[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
______
BUILDING A SAFER ANTARCTIC
RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE,
AND TECHNOLOGY
OF THE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
DECEMBER 6, 2022
__________
Serial No. 117-72
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://science.house.gov
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
49-691 WASHINGTON : 2023
COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, SPACE, AND TECHNOLOGY
HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman
ZOE LOFGREN, California FRANK LUCAS, Oklahoma,
SUZANNE BONAMICI, Oregon Ranking Member
AMI BERA, California MO BROOKS, Alabama
HALEY STEVENS, Michigan, BILL POSEY, Florida
Vice Chair RANDY WEBER, Texas
MIKIE SHERRILL, New Jersey BRIAN BABIN, Texas
JAMAAL BOWMAN, New York ANTHONY GONZALEZ, Ohio
MELANIE A. STANSBURY, New Mexico MICHAEL WALTZ, Florida
BRAD SHERMAN, California JAMES R. BAIRD, Indiana
ED PERLMUTTER, Colorado DANIEL WEBSTER, Florida
JERRY McNERNEY, California MIKE GARCIA, California
PAUL TONKO, New York STEPHANIE I. BICE, Oklahoma
BILL FOSTER, Illinois YOUNG KIM, California
DONALD NORCROSS, New Jersey RANDY FEENSTRA, Iowa
DON BEYER, Virginia JAKE LaTURNER, Kansas
SEAN CASTEN, Illinois CARLOS A. GIMENEZ, Florida
CONOR LAMB, Pennsylvania JAY OBERNOLTE, California
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina PETER MEIJER, Michigan
GWEN MOORE, Wisconsin JAKE ELLZEY, TEXAS
DAN KILDEE, Michigan MIKE CAREY, OHIO
SUSAN WILD, Pennsylvania
LIZZIE FLETCHER, Texas
VACANCY
C O N T E N T S
December 6, 2022
Page
Hearing Charter.................................................. 2
Opening Statements
Statement by Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chairwoman,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 10
Written Statement............................................ 11
Statement by Representative Frank Lucas, Ranking Member,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives................................................ 12
Written Statement............................................ 13
Witnesses:
Dr. Karen Marrongelle, Chief Operating Officer, National Science
Foundation
Oral Statement............................................... 15
Written Statement............................................ 18
Ms. Kathleen Naeher, Chief Operating Officer of the Civil Group,
Leidos
Oral Statement............................................... 31
Written Statement............................................ 33
Dr. Angela V. Olinto, Dean of the Physical Sciences Division and
Albert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professor, University
of Chicago
Oral Statement............................................... 36
Written Statement............................................ 38
Dr. Anne Kelly, Deputy Director, The Nature Conservancy Alaska
Chapter
Oral Statement............................................... 42
Written Statement............................................ 44
Discussion....................................................... 53
Appendix: Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Dr. Karen Marrongelle, Chief Operating Officer, National Science
Foundation..................................................... 70
Ms. Kathleen Naeher, Chief Operating Officer of the Civil Group,
Leidos......................................................... 79
Dr. Angela V. Olinto, Dean of the Physical Sciences Division and
Albert A. Michelson Distinguished Service Professor, University
of Chicago..................................................... 84
BUILDING A SAFER ANTARCTIC
RESEARCH ENVIRONMENT
----------
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 6, 2022
House of Representatives,
Committee on Science, Space, and Technology,
Washington, D.C.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 12:57 p.m., in
room 2318, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Eddie Bernice
Johnson [Chairwoman of the Committee] presiding.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. The meeting will come to order. And
without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recess at
any time.
Before I deliver my opening remarks, I wanted to note that,
today, the Committee is meeting both in person and virtually. I
want to announce a couple of reminders to Members about the
conduct of this hearing. First, Members and staff who are
attending in person may choose to be masked, but it is not a
requirement. However, any individual with symptoms, a positive
test, or exposure to someone with COVID-19 should wear a mask
while present. Members who are attending virtually should keep
their video feed on as long as they are present in the hearing.
Members are responsible for their own microphones, so please
also keep your microphones muted until you are speaking.
And finally, if Members have documents they wish to submit
to the record, please email them to the Committee Clerk, whose
email address was circulated prior to the meeting.
Good afternoon to our Members and to our panelists, and
thank you for joining us here today. It has been my honor to
chair this Committee for the past four years. For three decades
I have served on this Committee. Over all that time and prior
to my tenure in Washington, I have been passionate about
breaking down barriers for women. If left unaddressed, hostile
cultures keep women and marginalized individuals from achieving
their full potential and hinder our progress. So as a result, I
can think of no more important hearing than the one we're
holding today to conclude my time on the Science Committee.
The U.S. Antarctic Program (USAP) funds cutting-edge and
essential research that cannot take place anywhere but
Antarctica. In harsh conditions, geologists peer millions of
years into the past by boring deep into the ice sheet. Dark
skies offer an unparalleled site to observe distant galaxies.
Biologists study life that thrives in extreme conditions on
land and under sea.
Unfortunately, the challenges facing scientists in
Antarctica are not merely those imposed by the elements. While
several Federal agencies support research in Antarctica, the
National Science Foundation (NSF) has been the--has the
responsibility of managing all U.S. and Antarctic research
activities. In August, the National Science Foundation released
a report on sexual harassment and assaults in the Antarctic
program. Its findings are sobering. The research and the report
contains harrowing stories of individuals enduring threats to
their physical safety, gender taunts, and intimidation.
Community members do not trust the agency or contractor to keep
them safe from these harms. Multiple people spoke of their fear
of being retaliated against for reporting an assault. Survivors
and advocates on ice fear they will be placed on a blacklist.
Meanwhile, high-ranking perpetrators receive apologies instead
of penalties.
We must not tolerate any culture that enables pervasive
harassment and assault. While the Antarctica program presents
unique challenges such challenges must not be used as an excuse
for inadequate response and corrective actions.
I'm proud that the Committee passed the Combating Sexual
Harassment in Science Act. This became law this summer in the
CHIPS & Science Act, but clearly, there's more work to be done,
including when it comes to the responsibility of Federal
contractors. Today, we will discuss how all stakeholders must
engage with one another and with the Antarctic community.
Companies have a responsibility to protect employee privacy.
However, the National Science Foundation must have the
necessary information to keep people safe and to keep offenders
off the ice.
The SAHPR (``Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention and
Response'') report may be focused on Antarctica, but these
problems plague field sites beyond the continent. I hope that
the CHIPS & Science provisions and what we learn today serve as
a foundation for further action. I've been heartened by the
bipartisan action this Committee has taken to address sexual
harassment, and it is my hope that this work will continue into
the next Congress. I'll take this moment to thank each and
every Member of this Committee and our Committee staffs for
getting us to this point.
And finally, before I yield to Ranking Member Lucas, I'd
just like to close by noting that this is the last Full
Committee hearing that the Science, Space, and Technology
Committee will hold for the 117th Congress. It is also the last
hearing I will chair as Member of Congress. Given that, I just
want to take a moment to express my deep appreciation to
Members and staff for us hanging together and doing a good
amount of work.
And in that regard, I want to give my special thanks to
Ranking Member Lucas. He has been a constructive partner in
what I tried to accomplish, as well as a good friend and
professional. I am confident he will continue the bipartisan
approach to the Committee in the 118th Congress. And we've had
over the past two Congresses, and he knows that I will be
watching him to make sure he does.
And with that I express my profound appreciation to every
Member and every staff member of this Committee.
[The prepared statement of Chairwoman Johnson follows:]
Good afternoon to our members and our panelists, and thank
you for joining us here today. It has been my honor to chair
this Committee for the past four years. For three decades, I
have served on this Committee. Over all that time, and prior to
my tenure in Washington, I have been passionate about breaking
down barriers for women. If left unaddressed, hostile cultures
keep women and marginalized individuals from achieving their
full potential and hinder our progress. As a result, I can
think of no more important hearing than the one we are holding
today to conclude my time on the Science Committee.
The U.S. Antarctic Program funds cutting-edge and essential
research that cannot take place anywhere but Antarctica. In
harsh conditions, geologists peer millions of years into the
past by boring deep into the ice sheet. Dark skies offer an
unparalleled site to observe distant galaxies. Biologists study
life that thrives in extreme conditions on land and under sea.
Unfortunately, the challenges facing scientists in
Antarctica are not merely those imposed by the elements. While
several Federal agencies support research in Antarctica, the
National Science Foundation has the responsibility of managing
all U.S. Antarctic research activities. In August, NSF released
a report on sexual harassment and assaults in the Antarctic
Program. Its findings are sobering. The report contains
harrowing stories of individuals enduring threats to their
physical safety, gendered taunts, and intimidation. Community
members do not trust the agency or contractor to keep them safe
from these harms. Multiple people spoke of their fear of being
retaliated against for reporting an assault. Survivors and
advocates on ice fear they will be placed on a ``blacklist.''
Meanwhile, high-ranking perpetrators receive apologies instead
of penalties. We must not tolerate any culture that enables
pervasive harassment and assault. While the Antarctic program
presents unique challenges, such challenges must not be used as
an excuse for an inadequate response and corrective actions.
I am proud that this Committee passed the Combating Sexual
Harassment in Science Act. This became law this summer in the
CHIPS & Science Act. But clearly there is more work to be done,
including when it comes to the responsibility of Federal
contractors. Today we will discuss how all stakeholders must
engage with one another and with the Antarctic community.
