Articles

Conservation in Action: Dr. John Whiteman

Polar Bears International’s chief research scientist, Dr. John Whiteman, discusses his role at PBI, what drew him to working with polar bears, and why he is so committed to polar bear conservation.

15 MINS

Nov 19, 2025

John Whiteman During Tundra Connections on EV Tundra Buggy One - Kieran McIver

Photo: Kieran McIver / Polar Bears International

Share this:

Three years ago, Dr. John Whiteman was appointed Polar Bears International’s chief research scientist after Dr. Steven Amstrup retired. Since then, he has helped guide PBI’s research and conservation projects as part of PBI’s leadership team while also working as an associate professor of biological sciences at Old Dominion University. We recently talked with John about his role at PBI, what drew him to working with polar bears, and why he is so committed to polar bear conservation.

You have what many biologists would consider a dream job — studying polar bears and working for their conservation. How did you get started in this field?

I loved physics in high school. I was very interested in science and the way things work. But when I got to college, the abstract nature of physics didn’t grab me, so I swung in the other direction as far as you could go and tried majoring in English and political science. Then I took my first biology course. For the first time, I was invited to closely examine the living world that surrounds us, and I felt like a curtain had been pulled back. I was drawn to the fact that when you study biological systems, not only are they fascinating on their own, but they are also the systems that sustain us — and that directly leads to conservation. So that’s how I got into the work that I do today.

I started working in a botany lab as a student, and I became hooked on research. I eventually became especially interested in the way animals work, their physiology. What stood out for me is that wild animals thrive — they don’t just survive but thrive — without modern conveniences. Wild animals don’t have refrigerators, grocery stores, air conditioning, or any of the stuff that makes our lives so much easier. And that means their physiology is remarkably well-tuned to buffer them from wild swings in things like temperature or food availability. So that naturally led to an interest in incredibly challenging environments like the Arctic, where a large, warm-bodied animal like the polar bear has managed to succeed. And then an opportunity came along and that became my PhD work.

How did that come about?

A job ad believe it or not! I was finishing my master’s in zoology and physiology, working on an applied ecology project in which I snow-tracked animals in the Rockies for a couple of years. I really enjoyed that, but I wanted to do more physiology-centered work. While figuring out my next step, I saw an ad for a PhD-level polar bear project based at the University of Wyoming that was everything I’d ever wanted. It was rooted in a conservation context, focused on the challenging environment of the Arctic, and offered the chance to study an important umbrella species — the polar bear. The project was very focused on physiology; it asked the question: Do polar bears enter a state of “walking hibernation” when they’re off the sea ice? The project fascinated me, so I applied, not knowing that this work would help shape my life from then on. It was competitive, but I had the incredibly good fortune to get the position, and it brought me up to the Southern Beaufort Sea to study polar bears for the first time.

When I give talks to undergraduate students who want to study wildlife, I always encourage students to get any experience in biology that they can when they're starting out, and not to make the mistake of thinking they need to succeed in their passionate field of choice immediately. I also tell them that good luck is when long-term preparation meets the right opportunity. In hindsight, I feel like I had been preparing myself for an opportunity like the one at the University of Wyoming for a long time, and I will forever be grateful that the project came along when it did.

You mentioned that one of things that drew you to studying polar bears is the fact that they’re considered an umbrella species. Can you explain what that term means?

The basic idea is that all species are connected. So, conservation work on a given species has the potential to benefit other species living in the same environment. The question is: Which species confer the greatest benefit to other species? Which ones provide the biggest umbrellas? It turns out that, in most cases, if you do the work necessary to protect the animals at the top of a food web — like the polar bear — then everything below them is going to be protected.

A triangular-shaped food web starts with plants and algae at the base. Primary consumers — herbivores — feed on them, and then a layer of predators feed on those primary consumers, and so on up to the very top. The top-level carnivores in food webs are typically considered umbrella species because their conservation has the potential to benefit all of those animals and plants below them.

As with everything in science, it turns out the devil is in the details, because the extent to which this umbrella effect occurs can depend on factors like the natural history and behavior of that top-level predator. But, by and large, there are good data showing exactly this phenomenon. In the case of polar bears, to keep them functioning in their environment you need to protect large areas of Arctic sea ice. You must also protect the algae that grows under the sea ice, the Arctic cod that feed on the algae, and the seals that feed on the cod. So, by conserving the polar bear, you're conserving an entire ecosystem and keeping the food web intact — and that’s pretty powerful.

