USA research on Greenland declined significantly between 2015 and 2024, even as Washington’s political and strategic interest in the Arctic territory increased. A new report from Arctic Hub shows that the number of research publications involving researchers from the USA fell by 23 percent over the decade, with an even sharper decline in climate-related research.
The report, published on 19 August, provides the first comprehensive mapping of research activity concerning Greenland between 2015 and 2024. It was prepared by the Danish Centre for Studies in Research and Research Policy at Aarhus University on behalf of Arctic Hub.
The findings come at a time when Greenland has become increasingly prominent in USA foreign and security policy. President Donald Trump first proposed buying Greenland in 2019 and has repeatedly returned to the issue since beginning his second term. At the NATO summit in Ankara in July, Trump again said that Greenland should be controlled by the USA rather than Denmark.
USA research on Greenland fell by 23 percent
According to Arctic Hub’s new report, the number of USA research publications concerning Greenland fell by 23 percent between 2015 and 2024.
Researchers from the USA produced more publications on Greenland than those from any other country between 2015 and 2023. In 2024, however, Canada overtook the USA, while Denmark remained among the three countries producing the most research on Greenland.
The decline has been particularly visible since 2021 and is especially pronounced in the physical sciences. The number of USA publications related to climate change fell by 32 percent, according to the report.
For Sara Olsvig, a researcher at Ilisimatusarfik, the University of Greenland, who specialises in relations between Greenland and the USA, the development appears “paradoxical”.
“You know that there has been increasing interest from the USA in Greenland across different administrations throughout this entire period,” she told Danish broadcaster DR.
Olsvig also expressed concern about the trend, pointing to further reductions in research and particularly climate research in the USA since 2024.
The Arctic Hub data stop at 2024. The organisation decided not to include 2025 and 2026 because the most recent scientific publications may not yet be fully registered, making comparisons with previous years unreliable.
Greenland attracts an unusually large amount of research
The decline in USA publications is taking place against the backdrop of extensive international scientific interest in Greenland.
Between 2015 and 2024, around 1,700 to 1,800 research publications concerning Greenland were published each year. Arctic Hub calculates that this corresponds to approximately 28 articles per 1,000 inhabitants, illustrating the unusually high level of research activity relative to Greenland’s population.
Much of this international research focuses on ice, climate and the environment, areas in which Greenland plays an important role in understanding global climate change.
But the report also identifies a substantial imbalance in who participates in producing that research.
On average, only around 10 percent of publications include a Greenlandic researcher or research institution as a partner.
There are also significant differences in the subjects being studied. Research without Greenlandic partners focuses particularly on ice, climate and environmental issues. When Greenlandic researchers or institutions participate, research on health, society and local life becomes considerably more prominent.
“It is not necessarily a problem that so much research focuses on climate, ice and the environment,” Avijâja Rosing-Olsen, head of the Arctic Hub secretariat, said when presenting the report.
“But the report shows that there is an imbalance in the overall research landscape,” she added.
Who controls knowledge about Greenland
The limited involvement of Greenlandic researchers has wider implications at a time when international attention towards the territory is growing.
Olsvig told DR that principles for ethical and equal engagement with Indigenous peoples are still far from being fully implemented in research conducted in Greenland.
She compared changing established research practices to making a large supertanker change course. The objective, she said, is to develop a deeper understanding of the importance of involving Indigenous peoples from the beginning, including when research projects are planned.
For Olsvig, this question is also connected to the political debate over how Greenland regulates research conducted on its territory.
“We all know that data and knowledge can also be converted into power,” she told DR. Given the current geopolitical situation, she argued, Greenland needs strong administrative and legislative structures governing research.
Olsvig said the Arctic Hub report should therefore give new momentum to discussions about research legislation in Greenland.
The question has become particularly relevant as Greenland’s strategic importance grows. The USA remains deeply interested in the territory: Trump reiterated his demand for American control as recently as July, while Washington, Copenhagen and Nuuk continue discussions over security cooperation in the Arctic.
Against that background, the decline in USA research presents an unusual contrast. Political and strategic attention towards Greenland has increased while the scientific output concerning it from the USA has moved in the opposite direction.
The Arctic Hub report also shows that the debate is not only about how much research Greenland attracts. It is increasingly about who participates in producing knowledge about Greenland and how that knowledge can create value for Greenlandic society.