Companies have a responsibility to protect employee privacy.
However, NSF must have the necessary information to keep people
safe, and to keep offenders off the ice.
The SAHPR (SAPER) report may be focused on Antarctica, but
these problems plague field sites beyond that continent. I hope
the CHIPS & Science provisions, and what we learn today, serve
as a foundation for further action. I've been heartened by the
bipartisan action this Committee has taken to address sexual
harassment. It is my hope that this work will continue into the
next Congress.
Finally, before I yield to Ranking Member Lucas for his
statement, I'd just like to close by noting that this is the
last full committee hearing that the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee will hold in the 117th Congress. It is
also the last hearing that I will chair as a Member of
Congress. Given that, I just want to take a moment to express
my deep appreciation to Members and staff on both sides of the
aisle for all they have done to make this one of the most
productive Congresses that this Committee has ever had. And in
that regard, I want to give a special thanks to Ranking Member
Lucas. He has been a constructive partner in what I've tried to
accomplish, as well as a good friend. I am confident he will
continue the bipartisan approach to the Committee in the 118th
Congress that we've had over the past two congresses. And he
knows I will be watching him to make sure that he does!.
Chairwoman Johnson. And with that, I will yield to my
colleague Ranking Member Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank
you for holding this important hearing. Today's hearing shines
a light on the concerning findings from the recent report
commissioned by the National Science Foundation. The report
found that there is a rampant culture of sexual harassment and
assault in the remote research environment of Antarctica. As I
have said before, sexual harassment and gender discrimination
are unacceptable in any situation, period. It's wrong, it's
illegal, and it's imperative that we end it.
The report we are discussing today details a troubling
culture at the United States Antarctic program. The program
operates three year-round research stations and provides
logistics support for field research. Each year, 3,500
Americans are involved in the program's research and logistical
activities. This includes teams of researchers, students,
Federal contractors, and military members.
Before diving into the report, I want to recognize that the
research conducted on the ice is vitally important to the
understanding of our planet and to our Nation's scientific
leadership. The Antarctic presents a unique climate and
environment that will allow us to conduct research that cannot
be performed anywhere else in the world, such as detecting
neutrinos.
In 2009, I visited the Antarctic to view the research
facilities and environment. This trip provided me with
perspective on the importance of research being conducted there
but also the environmental challenges of such remote fieldwork,
which are hard to understand without experiencing them
firsthand. It is the stark isolation of the Antarctic
environment that makes the report's findings particularly
concerning.
According to the report, insufficient safety precautions,
failures in broadband connectivity, and a lack of clear,
transparent reporting structures have all contributed to an
unsafe culture at the Antarctic research facilities. The
science community faces unique challenges when it comes to
addressing harassment, particularly in remote field stations.
Individuals working in science who are affected by sexual
harassment and discrimination can suffer long-term harm to
their education and careers, as well as to their mental and
physical well-being. While we can't lose sight of the
individual cost, we must also think about the cost to our
society and the economy as a whole. Engaging more women in STEM
(science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) studies and
careers is essential to American competitiveness. If we want to
have the strongest STEM workforce in the world, it is vital
that our research environments foster a safe and accountable
culture.
I want to acknowledge some of the efforts that have been
undertaken at the NSF since the report's release to improve the
culture of the U.S. Antarctic Program. NSF took positive steps
by commissioning this report and seriously addressing its
findings. I'm pleased that NSF plans to increase training and
vetting for individuals going to the ice and to establish a
reporting hotline. I urge NSF to remain attentive to these
issues not only in Antarctica, but also other remote field work
environments.
The Science Committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to
address these issues, such as harassment and discrimination in
science. Products of our work were included in the recently
passed CHIPS & Science Act. However, the report we're
discussing today demonstrates that there's still more work to
do, particularly on addressing the issues of harassment in the
field.
Today's hearing will raise some difficult questions, many
without easy answers. How do we address these issues both
fairly and safely? How do we navigate policies for remote field
environments that are vastly different from each other? How do
we navigate different command structures between the NSF,
contractors, military members, and visiting scientists? I hope
our witnesses and other stakeholders can help us navigate these
questions. I'm looking forward to hearing more about how we can
address the findings of the report to ensure that the Antarctic
research program is safe for everyone living and working on the
ice.
Now, if I could take a moment of personal privilege, as the
Chairwoman noted, this is our last hearing together, Full
Committee hearing in this session of Congress. And I'd like to
take this opportunity to thank the Chairwoman for her
leadership and partnership on this issue, as well as so many
others. Chair, I think it goes without saying but I'm going to
note it, it has truly been an honor to serve with you, and I
wish you all the best in whatever lies ahead of you. I have a
hard time believing that retirement means retirement with you,
but whatever lies ahead, the best of wishes and I have the
highest of expectations about what you will accomplish there,
too. Again, thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for holding this
hearing, and I yield back the balance of my time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lucas follows:]
Good morning, Chairwoman Johnson, and thank you for holding
this important hearing. Today's hearing shines a light on the
concerning findings from the recent report commissioned by the
National Science Foundation. The report found that there is a
rampant culture of sexual harassment and assault in the remote
research environment of Antarctica.
As I have said before, sexual harassment and gender
discrimination are unacceptable in any situation. Period. It is
wrong, it is illegal, and it is imperative that we end it.
The report we are discussing today details a troubling
culture in the United States Antarctic Program.
This program operates three year-round research stations
and provides logistical support for field research. Each year
about 3,500 Americans are involved in the program's research
and logistical activities. This includes teams of researchers,
students, federal contractors, and military members.
Before diving into the report, I want to recognize that the
research conducted on the ice is vitally important to the
understanding of our planet, and to our nation's scientific
leadership. The Antarctic presents a unique climate and
environment that allow us to conduct research that cannot be
performed anywhere else in the world--such as detecting
neutrinos.
In 2009, I visited Antarctica to view the research
facilities and environment. This trip provided me perspective
on the importance of research being conducted, but also the
environmental challenges of such remote field work, which are
hard to understand without experiencing them first-hand. It is
the stark isolation of the Antarctic environment that makes the
report's findings particularly concerning.
According to the report, insufficient safety precautions,
failures in broadband connectivity, and a lack of clear,
transparent reporting structures have all contributed to an
unsafe culture at the Antarctic research facilities.
The science community faces unique challenges when it comes
to addressing harassment, particularly in remote field
stations. Individuals working in science who are affected by
sexual harassment and discrimination can suffer long-term harm
to their education and careers, as well as to their mental and
physical well-being.
While we can't lose sight of the individual cost, we must
also think about the cost to our society and the economy as a
whole. Engaging more women in STEM studies and careers is
essential to American competitiveness.
If we want to have the strongest STEM workforce in the
world, it is vital that our research environments foster a safe
and accountable culture.
I want to acknowledge some of the efforts that have taken
place at NSF since the report's release to improve the culture
at the U.S. Antarctic Program.
NSF took positive steps by commissioning this report and
seriously addressing its findings. I'm pleased that NSF plans
to increase training and vetting for individuals going to the
ice, and to establish a reporting hotline.
I urge NSF to remain attentive to these issues not only in
Antarctica, but also at other remote field work environments.
The Science Committee has worked on a bipartisan basis to
address issues such as harassment and discrimination in
science. Products of our work were included in the recently
passed CHIPS and Science Act.
However, the report we are discussing today demonstrates
that there is still more work to do, particularly on addressing
issues of harassment in the field.
Today's hearing will raise some difficult questions--many
without easy answers.
How do we address these issues both fairly and safely? How
do we navigate policies for remote field environments that are
vastly different from each other? How do we navigate different
command structures between NSF contractors, military members,
and visiting scientists?
I hope our witnesses and other stakeholders can help us
navigate these questions. I am looking forward to hearing more
about how we can address the findings in the report to ensure
the Antarctic research program is safe for everyone living and
working on the ice.
If I may take a moment of personal privilege. As this is
our last hearing together, I'd like to take this opportunity to
thank the Chairwoman for her leadership and partnership on this
issue, as well as many others. It has truly been an honor to
serve with you and I wish you all the best in your retirement.
Again, thank you Chairwoman Johnson for holding this
hearing and I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
If there are Members who wish to submit additional opening
statements, your statements will be added to the record at this
point.
At this time, I'd like to introduce our witnesses. Our
first witness, Dr. Karen Marrongelle, the Chief Operating
Officer of the National Science Foundation. In this role, she
oversees operations of the agency and its missions. Prior to
this role, she served as Assistant Director of Education and
Human Resources Directorate at the NSF and as the Dean of the
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Portland State
University.
Our next witness, Ms. Kathleen Naeher, Ms. Naeher is the
Chief Operating Officer of the Civil Group of Leidos. In this
role, she works with the Civil Group leadership team to drive
operational performance and alignment with the annual operating
plan and market strategies. Prior to this position, she served
for more than 35 years at the Central Intelligence Agency
(CIA), most recently as CIA's Associate Deputy Director of
Digital Innovation.
Our third witness Dr. Angela Olinto, Dr. Olinto is the Dean
of Division of Physical Sciences and the Albert Michelson
Distinguished Service Professor at the University of Chicago,
which manages the South Pole Telescope. At the University of
Chicago she was the first woman to receive tenure in the
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics and the first woman to
become Chair of any department in the Physical Sciences
Division, and the first woman to become Dean of Physical
Sciences Division.