You were Dr. Steven Amstrup’s hand-picked successor for the role of chief research scientist at Polar Bears International. How did you come to know him and why do you think he selected you?

The first time I met Steve in person was at an aviation disaster survival training course prior to my first Arctic field work. I flew up to Anchorage, Alaska, for this, and the training included things like being strapped into a chair with a four-point aviation harness and then flipped upside down and thrown into a swimming pool. We were learning how to get ourselves out of something like a helicopter crash in the ocean. While this kind of experience was part of the adventure that I expected, it made the risks quite real. And this is something that comes up a lot. People often ask about working with polar bears — “Is it scary, because the bears can be dangerous?” — but the reality is that low-level flight in helicopters and fixed-wing planes are by far the most dangerous components of working in the Arctic, because of unpredictable weather, poor visibility, and the remoteness. Many folks, including several polar bear biologists, have tragically lost their lives that way.

After that first meeting, I got to know Steve well because he was a collaborator on my PhD research project. We had a large team doing the field work, including Steve, but a lot of people were juggling multiple duties — for example, my academic advisors would have to return to campus to teach. I was able to be a constant presence though, which meant that I ended up — with a lot of assistance and a lot of training — being the lead on things that were specific to the project, like collecting tissue samples from the bears. And so Steve and I worked together out on the sea ice, and then continued to collaborate throughout the process of data analysis, writing up the results, and publishing and presenting them.

Shortly after finishing up that first season of field work in Alaska, I volunteered with PBI for the first time, still as a PhD student. I took part in Tundra Connections broadcasts and we filmed several PBI videos that could live online in perpetuity, including a really fun one targeted to kids, which has become one of PBI’s most-watched videos. Over the following several years as I finished my graduate work and we made our results public, Steve also saw me speak at conferences, give talks to the general public, and conduct media interviews.

I can’t speak for Steve on why he selected me when he retired, but we had one key conversation about me joining PBI where he said: “What this role needs is not just a scientist but a true communicator. The most important part of this role at PBI is conveying scientific truth in a way that people can understand. And that is just as difficult — if not more difficult — than doing the science itself. And you can do that.”

Steve and I went through a lot together over the course of my PhD and the following years. And I think he came through those experiences thinking, “John is someone who believes in the importance of communication as much as he believes in the science.”

The kind of outreach and content that PBI produces is something I deeply value. I tell students all that time that until you’ve communicated the results of your work, you haven’t really done science, you’ve just had a very expensive hobby. Science by definition is a common human endeavor across society. It’s not just an individual’s passion, or an individual’s product. One of the last steps of doing science is sharing your results and helping people understand what it is that you’ve discovered.

Why did you decide to accept the position with PBI?

I first got into studying polar bears because everything about their biology fascinated me. They exist in this really challenging environment that forces them to have unique strategies and cool adaptations. They exist in a truly wild place. And studying them requires an appreciation for everything from their biochemistry to their place in the Arctic marine food web. That is why I got into this — but the conservation perspective is why I stayed, and that’s what drew me to work with PBI.

In research, you value the data you collect and you value what you can learn. But research isn’t always the right microphone for talking about why things are worth saving. Through my work at PBI, I not only conduct research but have the right microphone to talk about just that. PBI offers me this consistent avenue for talking about polar bear conservation.

With PBI, I conduct research and produce peer-reviewed publications, but I also take part in outreach to the general public and communicate directly with policymakers — and that is important to polar bear conservation.

You’ve said that, by protecting sea ice, we’ll improve conditions around the globe. Can you explain what you mean by that?

First, to protect sea ice and polar bears, we need to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions that are heating up our planet. Reducing emissions will cause cooling, benefiting not only the Arctic, but every place and everyone around the world. Second, Arctic sea ice plays an active role in keeping our planet cool. So if we reduce emissions, the cooling won't just be from emission reductions, but from the physical processes caused by the presence of more sea ice. For example, the increased reflection of heat away from our planet caused by a larger expanse of sea ice — a phenomenon known as the albedo effect — will reduce warming around the globe.

