YELLOWKNIFE - Scientists at an international mapping convention want politicians to cool their rhetoric over Arctic sovereignty and focus on facts instead.
The warmer the debate, they say, the less chance crucial decisions about northern transportation corridors and valuable resources will be made on the basis of solid research.
"We would very much like to see international politicians work through co-operation, not confrontation," said Fraser Taylor, professor of international affairs and environmental studies at Carleton University in Ottawa.
"We are hopeful that decisions can be based on knowledge rather than other principles."
Recent weeks have seen a dramatic increase in the temperature of the debate over international boundaries in the Arctic. Different countries are trying to increase their control over northern waters as climate change raises the possibility the region will become less ice-locked and more accessible.
Russia recently sent a small submarine to plant that country's flag on the sea floor beneath the North Pole. Peter MacKay, Canada's foreign affairs minister at the time, scoffed at the gesture. He said it was worthy of imperialist land grabs in the "15th or 16th century."
Prime Minister Stephen Harper then followed up with the announcement of an Arctic military port and northern winter warfare school.
Even tiny Hans Island, nothing more than a rocky outcrop between Ellesmere Island and Greenland, is a point of contention between Canada and Denmark.
Scientists are deploring the rhetoric from all sides. Taylor, who leads a global effort to develop a worldwide mapping system that would integrate political boundaries, ecological zones and geological features, says MacKay's remarks were widely viewed in Russia as an insult.
"To say they were not impressed is an understatement."
Russia's claims are based on 30 years of research on the extent of the country's continental shelf - research that Canada is a long way from matching, he said.
"At the moment, the Russians have very good evidence that they've been working on for years."
But Russian scientists at the convention are cringing at their government's flamboyant and, they say, premature gesture.
"It's just like a symbol," said Vladimir Tikhonov, professor of cartography and geomatics at Moscow State University.
"It means nothing for sovereignty."
When American astronauts put the U.S. flag on the moon, it didn't make the lunar satellite the 51st state, he said.
International research should lead the discussion, not politicians, Tikhonov suggested.
"Only after this is it possible to talk about sovereignty."
Both men agreed that scientists from different countries work together much better than politicians. But both are also concerned that political matters could trump scientific study.
Tikhonov said it's already getting harder for Russian scientists to start new joint projects with their Canadian colleagues.
"If you start seeing science as a servant of national political interests then you're on a slippery slope," Taylor added.
Conflicting and competing interests can be useful spurs to scientific research, he acknowledged.
But his Russian colleague said scientists continue to play nice.
"Some people are just beginning to talk about the (new) Cold War," said Tikhonov. "It's absolutely incorrect. There may be some misunderstanding on the political level, not on the scientific level.
"For us, putting the flag, it's nothing."