Our next witness, Dr. Anne Kelly, Dr. Kelly is presently
the Deputy Director of the Nature Conservancy in her home State
of Alaska. Prior to this role, she served on-site as the
Director of Research and Education at Cal State University's
Desert Studies Center. She also served as the Director of UC's
(University of California's) Merced field station at Yosemite
and Sequoia National Parks. Dr. Kelly gained experience
fighting harassment in STEM as a board member of the
Organization of Biological Field Stations, a team member of the
ADVANCEGeo project, and through advocacy and policy development
at the USGS (United States Geological Survey) and several
universities.
Our witnesses should know that you will each have five
minutes for your spoken testimony. Your written testimony will
be included in the record for the hearing. So when you have
completed your spoken testimony, we will begin questions. Each
Member will have five minutes to question the panel.
Dr. Marrongelle?
TESTIMONY OF DR. KAREN MARRONGELLE,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER,
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
Dr. Marrongelle. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Johnson,
Ranking Member Lucas, and Members of the Committee. My name is
Dr. Karen Marrongelle, and I'm the Chief Operating Officer at
the National Science Foundation.
I would like to start by thanking this Committee for the
continued strong support of the NSF. Your leadership in passing
the CHIPS & Science Act will ensure that the United States
remains the global leader in research and innovation for
generations to come.
We have to recognize that in order to fully engage this
Nation's incredible talent, we must ensure that our research
environments, from the lab to the most remote field sites, are
free of harassment and provide the safety and support necessary
to allow ingenuity and innovation to flourish. NSF does not
tolerate harassment in any research setting. It is because of
our deep commitment to this principle that NSF commissioned the
``Sexual Assault and Harassment Prevention and Response''
report for NSF's U.S. Antarctic Program in order to address and
understand what is not working. We are proud to be a leader in
taking proactive approaches to address harassment, and we will
continue to endeavor to eliminate sexual harassment within the
science and engineering community. The report is deeply
troubling and demonstrates a need to fundamentally change the
culture and practices that govern research in Antarctica.
As a female mathematician and leader in STEM, I know too
well the challenges individuals can face as a result of actions
from some members of the scientific community. There are few
locations that are as important to our understanding of the
world around us as the Antarctic continent. Since 1956,
Americans have been studying the Antarctic and its interactions
with the rest of the planet and taking advantage of the unique
atmosphere to study the cosmos. The community consists of
almost 3,000 people who travel to the ice every year, from
researchers to support personnel and contractors, staff from
multiple Federal agencies, and military personnel. NSF is
extremely proud of the U.S. Antarctic Program and the people
who make up this incredible community. However, the report also
showed us that we need to take swift action to address very
troubling reports of assault and harassment and an environment
that was hostile for many individuals.
Shortly after receiving the report, NSF leadership directed
an agencywide response to take the actions necessary to
systematically address the findings, implement near-term
solutions, and evaluate longer-term needs and actions. Most
importantly, the safety of all deployers was and continues to
be our highest priority. Each of the steps NSF has taken, and
our progress to date is detailed in my written testimony.
However, I would like to highlight just a few.
First, we took swift action to reassess the terms of NSF's
Antarctic Support Contract (ASC). This action included the
negotiation and implementation of new contract terms with
Leidos. Those modifications are aimed at ensuring ethical
conduct, screening of personnel, and oversight. In addition,
NSF established a sexual assault and harassment prevention and
response support office in order to provide the necessary
resources to support deployed personnel on matters relating to
sexual assault and harassment and to remove barriers and
provide an independent line of reporting for victims of sexual
assault and harassment matters.
NSF is enacting a multifaceted plan that targets
prevention, uses up-to-date training methods, and addresses the
complexity of reporting incidents where multiple employers and
agencies intersect. In addition, we are working to create an
environment which empowers deployers to speak up when they see
or experience sexual assault or harassment and empowers
management to take swift and appropriate action.
We will be conducting annual climate surveys to help us
understand if our actions are contributing to a culture shift
and what, if anything, we need to change. NSF will continue to
take steps to ensure that all research environments are free of
harassment in any form and that research can thrive in
collaborative, supportive, and safe environments.
Transformational change requires a community effort. We can
set the tone for the changes we expect to see, but we need
partners in realizing our vision. NSF is committed to working
with the entire community to take the steps necessary to
eliminate sexual assault and harassment at our Antarctic
stations, vessels, and field camps. We appreciate the continued
strong support of this Committee and look forward to working
with you to address this important issue. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Marrongelle follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.021
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Kathleen Naeher.
TESTIMONY OF MS. KATHLEEN NAEHER,
CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER OF THE CIVIL GROUP, LEIDOS
Ms. Naeher. Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member Lucas, and
Members of the Committee, my name is Kathleen Naeher, and I'm
the Chief Operating Officer in the Civil Group at Leidos.
Leidos appreciates the Committee holding this important hearing
and is deeply committed to working in partnership with the
National Science Foundation and this Committee to address
concerns about sexual harassment for those deployed to
Antarctica.
I help to oversee our work in Antarctica and in connection
with the Antarctic Support Contract. I have been closely
involved in our efforts to address the important issues the
Committee is exploring today. Let me be crystal clear. There is
no place for harassment of any sort in any workplace, be it on
ice or elsewhere.
As a company with a long history of providing technology,
engineering, and scientific experience to our customers,
including the Federal Government, Leidos is committed to doing
everything possible to provide a safe and secure workplace
wherever we operate. Since 2018, Leidos has been recognized by
Ethisphere as one of the world's most ethical companies.
Leidos is proud to partner with the NSF to support the
United States Antarctic Program and the important work being
conducted. As a prime contractor to NSF, Leidos does not
oversee or perform scientific research. Instead, our role is to
provide the support services that allow the scientists on the
ice to do their work. The jobs Leidos and its subcontractors do
represent a wide range of trades and skills, including
engineers, waste management, construction workers, medical
professionals, fire and rescue, cooks and kitchen workers,
janitorial services, logistics specialists, mechanics, air
support, finance, HVAC (heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning) specialists, and many others. We essentially run
a small town, all to support the science being conducted there.
Before coming to Leidos, I spent over 30 years at the CIA,
where I worked in difficult and demanding settings around the
world, including in multiple war zones. Even when compared to
those locations, Antarctica presents complex and unique
challenges, which I saw firsthand when I was on ice last month.
Given the extremely remote and harsh conditions, working in
Antarctica is difficult and isolating. Connectivity is limited,
making communications difficult. Because people working in this
remote environment share living and working spaces for months
at a time, it is hard to have private time or separation from
your coworkers. Further complicating the environment, there are
a number of different stakeholders operating alongside each
other. While a number of people work in the same setting or
location, they report to different employers or agencies even
with each with its own requirements, expectations, and policies
for addressing workplace matters on ice.
Though the complicated nature of the work environment
presents unique complexities as it relates to workplace safety,
including with respect to preventing and reporting harassment,
we take all reports of potential misconduct seriously. Since
becoming NSF's prime contractor in Antarctica in 2016, Leidos
has taken a number of steps to improve the culture and
conditions on ice and to foster a safe and protective
workplace. For example, in 2019 Leidos strengthened
requirements relating to prevention and response training for
sexual harassment and assault, including providing ally
training to station leadership and subcontract line managers.
In 2020, Leidos deployed a full-time counselor onsite to
provide counseling services to all people deployed on ice,
including grantees, NSF, and military personnel. Leidos added
workshops addressing workplace culture in 2020, and in 2021, we
established the ASC Inclusion Council and our ASC HR (human
resources) managers received certifications as victims'
advocates.
After receiving the SAHPR report this summer, we continued
our efforts to improve the culture and conditions on ASC in
coordination with the NSF. This issue has the attention of the
highest levels of Leidos. In particular, the company
established a task force in July 2022 to address the specific
concerns raised in the SAHPR report. The resulting action plan
includes multiple ongoing workstreams focused on enhancing
harassment prevention training; encouraging reporting of
concerns; improving physical safety, including for grantees
working in the field; and collaborating with their subcontract
teams to strengthen and improve consistency in report--and
responding to reports of sexual harassment and assault.
In conclusion, I was inspired during my recent visit to see
the level of dedication to the mission among the staff in
Antarctica. Leidos shares this commitment, both to the mission
and to ensuring a safe environment for those living and working
there. We are pleased to partner with NSF to continue to make
progress in this area so that the important scientific work in
Antarctica can continue free from harassment of any kind.
I would like to reiterate my thanks to the Committee for
addressing this important issue and to Chairwoman Johnson for
her leadership throughout her career. We at Leidos wish you the
best in your upcoming retirement. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Naeher follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.024
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Dr. Angela Olinto.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ANGELA V. OLINTO,
DEAN OF THE PHYSICAL SCIENCES DIVISION
AND ALBERT A. MICHELSON DISTINGUISHED
SERVICE PROFESSOR, UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
Dr. Olinto. Thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking Member
Lucas, and Members of the Committee. Thank you for your
leadership and for inviting me to share the importance of
building a safer Antarctic research environment from a U.S.
research university's perspective. I'm Angela Olinto, the Dean
of the Physical Sciences Division at the University of Chicago.
