18 



While it is already well known that UV-radiation can damage cells and tissues 

 of organisms and can negatively affect various biological processes, the negative ef- 

 fects to whole ecosystems is less clearly understood. Future research on UV-radi- 

 ation effects should include studies at both the levels of organization in order to 

 fully evaluate the global impact of stratospheric ozone depletion. 



The Chairman. The gentleman from New Mexico, Mr. Schiff. 



Mr. Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 



Dr. Lane, a number of years ago, I moved from Chicago, IlHnois 

 to Albuquerque, New Mexico for a little bit warmer weather so I'm 

 not immediately intending to visit Antarctica. But I would like to 

 at some point. 



I have one question. And that is, I have a general concern about, 

 are other countries doing their fair share of commitment of finan- 

 cial resources to research, which ultimately benefits all of man- 

 kind? 



I feel that way in various areas where I've looked at what the 

 United States is spending in areas from space research to high en- 

 ergy research, and at times, I'm not convinced that other countries 

 are doing their fair share when it seems to me ultimately everyone 

 will share in the benefits of this research. 



Now maybe their view is the same in certain respects. But spe- 

 cifically since we're talking about Antarctica, my question is, in 

 your judgment, is there a reasonable fair share of allocation of sci- 

 entific research. 



And I should add, that's a two way street. Maybe I'm mistaken 

 in the implication of my question. Maybe other countries propor- 

 tionally are doing more than we are. 



But the question I'm raising is, are the industrialized countries 

 of the world making a fair share commitment to Antarctic research 

 which ultimately will benefit everybody in the world? 



Dr. Lane. Mr. Schiff, this is a general question is one of course 

 we talk about a good deal as well as we look for increased opportu- 

 nities for international cooperation in all kinds of scientific facili- 

 ties. 



In the Antarctic in particular, of course many countries have 

 their own facilities but at the South Pole, where the U.S. maintains 

 the infrastructure, we spend about what, 25, 30 percent of our 

 total, the total continental alliance in the Antarctic, so that's U.S. 

 investment as a fraction of the total. 



But your question, Mr. Schiff, is are we spending substantial 

 amounts of money I guess in support of other nations doing science 

 in our facilities? 



Mr. Schiff. Well, however it's done, is everybody doing making 

 a fair contribution? 



[The following response was received for the record:] 

 Are the other nations doing their fair share in Antarctica? 



Of the 43 Antarctic Treaty nations, 26 have achieved consultative (voting) status 

 by meeting the treaty's requirement that they perform "substantial scientific re- 

 search activity there [in Antarctica], such as the establishment of a scientific station 

 or the despatch of a scientific expedition."^ The other 17 Antarctic Treaty nations 



iThe 26 consultative parties consist of the treaty's 12 original (1959) signatories and another 

 14 nations that accedeci to the treaty after it entered into force in 1961. The treaty does not 

 oblige the 12 original signatories to conduct substantial scientific activity in order to sustain 

 their consultative status, but all of them currently do. 