It’s important to remember that all ecosystems around the planet ultimately are connected. So if we reduce emissions and save sea ice, we’ll help people too. I’ve been talking about conservation in terms of the influence on wildlife species, and it’s easy to forget that we’re just another species too. If we want, for example, to reduce the novel intensity and frequency of wildfires that are having a very real impact in so many places — or to reduce similarly increasing extremes in floods, droughts, and heat waves — the solution for that is the same as the solution for conserving polar bears: reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

You travel to Churchill every fall with Polar Bears International. What is your work like there?

Many of PBI’s staff members migrate to Churchill every fall, just like the polar bears do. It’s an opportunity to have everyone in the same room, at the same time. Other polar bear biologists are also there for research, so it’s a chance to overlap and exchange ideas and data with them. And the outreach we do in Churchill, whether it’s in person or through media interviews or live broadcasts, provides a powerful way of connecting with the public.

Ultimately, addressing climate change and addressing emissions requires a society-wide shift. And so it’s very important that as many people across society as possible understand what’s at stake and how the Arctic system works. Getting information to a broad cross-section of society is as important as anything else that we do.

On a personal note, being in Churchill is also a powerfully grounding experience. A lot of my work doesn’t take place in the Arctic — much of it is computer-based, lab-based, or involves interacting with members of the public or policymakers around the world. But there’s no substitute for first-hand experience. Returning to the Arctic and the Subarctic keeps me in touch with those environments and with polar bears, reminding me of what’s at stake.

In addition to your work with PBI, you are an associate professor of biological sciences at Old Dominion University. How do the two roles complement each other?

At Old Dominion, my job includes conducting research, teaching, and providing service to my department, college, university, the broader scientific community, and the general public. Two of those things in particular — research and service — overlap very nicely with my expectations at PBI. I do polar bear research for my work with ODU and as part of my work with PBI. The same holds true for scientific communication and outreach, which falls under the idea of service at ODU. Universities expect their faculty to do outreach, but it’s unusual to have the resources for outreach that PBI provides.

Do you have hope for polar bears? What keeps you going?

First, the fact that an organization like PBI exists — that’s where my hope starts. PBI’s very existence shows the value that society places on polar bears. And if the value is there, then the motivation is there. And if you have motivation, then it’s a matter of finding the means.

Second, despite longer ice-free seasons, polar bears still occupy more of their original, historical range than almost any other large, four-legged carnivore on the planet. Many other top predators live in small, fragmented habitats — think of lions, for example — and they’re ghosts in much of their original range. Yet despite ongoing sea ice loss, we have an opportunity with the polar bear to protect an ecosystem that remains wild and is largely intact — at least for now — and that motivates me.

Third, to save that sea ice habitat and protect the Arctic ecosystem, we don’t need a moonshot to achieve the necessary reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The technology exists! There are so many technologies out there already to replace fossil fuels and increase energy efficiency. And they’re being rapidly developed and advanced in many places around the world.

The very concept of renewable energy has this inherent pressure behind it. The fact that it’s renewable means you don’t pay for the energy itself, just the infrastructure. That is no small matter of course, but the energy itself is free, which can’t help but be an incentive. Advancing to a point where we reduce and then reverse climate change — saving polar bears and their habitat in the process — could be an inevitability if we choose it to be. It’s not like we’re in a scenario where we’re having to ask ourselves, What can we do? Instead, we’re in this scenario where weknow what to do. It’s just: Do we want to do it? Will we do it?

The U.S. is currently an unfortunate outlier in its energy policies. Many countries have made dramatic shifts to renewables, and there is no fundamental reason why the U.S. could not. I think it is also important to avoid the trap that energy policy must be a political litmus test. For example, auto manufacturers may support enhanced fuel economy requirements because they provide important guidance for designing new models and planning their futures. In the long run there is going to be a shift to electric vehicles for economic reasons if nothing else, and it hurts their bottom line to be jumping back and forth. So, in a practical, profit-focused way, there’s reason for momentum.

Attempts to slow or reverse efforts towards clean energy are unfortunate not just because of the ecological consequences, but also from an economic perspective. But progress is rarely a linear path, and I am hopeful about the future, including global momentum towards renewables. And that hope is why I’m so committed to my work at PBI — I want to help motivate this shift, protecting polar bears and ultimately, all of us.