Some of the field-defining projects in our division can
only be done in the Antarctic continent. These projects range
from small teams studying the ice sheets in Antarctica, the
world-leading astronomical observatories at the South Pole, and
sponsored scientific balloon by NASA (National Aeronautics and
Space Administration). NASA launches our instruments from
McMurdo because it enables them to fly for weeks to months
around the Antarctic continent following the polar vortex
winds. The South Pole is one of the best places on Earth to
study the universe because it is about 9,300 feet in elevation
with a very dry and thin atmosphere and 6 months of darkness
during the polar winter.
For decades, researchers from the University of Chicago and
many other institutions have led observatories at the pole to
significantly advanced the field of cosmology and astroparticle
physics. Today, our researchers operate the powerful South Pole
Telescope with its third-generation camera and are part of the
impressive IceCube Neutrino Observatory.
Two of the top priorities from the most recent decadal
survey in astronomy and astrophysics conducted by the National
Academy of Sciences will be located at the South Pole, CMB-S4
and IceCube-Gen2. These work to understand the earliest moments
of the universe and the highest energy events in the universe.
These cutting-edge research projects could not be done without
the continued support of Congress, NSF, NASA, and the U.S.
Antarctic Program. The wide scientific community and human
curiosity in general are extremely grateful to these
institutions for supporting these unique opportunities to
understand our origins, our place in the universe, and the
dynamics and limits of the planet we call home.
Given our strong commitment to supporting an inclusive
environment for the diverse set of creative minds who want to
contribute to these groundbreaking scientific efforts, it was
with great concern that we learned about the findings of the
``Sexual Assault/Harassment Prevention and Response'' report.
As a woman in a historically male-dominated field, the
unwelcome environment for women in STEM has been an important
issue throughout my career. When I was a Ph.D. at MIT
(Massachusetts Institute of Technology), we were only 3 percent
women. Now I'm happy to report that women Ph.D. students in our
division have reached 35 percent, and women faculty are about
20 percent. Women scientists have become leaders of many of the
field-defining efforts at remote locations like Antarctica. We
need to work harder to eradicate sexual harassment and any
other kind of discrimination, harassment, or assault in STEM
fields.
When I learned about the report, I consulted with some of
our researchers about their own experiences in the Antarctic
continent. Unfortunately, they were not surprised by the report
findings. We commend NSF Office of Polar Program for engaging
with subject matter experts to examine the sexual harassment
and assault concerns in the USAP community and to identify
corrective actions to improve the climate and trust in the
community. We agree with the recommendations to improve
communications, increase engagement, enhance education and
training, strengthen reporting infrastructure and
accountability, provide support to victims, and probe more
deeply into policies and mechanisms aimed at prevention.
Universities and research teams also need to do more. The
potential for unacceptable behavior can occur in other remote
locations that share the characteristics of the Antarctic field
work, geographical isolation, limited communication, and
unclear hierarchical power dynamics. We want to reiterate to
all our community that discrimination, harassment, or assault
in any setting is unacceptable and unlawful. All our community
members are expected to abide by the university's policy on
discrimination, harassment, and sexual misconduct while
performing remote fieldwork.
We are working to better prepare our community to be in
remote locations. We now have a remote field research website
with resources. We will provide some training for team leaders
and ombudspeople that--on best practices before their trips.
Improved communications between these points of contact and the
institutions involved in the remote field research is very
important for changing the culture and preventing unacceptable
and unlawful behaviors such as discrimination, harassment, or
assault.
The astonishing discoveries that can only be done in remote
locations will continue to captivate the public and inspire
future generations of diverse minds to study scientific and
technical fields that will further enrich the prosperity of
this great Nation. We need to do our best to provide the most
welcoming and safe environments for all involved in expanding
our scientific knowledge.
Thank you for listening. I'll be pleased to answer
questions. Thanks.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Olinto follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T9691.028
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
And our final witness, Dr. Anne Kelly.
TESTIMONY OF DR. ANNE KELLY, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
THE NATURE CONSERVANCY ALASKA CHAPTER
Dr. Kelly. Hello, and thank you to Representative Johnson
and the Committee for inviting me today. And I thank you all
for your leadership and effort toward making a safer workplace
for scientists. I'm Anne Kelly, the Deputy Director for the
Nature Conservancy Alaska.
I'm here to tell you that Antarctica is not an isolated
problem, and I'm here to share with you how we can make
meaningful change to prevent this. Surveys show that most field
researchers experience harassment or assault. Harassment in the
field can cause profound damage to scientists' health, psyche,
and careers we've heard about today. Harassers more frequently
target junior scientists, women, racial minorities, and queer
scientists, driving underrepresented scientists out of their
research careers. Harassment damages the potential of diverse
scientists and the endeavor of science itself.
The conditions that promote harassment in Antarctica are
found in nearly every small field camp, large field station,
and ocean research vessel. Strong hierarchies, remoteness and
isolation, difficult physical conditions, macho work cultures,
and a lack of institutional support are the norm for field
researchers everywhere. Harassment in the field takes many
forms. The horrific harassment and assault in the Antarctic
report is only the tip of the iceberg. Far more common are the
daily aggressions of insults, exclusions, and threats.
Scientists are told to toughen up, fall in line, and stay quiet
to prove their worth.
As a researcher for the U.S. Geological Survey, my
colleagues and I investigated anti-harassment policies. For
months, our emails to EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission) went unanswered. Our voicemails to whistleblower
hotlines were never returned. Support websites were outdated
and broken. Policies to support field scientists were
nonexistent, so we created a few of our own. While Director of
three remote field stations, I led several international
initiatives to change field culture and to fight harassment,
including development of policies for dozens of field research
stations. I also collaborate with a geoscience team to train
academics nationwide to fight harassment in field research.
My colleagues and I have been pushing change from the
grassroots by developing our own tools to help us survive.
Ultimately, accountability for real change lies with the
institutional leaders. To provide leadership with guidance for
change, the NSF funded Dr. Kristen Yarincik, then at the Center
for Ocean Leadership, and myself to lead development of robust
recommendations for institutional change in field and ocean
research. We convened 70 experts to develop recommendations for
preventing and responding to harassment in field science.
The group identified 52 best practices for institutions to
address harassment in the field. The recommendations provide
meaningful results through institutional structural change
rather than relying on your good intentions. Findings targeted
four major topics. First, field climate and culture change;
second, accountability; and third, policy development; and the
fourth, reporting.
So for field climate and culture change, hostile climate is
the greatest factor in enabling harassment and assault.
Behavioral standards must be defined, communicated, and
normalized, much like job safety standards. These standards
must be included in hiring, evaluations, promotion, and tenure.
Poor behavior must be acted on. As with other safety
assessments, conduct risk assessments around harassment and
assault.
For accountability, permissive environments lead to more
harassment and a reluctance of targets to report. Institutions
must hold research leaders accountable for safe and equitable
work environments. Leadership must develop protocols for safe
and equitable practices. They must train workers and hold them
accountable for those practices; create, publicize, and enforce
consequences; create protections for targets of harassment and
repair harms; hold all relevant institutional jurisdictions
responsible.
Third, policy must set explicit standards for behavior in
the field for reporting and recordkeeping of incidents and for
clear consequences for harassment. Safety nets must be created
for targets of harassment. Policies that are meaningfully
enforced give targets incentive to report and remove implicit
permission for harassment and other bad behavior.
Finally, reporting: Reporting in remote research is
challenging due to unclear jurisdictions and the lack of
communications reporting avenues. Allow multiple mechanisms for
communication for unrestricted private use, like making radios
and sat phones available to contact help. Have multiple avenues
reporting--for reporting, including multiple contacts onsite
and offsite from all jurisdictions. Create reporting and
recordkeeping for minor and major transgressions.
Best practices don't rely on retraining individuals'
attitudes and asking them to do better. Good institutional
structures and incentives make it possible to do the right
thing. Invest real resources to build and support these
critical institutional structures.
Our culture of harassment is as pervasive as the air we
breathe, so it can be hard to imagine something different. I
urge this Committee to push research institutions so the
scientific community can thrive and rise to the many challenges
facing our society and our planet. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Kelly follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
At this point, we will begin our first round of questions,
and the Chair recognizes herself for five minutes.
Dr. Marrongelle, this report identified a number of
shortcomings in the USAP. One of the primary concerns is the
National Science Foundation's access to information involving
cross-jurisdictional incidents. There's a troubling
profession--perception that NSF has been willfully unaware of
the problem. Some feel NSF has been hiding behind contract for
HR policies to avoid accountability. Now, I understand that NSF
has since taken steps to modify its contract with Leidos, but
in my view, more needs to be done.
As the Federal agency charged with managing USAP, NSF
should have the information and leverage it needs to ensure the
environment is safe for all participants. Do you see the
upcoming recompete for the Antarctica Support Contract as an
opportunity to make significant changes to the contract terms?
And if so, what changes are you exploring?
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman, for that
question. Yes. As you know, we have already put into place
contract modifications with the existing Leidos contract in
response to what we heard from the SAHPR report. As we think
forward to the re-competition, we're going to take the lessons
learned from the modifications that we made and in the
intervening upcoming months, we'll look at how those
modifications are taking place, and the impact that they're
having on personnel vetting, on response times to allegations,
and, importantly, on the management of subcontractors. We
intend to continue to learn over the next several months and
roll those learnings into the next re-compete of the next
Antarctic contract.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Ms. Naeher, is
Leidos open to firmer contract terms that clarify your
responsibility for maintaining a safe environment. What are you
planning, and what is Leidos planning to compete for that
contract and--that expires in 2025?
