Summary of the Arctic Research Safety Roundtable

---

Background and context

As interest in Arctic research continues to grow, ensuring the safety of both domestic and international researchers working in this challenging environment is essential to achieving scientific excellence. On May 28, 2025, the Chief Science Advisor of Canada (CSA) convened a roundtable of fifteen Arctic science experts to explore Arctic research safety risks, their compounding factors, and the best practices for mitigating them. The roundtable was co-chaired by Dr. Mona Nemer, CSA, and Dr. Jackie Dawson, Researcher in Residence at the Office of the Chief Science Advisor (see Appendix A for the complete list of participants).

What we heard

The roundtable discussion explored three key areas related to Arctic research safety. First, participants identified a range of risks that threaten the health, safety and well-being of researchers, including physical, mental and emotional, as well as operational and institutional risks. Second, the discussion examined compounding factors, such as environmental, logistical, institutional, and jurisdictional challenges, that can aggravate these risks and increase their likelihood or severity. Finally, experts shared best practices and possible solutions aimed at mitigating risks, addressing compounding factors, and strengthening safety measures through improved training, team inclusion, emergency preparedness, and accountability mechanisms. The following sections summarize what was discussed during the roundtable.

Risks

For the first part of the roundtable, participants shared their perspective on Arctic research safety risks. For the purpose of the roundtable, risks are defined as potential occurrences that would put Arctic researchers’ health or life in danger and include—but are not limited to—physical, mental, emotional, and cultural risks. Risks that were discussed fell under the following general categories:

• 1. Physical risks

  • Unsafe aerial operations: Limited pilot experience in Arctic conditions and loss of visual reference are leading causes of helicopter crashes.
  • Unmet basic needs: Insufficient food, limited medical access, and inadequate shelter make researchers more vulnerable to the Arctic’s extreme weather conditions.
  • Mishandling of hazardous materials: Improper handling of dangerous substances in the Arctic’s extreme environment increases safety risks.
  • Search and rescue (SAR) limitations: Restricted capabilities and resources lead to delayed or unavailable emergency response in remote regions.

• 2. Mental and emotional risks

  • Psychological strain: Isolation, stress, and cultural differences can cause psychological strain on researchers.
  • Mental health risks to responders: Emergency situations can lead to acute stress and long-term mental health challenges for response teams.
  • Pressure to deliver results: The “data or die” mentality creates high performance pressure, increasing the risk of burnout and unsafe decision-making.

• 3. Cultural and community risks

  • Exclusion of local Northern community members: Lack of inclusion of community members in research teams denies them access to training and resources, increasing their risk during field activities.
  • Risks to relationships and reconciliation efforts: Insufficient cultural sensitivity training and limited time allocated to build and foster authentic relationships with Indigenous partners undermine trust and reconciliation efforts.
  • Risks to community members: Poorly planned research and pressure to deliver results can endanger local people and erode community trust.

• 4. Operational and institutional risks

  • Inadequate training: Training that is either insufficient or not specific to the Arctic context leads to undertrained and unprepared researchers – notably in areas such as cultural sensitivity.
  • Ambiguity in team roles: Lack of clarity on responsibilities creates uncertainty about who is accountable for safety.
  • Conflating liability with safety: Overemphasis on legal compliance and liability concerns detracts from efforts to improve safety practices.
  • Over-reliance on inexperienced researchers: Assigning intensive fieldwork roles to researchers with limited experience increases operational risk.
  • Limited institutional safety support: Insufficient administrative support shifts the responsibility of ensuring safety onto researchers, potentially discouraging certain research endeavors due to safety concerns.
  • Restrictive regulations: Rules that exclude experienced Northern community members reduce local engagement and expertise in research operations.
  • Dependence on community partners’ equipment: Relying on local partners for gear and insurance, rather than investing in their equipment and capacity, creates gaps in safety.

Compounding factors

The roundtable discussion also explored the compounding factors that can aggravate the identified Arctic research safety risks. Compounding factors are defined as any factor that enables or increases the likelihood of occurrence or the level of consequence of a risk to researchers. The compounding factors discussed can be categorized under the following broad categories:

• 1. Environmental and logistical

  • Climate change: Altered terrain and unpredictable weather complicate both research planning and SAR operations.
  • High costs: Significant expenses related to Arctic research, including travel and accommodations, reduce the available resources for comprehensive safety training, planning, preparedness and equipment.
  • Unexpected circumstances: Rapidly changing Arctic conditions can derail even well-planned expeditions, creating additional hazards.

• 2. Institutional and Jurisdictional

  • Jurisdictional fragmentation: Lack of harmonized standards leads to inconsistent safety practices, resources, and training across sectors.
  • Limited emergency response capacity: Long response times in the Arctic and insufficient awareness of these delays increase vulnerability during crises.
  • Uneven funding: Disparities in financial and resource allocation undermine consistent Arctic research safety practices and training.
  • Lack of centralized reporting: Absence of a shared system for tracking, reporting and analyzing accidents prevents learning from past incidents.

Best practices and possible solutions

During the last part of the roundtable, experts discussed best practices and possible solutions to address the identified risks and compounding factors. These include:

• 1. Team Inclusion & Redefinition

  • Expanded research team concept: Redefine “research team” to include community members, guides, and local experts.
  • Support community collaborators: Provide training and compensation, and ensure the inclusion of community collaborators in safety planning and protocols.
  • Investment in safety professionals: Maintain long-serving professionals responsible for research safety and ensure their integration into research teams.

• 2. Training & Harmonization

  • Standardized safety training: Implement mandatory, harmonized safety training across jurisdictions to ensure consistency and alignment with Arctic realities.
  • Integrated training programs: Develop multi-purpose trainings that include cultural awareness, physical preparedness, and mental resilience.
  • Collaborative training approaches: Promote pooling and cost-sharing so larger institutions can support smaller ones in accessing training and resources.
  • Unified safety culture: Foster and maintain a shared safety culture across organizations and research teams.
  • Shared infrastructure investment: Invest in multi-purpose infrastructure to support coordinated Arctic research operations.
  • Aligned funding models: Review and harmonize research funding models to identify lessons learned and best practices for supporting and conducting Arctic research.

• 3. Emergency Preparedness and Response

  • Advanced risk planning: Incorporate scenario planning and comprehensive risk assessments as a part of Arctic research preparation.
  • Improved SAR access: Strengthen collaboration with federal organizations such as the Canadian Coast Guard and Canadian Rangers to enhance SAR capabilities.

• 4. Liability vs. Safety

  • Shift from liability to safety: Focus on practical measures such as hiring experienced guides, covering safety training costs, and providing comprehensive expedition insurance for team members and equipment to foster a culture of safety in Arctic research.
  • Flexible research planning: Design research plans that can be adjusted in response to unexpected events while maintaining researcher safety and the overall research objectives.

• 5. Data & Accountability

  • Incident tracking system: Establish a comprehensive system for monitoring, tracking and analyzing incidents and accidents, including near misses.
  • Cross-jurisdictional data sharing: Enable data sharing to identify trends and improve safety practices.
  • Accountability mechanisms: Ensure Arctic research funding is used effectively through clear oversight processes.
  • Community of practice: Create a collaborative network that brings together researchers, health and safety professionals, community partners, and government representatives to identify risks and needs, and address them collectively.

Appendix A: List of Arctic research safety roundtable participants