several scientific 

 groups that the scope should be broadened to encompass worldwide 

 phenomena rather than concentrating on the polar regions. ICSU 

 considered the suggestion, and in October 1952 its general assembly 

 approved the enlarged scope, which was reflected in a change of name 

 from Third Polar Year to International Geophysical Year. 



The IGY concept gained quick acceptance throughout the world 

 scientific community. The ICSU special committee was enlarged and 

 designated as CSAGI (initials of the French version of Special Com- 

 mittee for the International Geophysical Year) ; the Englisli scientist 

 Dr. Sydney Chapman was named president and Berkner vice presi- 

 dent. The number of countries represented at CSAGI meetings grew 

 from 26 in 1953 to 67 in 1958. 



Enthusiasm for the IGY idea was not limited to scientists, but was, 



. . . shared by tho various gnvornmcnts concernrd, by heads of state, and by 

 the public at large. This interest was aroused by the strong appeal of the ICiY as 

 a cooperative venture representing many nations working together for the benefit 

 of all mankind. Consequently, the collective response of the many legislative 

 bodies and governments whose approval was necessary to make the program a 

 success was on a far more generous scale than that prompted by any previous 

 scientific enterprise. 



Governmental support consisted not onlj' of unprecedented financial contribu- 

 tions, but also of equally valuable and necessary logistic support. Governments 

 cooperated by facilitating the movement of participating scientists from one 

 country to another, and in assuring prompt movement through customs of 

 scientific equipment on which the various programs de]jended. 



. . . Wides])read interest in the IGY was aroused in the general public by 

 numerous articles in the daily press and in popular magazines. Consequentlj', 

 more was imdoubtedly known concerning the IGY than had been the case for 

 any previous international scientific effort, and expectations were correspondingly 

 raised. 3^ 



'* Author of thr 1050 Bcrknpr report on Riatr Dppartmcnt oreanization and stafTme for science and tech- 

 nology. For a description of the report and its consequences, see: U.S. Congress, House. Committee on 

 International Relations. Science and Technoloqy in the Department of State: Bringinq Technical Content Into 

 DipUnnnlic Pniicy niid OpeTationn, a study in the series on Science, Technology, and American Diplomacy, 

 prepared for the SubconiTnittee on International Sectirity and Scientific Affairs by Franklin P. Iluddle, 

 senior specialist in science and leclmology, Coiiere<;sioiial Research Service, Library of Congress, Wash- 

 ington, U.S. Government Printing Ullicc, June I'JT.'i. Vol. \l, pp. 1342-1317. 



■" Bullls, The Political I.cgacj of the International Geophysical Year. Vol. I, p. 30.3. 