Ms. Naeher. Chairwoman, so we partner and collaborate with
NSF consistently throughout to--and we're--to make sure we have
a safe environment for all our employees. We're open to
anything that creates a safer and healthier environment. We
would show the things that we've already started, the HR
consortium, the increased contact with our subcontractors, the
on-ice counselor, the things that we've done in the past and
that we continue to do in partnership with NSF so that NSF
would be confident in our ability to create that environment on
ice.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. Any further
testimony that anyone would like to give related to this issue?
Well, thank you very much. I now recognize Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Dr. Marrongelle, thank you for appearing before us today on
behalf of the NSF. I'd like to ask you about the NFS--NSF's
strategy to address the findings of the report. What short-term
actions has NF-NSF taken in response to the finding of the
report?
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you for that question. We have eight
actions that we are focused on in the short term, and I'll
review those. The first--I must say that our primary focus is
to take care of victims, and so these actions are victim-
focused. So first is to outline a single communication point at
NSF for sexual assault and harassment matters. And to that end,
we have stood up an Office of Sexual Assault and Harassment
Prevention and Response within the foundation. In the short
term, this office is strategically focused on the Antarctic
continent, but we intend to broaden this office to take a
further look at all research vessels, field sites, and
infrastructure anywhere where science is taking place.
The next is specific resources for victims on the ice. We
now have an on-ice advocate whose job on the ice at McMurdo
Station is to provide counseling and support specifically for
sexual assault and harassment. We've received already reports
back that the presence of that advocate has been game changing
for the work that's going on there.
Third, we have an increased presence in visits to the ice.
The on-ice advocate, in addition to some of senior personnel
from NSF, conducted seven listening sessions for community
input to further gather information about our plans moving
forward and the gaps in those plans, what we need to change
moving forward.
Fourth, we've increased the vetting for any personnel who
are traveling to the ice. This was part of what we did with the
contract modifications but also our internal processes. So at
this point, individuals who are traveling to the ice receive
vetting that's equivalent to Federal employees.
Fifth is accountability. We've established points of
contact with senior leadership at all of our partner
institutions, Leidos, and other Federal agencies who have a
presence and provide us services on the ice. The reason for
that is so we have someone that we can go to at the top in
addition to staff members so that if issues are coming up that
are not getting resolved, we have the commitment and buy-in
from top-level leadership at these organizations.
We've also improved training. We have new training modules
for all individuals who travel to Antarctica. There's a focus
this year on bystander intervention, and we will be reviewing
the impact of those modules and revising as necessary moving
forward. We've already received some great input on how to do
that.
We've also enhanced physical safety measures. One of the
key findings from the SAHPR report pointed out some of the
limitations of the physical infrastructure in Antarctica. And
so, for instance, we are ensuring by the end of this season
that keyholes, or peepholes, will be installed in all doors at
all stations for living quarters. We've also enhanced the
security clearances for those who have access to master keys.
We have instituted additional satellite phones for those in
remote field stations so that at least two of those
communication devices are sent out with every field team.
And then finally, the Director has instituted a taskforce
on sexual assault and harassment at NSF. I chair that task
force. We meet weekly. Again, currently, our focus is acutely
on the situation in Antarctica. As we start to see the effects
of what we've been doing in Antarctica to make changes, we'll
be revising--but then also broadening--this to other field
stations and institutes.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you. And in my remaining time, Ms. Naeher,
can you describe what specific policies or procedures that
Leidos has changed since the release of the report?
Ms. Naeher. Thank you. So Leidos has always had strong
policies and procedures in place to make sure the workplace is
safe and harassment-free. So since the report, we reinvigorated
our HR Consortium, which was a group of all the different
subcontractors, just to ensure that everybody was applying
policies consistently across the board, and we--it was a way
for us to share best practices and also to increase that
communication that the report showed was needed.
We also work very closely on implementing some of the
changes that NSF has just identified, and we can--we'll
continue to do that.
Mr. Lucas. Thank you, Madam Chair. Looks like my time has
expired.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Now, Ms. Sherrill.
Ms. Sherrill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
You know, I found that answer a bit unsatisfactory from Ms.
Naeher that Leidos has always had strong policies in place to
make sure the workplace is harassment-free because obviously
those policies didn't work to make sure the workplace was
harassment-free, so I definitely think we need to move in a
better direction. And I think the first part of that is
admitting that we have a problem here.
From my time in the military, we do have a lot of places
that we operate in the military that are very isolated, and
we've had problems historically. Is there training? Because I
do worry that some of these research scientists maybe have not
had the position of leadership or management that they are now
being put in to ensure because a lot of this starts at the top,
as we all know. If you have a good command structure, that
often can protect people below. Is there good training going on
to ensure that new leaders understand their role and can ensure
that people below them are protected and safe?
Dr. Marrongelle. I'll start with that. It's such a great
question. We've specifically included bystander training in our
training materials this year, as I had mentioned, and some of
what we've learned from the listening sessions is that we need
to, moving forward, have individualized training for different
sets of individuals on the ice. For instance, for managers and
supervisors, what they can do to recognize retaliation if
that's happening, to combat retaliation if that's happening and
then similarly, for our senior scientists who are leading
research teams, so we know that we have more work to do in that
space. I think some of the actions that my colleagues have
pointed out are really moving in that direction, and we have
some great models from the University of Chicago for how we can
provide that training to not only the senior level PIs
(principal investigators) but also graduate students and
postdocs and others who may need to take on leadership roles as
they are traveling in teams to the ice.
Dr. Olinto. I think that one of the challenges that we were
talking just before this hearing is the communications. I think
we have infrastructures and institutions to address some of the
issues, but when you have a small team in an isolated place, it
can become unclear who to go to. And many things don't get
talked to, and there's an atmosphere that that's the way it is,
right? So we need to break that cycle. And we have been doing
on our end, making sure there's always an obvious point of
contact. Sometimes it's the PI, but sometimes the PI is not
there. Sometimes it's a postdoc, sometimes it's a senior
graduate student, to make sure that within the science
community we have the person who will be watching and will be
able to know what to do.
And then given--hopefully, nothing happens. But if
something happens, they know exactly how to contact NSF or
Leidos or whoever is involved in that situation. So I think the
communication lines, we are working hard to make that more
clear, and Antarctica is a really good place to focus. But this
happens in other places, too, and so as an institution, we want
to broaden that ability to understand your responsibility. We
are all responsible.
Ms. Sherrill. And it sounds like you're doing some training
to help leaders know who to go to. Does every individual know
who they go to? So for--if, for example, I experience sexual
assault or harassment, would I know exactly who I could report
that to to receive help?
Dr. Olinto. Let me answer on the scientist side. I think
that that wasn't true before this report. There is a
camaraderie between the groups that go together, but nobody was
necessarily responsible, at least within small groups, to be
the one except for the PI, but the PI might not be there. So
that's one of the things we're fixing, right? So I think that
is crucial. But there are many other communities that have,
like the contractors and others, but in the science roles, for
sure.
Dr. Kelly. Yes, I want to add, too--sorry--that often it's
the leadership themselves that are conducting the harassment.
And, you know, one of the necessary support structures that
needs to be built here is that there are alternative reporting
mechanisms and that the leadership of any one team is not the
gatekeeper for reporting.
Ms. Sherrill. I think that's a great point. I think there
has to be an understanding of who needs to be reported to but
then alternatives to that. And it sounds as if, while the
scientific community is taking this very seriously, I do have
some concerns about Leidos and their contractors. And if they
have a plan for any of these things, I have not heard that
today. But it looks like my time is about to expire, so I yield
back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Mr. Posey.
Mr. Posey. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you also for
your years of leadership, fair and handed leadership. I don't
know anyone who doesn't appreciate it.
Dr. Marrongelle, a number of witnesses' testimonies
discussed the presence of other Federal agencies on the ice.
Could you provide some insight into how the National Science
Foundation coordinates with those other Federal agencies like
NASA and NOAA, as well as Federal contractors, when making
policies on the ice?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes, absolutely. In this specific
situation, the Director and myself, we have reached out to our
equivalents at the other Federal agencies, so specifically,
NASA, NOAA, the Air Force, and the Navy. We have talked with
them about the seriousness of the findings in this report and
given them insight into the steps that we're taking moving
forward. We've also asked them to identify members of their
staffs that can act as points of contact specifically when and
if allegations of sexual assault and harassment come in.
Generally, we do have ongoing relationships with program
managers at the other Federal agencies. As we are developing
new policies, new procedures, we have ongoing consultation with
them.
Also, add that our colleagues have been wonderful in
sharing their findings and best practices in these areas of
sexual assault and harassment with us. We are currently
reviewing those documents and understanding what we can do--so
we don't need to reinvent the wheel--what we can take from our
partner agencies and apply those learnings to the situation.
Mr. Posey. Thank you. As a follow up, has the National
Science Foundation shared the ``Sexual Assault/Harassment
Prevention and Response'' report and its findings with other
Federal agencies?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes. And in fact, this is on our website,
so anyone from the public can access it.
Mr. Posey. Excellent. And how is the National Science
Foundation planning to coordinate on the implementation of the
new policies resulting from the report with other Federal
agencies in Antarctica?
Dr. Marrongelle. Right. Those points of contact are
critical. It was really important to the Director and I that we
set the tone from the top that NSF has no tolerance for
harassment and that we expect the same of our partners. We'll
be coordinating primarily through those points of contact at
the more programmatic levels and throughout the agencies. And,
if needed, the Director and I will step in to get involved if
that's called for.
