Opportunity profile: Expanding Antarctic research

Antarctic Science has widened its disciplinary remit, and bursary applications can reflect that

Top tips

• All applications must be for novel research, not for a top-up to existing projects.
• Proposals must relate to the Antarctic, but most disciplinary perspectives are eligible.
• A budget that is not clear and itemised can sink a proposal.
• Proposals are especially welcomed from scientists outside Europe, the US, Australia and New Zealand, and application support is available for non-English speakers.

Antarctic research is not just about digging through snow and surveying glaciers; the field increasingly comprises any scientific undertaking related to the Earth’s coldest continent.

Antarctic Science’s International Bursary reflects this and accepts bids from scientists in a wide variety of disciplines. Each year, around 10 to 11 early career scientists are awarded up to £6,000 to conduct novel research relating to the Antarctic. The funder defines ‘early career’ as applying to researchers with up to eight years of experience post-PhD, and within three years of attaining a permanent faculty position. The deadline for applications is 21 March.

Jennifer Jackson, the director for bursaries, tells us more about these valuable pilot grants.

What is the background to the bursary?

Antarctic Science is a small journal founded by the late David Walton in 1988. He ran the journal on his own for a number of years before it became part of Cambridge University Press. As part of being a publishing journal, there was a bit of money available each year, so he set up a charity called Antarctic Science Limited in order to be able to use that money to support early career researchers. The bursaries have been going for almost 20 years.

What is ‘Antarctic science’ as far as the bursary is concerned?

It could be biology, chemistry, maths, physics; as long as it relates to the Antarctic in some way. It could even be something that’s an adjacent area but relates back to the Antarctic in the analytical phase, or it could be something that contrasts with Antarctic data, that still has an Antarctic focus in its output. We are quite flexible, and in the last couple of years or so, we have accepted more social science within the journal. We debate among ourselves how broad that remit is. But the bottom line is, if it’s something that would be accepted by the journal, we would accept a bursary proposal—the journal has also recently increased its scope.

Can you give me an illustration of how far that scope has widened?

Yes, tourism is now a topic that comes up frequently, so, how tourism is influencing or impacting the Antarctic. Studies for inclusion may also address people’s perceptions of how sustainability could be improved in the Antarctic, so it has become a little more adjacent to traditional Antarctic research science.

The bursary is open internationally, correct?

Yes, it’s always been important for us to be international. One of the things we really care about is gaining engagement with early career researchers from all over the world, and there’s no restriction on where you come from. Indeed, we really encourage applicants from parts of the world that have not been so active in this field of science to apply. Currently, most applications are from Western countries. We also offer a mentorship scheme for first-time applicants whose first language is not English. Successful applicants have come from countries including Malaysia, Chile, Brazil, Argentina, India—these are all countries that have Antarctic programmes. We’ve also funded a Peruvian scientist recently. We try to make sure that at least one grantee is from a non-Western country each year.

Applicants must propose ‘a distinct extension activity’. Can you expand on this?

What we’re saying is, this has got to be a standalone project, but one which, we accept, is usually arising from previous work. It must be a case of, “We are going to do this, and we’d like some money to help us do it this way.” This money would often go to doing some fieldwork, visiting a laboratory, perhaps buying a new piece of equipment or consumables, or a mixture of such things. What we don’t fund are salaries and conference attendance. Regarding salaries, we need to know that grantees will be supported for the duration of the bursary, which is up to two years, and have that support confirmed by a supervisor, which can be difficult, I know.

What essential advice do you have for applicants?

We strongly encourage first-time applicants to get someone else to check through applications, particularly checking that the remit of the bursary is addressed—especially the fact that it needs to be a new project. We always endeavour to make sure people get the application support they need, as fast as possible, so also contact us if you are not sure.

The other thing is quite low-hanging fruit, but early career researchers don’t always spot it: make sure your budget is clear and sensible. You can’t just ask for £6,000 for whatever it is you’re doing. You need to break it down and be clear that you’ve thought about how much things cost. You will lose points if we think your budget isn’t sensible, and that’s just such a shame if you’re presenting an interesting piece of science.

You ask for a post-funding report. What does that entail?

We are only really asking for a narrative of how the work went. We allow complete flexibility in how grantees interpret that; sometimes people put pictures in, whereas others may write it up as a little research publication. We welcome variation, and we simply want to know whether the work from the bursary has ended up being viable or useful for the applicant.