• Canada's record in Arctic Science is spotty at best - a disappointment given this country's significant Arctic territory and its opportunities for Canadian leadership in circumpolar affairs. Too little of the discourse on Arctic science involves those with sufficient appreciation of the nature of the Arctic itself, and what needs to be known. As a consequence, scientific priorities, plans and projects are victims of the vagaries of ad hoc decision making on programs, priorities, and resources, resulting in significant gaps in our understanding of crucial issues and opportunities.

• The CWG is particularly concerned about the dearth of Canadian social science research in the Arctic. Our record compares unfavourably with that of Alaska where, for some time now, social scientists have made numerous contributions to Arctic issues. Too little funding and too little value for Arctic social science has put us in the position where major public policy choices involving sustainable economies, environmental assessment, protection and mitigation, and socio-cultural change cannot be made from even a moderately informed position. To add to this, the CWG noted that a growing amount of what social science research is being done, is conducted by foreign scholars, often much better funded than Canadians, and in some cases with Canadian funding. This raised questions in the CWG about the familiarity of foreign researchers to many of the subtleties of complex relationships among stakeholders, cultures, institutions, organizations, issues, and themes in the Canadian Arctic and thus, the extent to which such research is able to effectively address important issues.

• A number of research needs were identified by the Working Group.

• Several phases of the science process need to be more explicitly connected to regional and sub-regional interests - problem identification, priority setting, project design and implementation, interpretation and evaluation - all should include "bottom up" approaches. The institutions of land claim agreements, devolution, and self-government are positioned to contribute to an Arctic science agenda. The east-west connections among these organizations suggests that multilateral "bridges" already exist on which to build science agendas. There is a role here for the Canadian Polar Commission in convening all Arctic science stakeholders to assist in the developing strategies and priorities, all in publicly approved processes.

• The CWG is particularly concerned about the links - or lack thereof - between science and policy. Major gaps in scientific information notwithstanding, the group's view is that too little attention is given to what information we do have in formulating Arctic policies. Distinctive Arctic impacts have so far not been adequately recognized in such international policy issues as climate change agreements, and heavy metals and persistent organic pollutant protocols. In part, this echoes the need for a greater presence and recognition of the significance of the Arctic in global decision making forums.

• The growing documentation on traditional or indigenous knowledge adds considerably to the knowledge base upon which policies and practices can be based. Increasingly, Aboriginal communities are seeking scientific information to link to their own understanding of themselves and the environment around them. As well, some scientists are now forging relationships with traditional knowledge holders to provide more detailed foundation on which to develop their own research agendas. Improving on ways to link these two knowledge systems and then extending this to policy making are areas of both research and dialogue that should be supported. By linking these knowledge systems and their extended time and scale components, significant insights into cycles, waves, trends - change of many kinds - can be gained.