Mr. Posey. That's excellent. I see my time has expired.
Madam Chair, I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Ms. Stevens is recognized.
Ms. Stevens. Thank you. And before I start my line of
questioning, I've waited a long time to do this. When
Chairwoman Johnson announced her retirement, the following
Committee hearing everyone celebrated her, but I decided I was
going to wait to the last Committee hearing of the 117th
Congress that she was chairing to salute and recognize her
incredible leadership as Chair of the Science, Space, and
Technology Committee. It has been my deep honor to serve
alongside you, Madam Chair, and as your Vice Chair, and we will
forever look back on the imprint that you have made on this
Nation and for women in STEM. Thank you.
And with that, Ms. Naeher, OK, this hearing is an
opportunity to discuss the issue of sexual harassment. And the
SAHPR report, it was shocking to read. And obviously, it should
have been a wakeup call for you, the National Science
Foundation, and anyone that deploys people to the Arctic, and
certainly appreciate you making an appearance. But I think you
got 500 words here maybe in your testimony, and so I'm a little
disappointed by the level of detail that you have offered in
your statement. And you just touched upon the steps that Leidos
has been taking since reviewing the report. So I just wanted to
give you an opportunity to be a little bit more specific here.
What are you doing to encourage reporting? Have you addressed
the distrust of HR by altering the reporting pipeline or
offering alternative reporting procedures? And are you
recruiting a better crop of HR personnel and training them
properly?
Ms. Naeher. Thank you very much for the opportunity to add
some more here on what we've been doing. So I was very pleased
when I was just on ice recently. There could be no doubt in
anyone's mind how serious everyone is taking this. From the
moment I found I was going and went through the mandatory
training that has to take both here at Leidos and from NSF, you
can see the concern and the effort that is being put forward to
make sure everyone is aware of the situation and ways to combat
harassment. This training, my cohort that had to take it to New
Zealand was extremely engaged across the board. People were
offering suggestions, offering what they would do as a
bystander, making sure everyone knew different avenues that
they could report. So the signage as well down on ice, people
know harassment of any type is not tolerated and where to go to
report it.
In addition to that, we stood up an oversight board after
the SAHPR report came out. We shared everybody's concern when
we read the report, immediately convened a task force here as
to how we could address it. We had people in all different work
streams here, so we had our contracts people involved, legal
involved, ethics, HR certainly, policy, subcontracts. We came
up with six different work streams that we are addressing. I
mentioned some of them in my statement. You'll see in there
about increasing communication and collaboration with our subs,
increasing the awareness of reporting options. And we'll
continue to work these. This oversight board meets every two
weeks where we gauge progress, see if we have the right actions
that need to be completed, and then we are constantly in
coordination with NSF sharing where we are in this aspect.
Ms. Stevens. And can you just touch on the physical safety
improvements that have been made?
Ms. Naeher. Yes, so there's three, I think, major ones,
so--and I believe NSF mentioned them, some of them. That was
the peepholes, the door locks at all our stations, key
management of master keys, and then one that was--more than one
person mentioned to me when I was down on ice how appreciated
this was, and that was an additional satellite phone to all
teams going out. So this meant there wasn't just one phone held
by the PI but they were--the policy was to give it to the
highest ranking member and the lowest ranking member so they
would each have a phone and would have ways to communicate if
there are any issues while out in the field.
Ms. Stevens. Great. And with that, Madam Chair, for the
last time, I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Garcia is recognized.
Mr. Garcia. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to commend the
Chairwoman for her service to this beautiful Nation, salute to
you, ma'am, for everything you've done. And to our witnesses,
thank you. I think this is probably the most important climate
change hearing. I've been a part of a lot of climate change
hearings in the three years that I've been here in Congress.
This is probably the most important, the climate where we
actually not just adopt a zero tolerance mentality against
harassment, discrimination, and assault, but we actually
implement it and we hold people accountable. And I think that's
the part that's missing in all of these conversations that
we've had here so far.
I appreciate that you've been introspective enough to do
the surveys and look at the data, but I'm frankly a little
flabbergasted that some of the results and some of the lessons
learned are pretty low-hanging fruit that I would have thought
we would have done before we sent anyone down to the Antarctic.
The fact that we didn't have locks on doors and no key
management to protect people is a little underwhelming, in my
opinion.
I guess my question is to Dr. Marrongelle and Ms. Naeher.
What--how many allegations have we had of specifically
harassment and assault?
Dr. Marrongelle. We have information that we can share with
the Committee.
[The information follows:]
The multi-jurisdictional nature of activities in Antarctica
necessitated the development of multiple reporting mechanisms
for both individuals and organizations on safety and behavioral
issues. There is both direct and indirect reporting to NSF, as
detailed below. It is possible that some of these reporting
mechanisms overlap, or that the same complaint may be pursued
through multiple channels.
Direct Reporting to NSF
1) Polar Code of Conduct
Since 2013, every individual who is deployed to Antarctica
through the USAP program must sign the Polar Code of Conduct,
which requires them to abide by a series of safety and
behavioral rules. NSF monitors and tabulates those Code of
Conduct violations that are directly reported to the agency.
Additionally, the Department of Defense and NSF's prime
contractor are asked to submit an annual report to NSF that
compiles all Polar Code of Conduct violations that constitute
significant misconduct among individuals within their
jurisdiction over the prior year. The reports received from our
partners are limited in detail and cover all behavioral
breaches including sexual assault and harassment.
Over the past five years, there have been eight total
harassment and sexual assault incidents reported to NSF. The
incidents occurred randomly in that time frame. The reports
included violations by individuals employed by contractors,
foreign program members, and U.S. military service members. All
reported incidents were investigated by the organizations with
managerial oversight of the victims and accused. The
investigation outcomes varied with the circumstances, from
formal apology to a range of employment consequences (including
at least three separations) and removal from Antarctica in five
cases. All incidents involving allegations of criminal
wrongdoing were referred to the Department of Justice. None of
the referrals resulted in criminal charges.
2) Reports to NSF's Office of Equity and Civil Rights
(OECR)
Since 2018, OECR has received nine complaints or
communications on inappropriate sexual behavior or actions in
the USAP program. OECR conducted follow-up on all the reports,
which included investigations within its jurisdiction, or
reporting to the appropriate authority with jurisdiction.
Reporting to Other Appropriate Authorities
Individuals or organizations may use the following channels
for reporting that are not directly through NSF. These other
entities have specific processes for follow-up, only some of
which may involve direct liaison with NSF.
1) Each employer that is a USAP partner has established
procedures for employee reporting (typically through HR
processes)--this includes NSF, other federal agencies, the
Department of Defense, contractor, and academic institutions.
2) Contractors and contract employees may report complaints
to the Department of Labor's Office of Federal Contract
Compliance Programs (OFCCP) or to the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC), if applicable.
3) Individuals may report complaints directly to law
enforcement officials (such as the Special Deputy Marshall) or
confidential support personnel (e.g., on-ice counselor,
chaplain, or advocate).
4) Academic employees may report complaints to their
institution's Title IX offices.
One of the goals of the newly established SAHPR program
office in OECR is to build a data and reporting framework
around these existing mechanisms to allow for timely and
aggregate monitoring and reporting of complaints and their
resolution.
NSF has taken steps to improve data collection. First,
NSF's contractor is now required to provide a quarterly
(instead of annual) Sexual Harassment and Assault report; this
will expedite reporting to NSF for awareness and intervention
as appropriate. As the new support resources for the USAP
community are rolled out (e.g., the on-ice advocate, the crisis
hotline), we are also embedding in those contract requirements
additional avenues to collect aggregate data on all reports or
complaints to allow us to develop a baseline for assessment on
an annual basis. Finally, NSF will be implementing a periodic
climate assessment survey of the community to allow the agency
to monitor the research environment.
Dr. Marrongelle. In 2013, we instituted a code of conduct
specifically to address some of the climate issues that were
starting to arise. It's very broad, and it covers a variety of
incidents from alcohol abuse to sexual assault, so we are happy
to share that. This year, we are requiring our contractors and
partner organizations to report to us on a quarterly basis
those incidents, so we are still awaiting those reports to come
in.
New this year also, as I had mentioned, is the on-ice
advocate, and so we know that individuals on the ice are taking
advantage of the services of the on-ice advocate. Time will
tell how--like whether those result in increased formal
complaints and allegations, so we will need some time to match
up the data there.
Mr. Garcia. OK, Ms. Naeher, do you have concrete numbers on
how many allegations have been made?
Ms. Naeher. Yes, we've been tracking that number for----
Mr. Garcia. What is that number?
Ms. Naeher. I can get you the exact number. I'm happy to
follow up on that. I can tell you that we do investigate every
allegation that has brought--has been brought to us.
Mr. Garcia. Right. Yes, I have no doubt about that. I guess
my concern is if you guys are coming to testify in front of
Congress about a severe problem and something that is a culture
issue, you should have those numbers at your hip right now and
be informing us of this information.
When I was a division officer in the Navy and we had
cultural issues, we--I implemented a zero-tolerance mentality
for sexual harassment, sexual assault. And as a young
lieutenant, I knew exactly how many allegations, how many
people were charged, how many people were convicted, and how
many people were kicked out of the Navy. When I was Vice
President at Raytheon, I knew all of those numbers. And in this
office, I know exactly what's going on in my office, and I hold
those metrics very closely because it's important.
We get what we measure, and if you guys think this is a
problem, I would highly encourage you guys to ensure that you,
as well as your leadership, Director Panchanathan, as well as
Roger Krone, who's the CEO (Chief Executive Officer) of Leidos,
be briefed on exactly what's going on down there on the ice on
a weekly basis, on a monthly basis to know those numbers
because you get what you measure. And if you guys don't have
those metrics, if you're not briefing those metrics and showing
improvement in that regard, I don't think you're really, truly
adopting a zero-tolerance mentality. You're implementing it,
but without the accountability, without that sort of close
feedback loop that shows that not only are we listening to you
but we're taking these charges forward, we're implementing
these charges and we're holding people accountable, they're
losing their jobs, they're being kicked off the ice, they're
going to jail even if that's what's required for the assault,
without that, I don't know how you say you have learned your
lesson.
And I would strongly encourage you the next time you come
to Congress to have those metrics available for you. That's
what zero tolerance looks like. You have our support. We will
bend over backwards to give you whatever funding is necessary,
but we need you guys to make this the No. 1 key performance
parameter on any--anything that you're doing. Safety is No. 1,
and if you can't look your employees and Leidos employees in
the eyes and say that you can't guarantee that they will not be
raped or sexually harassed, then safety is not your No. 1
priority. This was a problem we had in the DOD (Department of
Defense). We're still going through those growing pains. But
this is very near and dear to my heart because we have to--if
we're going to ask people to go down to serve their country in
any capacity, whether it's Antarctica or overseas, we've got to
make sure that we know these metrics cold and be prepared to
hold people accountable.
I'm out of time. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. McNerney.
Mr. McNerney. Well, I thank the Chairwoman. And I want to
join my colleagues in thanking you for your leadership over the
years, thoughtful, and you've made a difference, so thank you.
I went to Antarctica in 2014 with this Committee, and it
was a profound experience. I'd go back anytime except maybe
their winters. But, Dr. Marrongelle, thank you for your
testimony this morning. The NSF has a pretty good recording--
reporting requirement for harassment. But did the NSF stop
short of requiring that same level of reporting for its
contractors?
Dr. Marrongelle. Right. Our term and condition is one that
we're very proud of. We've been a leader in this area. We are
taking a look at how we can work with contractors moving
forward if we need to institute something like a term and
condition for contractors, if we need some change in law. We've
certainly been in communication with your staff, and we'll
continue to do that. So we're still unpacking what's needed
moving forward to ensure that we have the same level of
reporting and accountability that we do for our grantees, for
our contractors.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. Ms. Naeher, you mentioned that the
McMurdo was a small city, and it is, and there's a lot of
activity there. Any city has some bad actors in it. But in
McMurdo people can't just leave. And there's really no
visible--at least when I was there--sort of law enforcement
authority, so people may feel trapped in that environment. And
so getting people to go there to work as contractors may be
difficult. What are the positions that are hardest to fill for
that assignment?
Ms. Naeher. You know, it's interesting you say that. And we
certainly do have some hard-to-fill positions. Firefighters are
routinely difficult to fill. But it was interesting when I was
down there is that I met very few people who it was either
their first time there or that they hadn't planned on coming
back again. So despite the harsh environment working there,
there is that dedication to mission and people want to
continuously come back year after year, season after season to
support that mission. We do recruit heavily, and we use our
Leidos recruitment team, as well as working with our
subcontractors to fill the difficult positions.
Mr. McNerney. Well, thank you.
Dr. Kelly, thank you for your thoughtful and comprehensive
recommendations. And if these are implemented, it's clear to me
that they will make a big difference. In particular, I liked
the behavioral standards, establishment and dissemination and
training in that I think that would be the most effective of
the many good recommendations you made. Do you have a comment
about that?
Dr. Kelly. Yes, sure, I think it's really important to
address this type of behavior before it rises to the level of
illegality. Research shows over and over again that hostile
work environments, while they may not be even at the level of
illegality, enable far more severe behavior. When we are
working in remote research sites, it's totally appropriate to
ask for a higher standard of behavior both on and off the
clock. And, you know, if we were able to set those norms and
enforce those norms on a regular basis, I think it would go a
long way toward changing the culture.
And again, you know, I keep hearing that we need to rely on
leadership to promote responses to these things, but really, in
these remote situations, it's often the leadership that is
conducting the harassment and also are the gatekeepers for the
future careers of these scientists. So we need to ensure that
these behavioral standards, when they're not being met, are
able to be enforced by multiple agencies, multiple reporting
avenues, and not just the keyholders to individual's careers.
Mr. McNerney. Well, how would an incident of harassment
harm a researcher's career?
Dr. Kelly. If that harasser is your boss and you report
your boss and there are consequences for your boss, that is a
direct harm, also earning a reputation as a complainer or
someone who maybe is filing false reports. You know, the
research shows that 80 percent or more of incidents are not
reported at all because people fear the retribution and
consequences.
Mr. McNerney. And I just want to end by pointing out that I
think the website idea for reporting seems like a good way to
move forward and give people access to help if that's needed.
Dr. Kelly. That sounds good.
Mr. McNerney. Thank you. And I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mrs. Bice is now recognized.
Mrs. Bice. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. And I will echo my
colleague from Oklahoma's words that it's been a pleasure to
work with you these last two years, and good luck with your
next adventure.
Dr. Marrongelle, you mentioned processes with the
contractors/vendors and that Leidos has said publicly that
they'll be providing reporting. Are they providing you that
reporting currently?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes, they are.
Mrs. Bice. And how often are they providing that to you?
Dr. Marrongelle. Quarterly.
Mrs. Bice. Perfect. And you mentioned in a previous
statement that you were looking at adding language to future
contracts that would maybe address some of these issues when it
comes to sexual assault cases. Why do you think that wasn't
added to contracts prior?
Dr. Marrongelle. It's a great question. I would need to
consult with my team to follow up on that.
Mrs. Bice. Why would we not add language I guess is my
follow up question?
Dr. Marrongelle. Right.
Mrs. Bice. It seems like it shouldn't really be a
conversation. It should be a this is going to be added----
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes.
Mrs. Bice [continuing]. To future contracts.
Dr. Marrongelle. I think yes. So within the contracting
world, I think we just want to make sure that whatever we're
putting in there is consistent with what we're legally allowed
to do or asked to make those changes if we need to make changes
to law.
Mrs. Bice. Can you modify an existing contract with an
addendum to be able to add language in it now currently to
address these issues?
Dr. Marrongelle. I believe we can. I can follow up to be
100 percent on that.
[The information follows:]
This contract was originally awarded in 2011 and did not
include specific language on reporting of sexual harassment or
assault because prospective contractors are required to have
internal policies in place to address these issues. After NSF
issued the Polar Code of Conduct in 2013, the contractor was
required to provide an annual report on violations. In 2022,
the contract was again modified to make this a quarterly
reporting requirement and to address reporting and resolution
of those reports. NSF may issue additional contract
modifications, as necessary, to add contractual language to
address these specific issues.
Mrs. Bice. Sure. And finally, should you have a vendor,
whether it's Leidos or any other contractor that you're working
with at NSF that is not meeting the expectations, not providing
the information, not addressing the issue, are you and your
team willing to cancel those contracts to protect the employees
that you have at NSF?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes, we are.
Mrs. Bice. Excellent. Thank you. I yield back the balance
of my time.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Dr. Foster?
Mr. Foster. Yes. Dr. Marrongelle, do you have the leverage
that you need for all the different agencies and particularly
internationally on this? I noted that not long after the SAHPR
report came out, the Australian Government issued an analogous
one that came to, you know, sort of equivalent conclusions, but
it's my recollection as--during my time on a very multinational
experiment, there were well-known differences in the cultural
behavior and standards in different areas. So, first off, do
you have the leverage? And then if any of the other witnesses
would like to comment on the sort of international issues that
may be here.
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes, thank you for this great question.
Our leadership of the Office of Polar Programs--currently sit
on the international committee that oversees all of the
scientific endeavors in Antarctica. We have been working
closely with them, and that group is looking to, with our
leadership, form a specific task force to exactly tackle these
issues because Australia, like us, has looked into this
proactively. We've uncovered behavior that we need to address,
and we need to do this collectively. We also need to learn from
each other, so I feel confident that we have the leverage that
we need and the representation that we need and the leadership
that we need in this international space.
Mr. Foster. All right. Yes, Dr. Olinto, did you have any?
Dr. Olinto. Yes, I think you point out a very important
challenge for all of the scientific community. We have many,
many international efforts. I myself lead a group with 16
countries, and the cultures are definitely different. And--but
I think the majority of our international partners are very
aware. It's been a wonderful progress and there's still a lot
to do, but in terms of codes of conduct in meetings and many
other spaces that bring the international community together,
but we have had to implement across nations, taking somebody
off the ice that wasn't part of our team, for example, which
was from a different nation. So I think we have to be able to
do these things in these situations. Otherwise, we won't make
progress.
Mr. Foster. And so the enforcement there is basically by
consensus that the experimental group just says, I'm sorry,
we're not going to deal with that country----
Dr. Olinto. Yes, we have right now separate codes of
conduct for different experiments. We are trying to unify them
within the University of Chicago, and I think most institutions
probably want to be--we have our own rules within campus. But
the question is, we send our people everywhere in the world,
and how do we implement our own standards elsewhere? And we
expect our people to behave the same way. We can't enforce
international partners necessarily. But the community of
science, for example, if we take CERN that I'm sure you know
very well, has an ombuds professional team that addresses
exactly these issues. So we are learning from those kinds of
large efforts, how to make sure all cultures get the message
that these things are not acceptable, period.
Mr. Foster. Yes. Dr. Kelly, did you run into any--in your
discussions here, which I take were international, did you run
into, you know, real differences in opinion on what might or
might not constitute acceptable behavior? Whoops, are we--am I
audible here or----
Dr. Kelly. Sorry, my audio--was the question addressed to
me? Could you repeat that?
Mr. Foster. The question was whether you ran into
international sort of differences of opinion of what the
standards ought to be on this?
Dr. Kelly. Yes, absolutely. When I was actually working in
the Arctic program, I encountered this. You know, I think it's
really important to bring together teams at the beginning of
campaigns and, you know, have the home institution or the host
institution do some education to the entire team around
behavioral expectations and norms and also to have the host
institution, have folks read those and agree to those before
arrival, but also continue that conversation while folks are
onsite. That's really important. And, you know, as part of
that, too, that the behavioral standards are shared across
these teams and that folks are held to them, you know, to the
highest standards, and that reporting is conducted to all of
the home institutions and relevant--you know, all relevant
institutions so not one institution is tasked with taking
responsibility but that they all are. And we see that as the
best way to make sure that folks are held accountable in these
kinds of murkier and diverse situations.
Mr. Foster. Thank you. And I will use my last seven seconds
to echo my colleagues' gratitude for--to our Chair for her
years of service and what she has accomplished, which is truly
historic.
Thank you. I yield back.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
We're going to try to complete our hearing before we break
for the vote so we won't have to return.
Mr. Feenstra, you're recognized.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you, Chairman Johnson, and Ranking
Member Lucas, and thank you, Chairwoman Johnson, for all your--
all that you've done for this Committee, and I wish you the
best in your future endeavors. I also want to thank the
witnesses and your testimony for sharing the knowledge on this
urgent subject.
Dr. Olinto, one of the key characteristics of the U.S.
Antarctic Program is the cooperation between the NSF and the
university stakeholders like the University of Chicago. From
your perspective, is there any additional guidance or any other
educational opportunities that could be helpful as we move
forward based on the findings that came from this report?
Dr. Olinto. Yes, there's a lot to do from all sides. I
think we can improve our communications and our training. We
need to make sure everybody on ice is aware that this is an
issue that has to be finished, that we don't want to ever have
these situations again, and for that, every single person needs
some responsibility. These are small teams and in very
difficult, challenging places without boundaries between
professional and social life, so we need to make sure every
member has that not notion of the expectations. And I think we
need to have communications between our own deans of students
and Title IX within each institution and NSF and Leidos. And
you know, it's a complicated set of folks that are supposed to
be paying attention to these issues. And we've been discussing
how we will try to do our best to make sure every institution
involved that represents each of those individuals is able to
talk to each other and make sure we follow up.
Mr. Feenstra. Well, thank you for those comments. And you
hit it on the head that there's got to be follow up. And
hopefully, there's also data or, you know, information that
after two years from now that we can look back and say, all
right, what did we accomplish, and did we go down the right
pathways?
Dr. Marrongelle, the NSF obviously has field research
facilities all over the world, many of them obviously in remote
environments. The lessons learned, how can we apply these to
other locations, and does it--can it be a one-size-fits-all?
Dr. Marrongelle. Yes, this is a great question. In
instances where we see harassment and an assault, there's a
power differential, and certainly remote locations lead to the
isolation that then creates the environment for such power
differentials to result in harassment and assault.
As we look at what's happening in Antarctica and our
response to that very isolated and very remote location, we
have our eye on taking back the lessons learned, what's
working, and how we can apply those to other field stations,
whether it be research ships, whether it be other remote field
sites and on land, and even in our facilities that are in more
remote locations with access to things like vehicles but still
somewhat remote throughout the world. So there will be elements
that we will be able to translate across, but there will need
to be elements that are unique to each situation.
Mr. Feenstra. Yes, I firmly agree with that.
And, Ms. Naeher, I guess my final question is, when you
look at Leidos, how do we ensure, all right, when something--
when we have a bad outcome, right, when we have an assailant
and we have transportation issues, right? We're going to have
transportation issues. How do we protect the victim when we
have a bad outcome? You know, in some circumstances, we
probably have--don't have a plane or whatever it might be
coming for days or weeks, so how do we move forward when we
have problems like this?
Ms. Naeher. So thank you for the question. And yes, the
unique environment certainly makes this extremely challenging.
There is a U.S. Marshal onsite, so for cases of assaults, we
turn that over to NSF who manages that. We are happy to look
into other possible things that can be done to include, you
know, refinement, confinement spaces, things like that in order
to keep everybody safe if needed. And we would certainly be
open to discussion with NSF if they wanted to partner to do
something like that. I look at it a little bit of like a
medivac. I mean, we can do things to get planes in if needed in
emergency situations, and we would work with NSF to determine
when that threshold was met.
Mr. Feenstra. Thank you. Thanks, everyone, for their
testimony. Very good. Thank you.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much.
Mr. Obernolte.
Mr. Obernolte. Well, thank you. Thank you very much, Madam
Chair.
Dr. Marrongelle, had a question kind of continuing the line
of questioning from Mr. Feenstra and earlier Mr. Lucas. In
reading over the needs assessment report and the implementation
plan, I was struck by the fact that, you know, these findings
really could be applied to any workplace setting. It's apparent
that our problems with the USAP are particularly acute. But the
way that we've addressed solving those problems doesn't seem to
me to be tailored at all to the unique workplace setting of
USAP. And I was surprised by that. I kind of thought it was a
missed opportunity. There's only a single paragraph in the
report that is dedicated to setting out, you know, these unique
set of circumstances, the fact that it's remote workplace
settings where sometimes the boundaries between personal life
and professional life can be blurred. Now, it's only one
paragraph in the report, and the only thing that's site-
specific in the implementation plan are things like peepholes
and key distribution.
So I wonder if you could take a couple of minutes and talk
about the unique workplace setting in Antarctica, how that
contributes to sexual harassment and sexual assault, and the
things that we could uniquely do to solve those problems in the
USAP because, otherwise, I think there's a missed opportunity.
We're really not talking about that in the implementation plan.
Dr. Marrongelle. Thank you. Yes, this is a great question.
I think as I alluded to in my previous response, the isolation
really contributes to the prevalence of, or the increased
prevalence of, harassment. When you have an advisor and
doctoral students who are out in the field somewhere, you have
now taken away the support system from the doctoral students
should they be experiencing harassment from their advisor.
What is unique about Antarctica is figuring out ways to
keep those individuals connected to their support systems or
even if it is in one of the stations when you are, as my
colleagues have said, when you are living and breathing every
day with your colleagues, you don't get to go home to get away
from them--from the office--because you are all in the same
situation, in the same environment.
A couple of things that we're looking at is certainly our
physical infrastructure. We have prioritized building of a new
lodging facility at McMurdo this year which will provide single
rooms, so that will help with some of the safety of
individuals--that will help us be able to accommodate some of
that. And then there is communication. We've mentioned the
additional satellite phones that are going out to the field
stations. We're not satisfied with that. We want to keep
pressing on that. How do we ensure, again, going back to the
support structure, that individuals are not isolated from their
support structure?
The satellite phones are one step. What we're going to
continue to press and understand is how do we continue to
provide access to individuals and services? The on-ice advocate
really has been impactful, very impactful, just for the short
time that the advocate's been there. So we'll be looking at do
we need to provide additional advocates, additional personnel?
Do we need to provide other types of counselors or
ombudspersons and at which stations and ensuring that no matter
where you are on the continent that you would have access?
So those are some of the things that we've been thinking
about. We wanted to ensure that we could implement speedily
this season and get some things off the ground, but we know the
work's not done.
Mr. Obernolte. I'm glad to hear that. I wish that those
subjects had been explored a little bit more thoroughly in the
implementation plan because, frankly, to me, it seemed like it
could have been copied and pasted from any other workplace
sexual assault prevention plan anywhere. And with the things
that you just said I think are the things that are really going
to get to the crux of what's causing this situation.
And if I could be so bold as to make an unsolicited
suggestion, maybe look at the education part as well because
the things that you just said about the way that that isolated
setting contributes to those feelings of isolation and the way
that the line gets blurred before between professional and
personal conduct I think are things that we need to tell people
who are going into that environment. And I think that if we do
a good job at preparing people, that maybe when they get into
those situations, they'll say, oh, right, that's right, I was
warned about that. This is exactly what I'm going through. And
I think that that was missing in the implementation plan.
But I want to thank you very much for your testimony, and
thank you for our shared commitment to reduce this problem that
certainly should no longer be a stain on our research programs
in Antarctica. I yield back, Madam Chair.
Chairwoman Johnson. Thank you very much. That is our last
questioner. And before we bring the hearing to a close, I want
to thank our witnesses for testifying before the Committee
today. The record will remain open for two weeks for additional
statements from the Members or any additional questions to the
Committee or witnesses.
Our witnesses are now excused, and the hearing is
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 2:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
Appendix
----------
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Answers to Post-Hearing Questions
Responses by Dr. Karen Marrongelle
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Ms. Kathleen Naeher
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Dr. Angela V. Olinto
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]