Author
Recent developments in the United States regarding restrictions on academic freedom in general and changes in federal research funding in particular are cause for concern.
The United States is and has long been the world’s leading scientific nation, where researchers go to take advantage of the favourable conditions for conducting research at the highest level. The United States is also the country that has won the most Nobel Prizes, and we have become accustomed to looking up to US research universities as leaders, not least in medicine and the natural sciences.
It is dramatic to follow current developments. In the space of a few months, the picture has changed radically, with the withdrawal of federal research funding and new policies on undesirable research. The belief that the US research system is robust and unshakable has been disproved. What is striking is the speed with which the changes have been implemented and the immediate impact on universities.
From colleagues and partners in the United States, we hear the concerns and uncertainties that have emerged from a few days’ visit here. However strong and successful American universities are, it is also clear that even in the world’s leading democracy, it is possible to have a direct and powerful impact on universities and research.
This is clearly a cause for concern on a broad front. The guarantees for academic freedom in Sweden are far from strong. The belief in a benevolent government that looks after the welfare of higher education and guarantees freedom of research cannot be taken for granted. Although the focus is currently on the United States, there are similar trends in several other countries, including Europe and Sweden.
If ever there was a time to not only stand up for academic freedom and institutional autonomy, but also to seriously consider what measures need to be taken to secure these fundamental values, it is now – a task for the research community, university management, research funders and international cooperation organisations, and also for the political system to seriously ensure that something similar cannot happen in Sweden.
Author
Truth and lies are usually assumed to be opposites. What is true is, by definition, not a lie. These days it’s not so simple.
There seems to be a normalization of using half-lies and outright lies as truths, while ignoring facts that do not support the lying conclusion. A few years ago, the term ‘alternative facts’ was coined to describe an argument based not on real facts but on a more or less imaginary reality.
At the time, it was perhaps a bit funny and something that was nevertheless replaced by facts and truth when the lie was proven and exposed. This is no longer the case. The lie has become almost unproblematic to use as a cudgel in debate, and it does not matter to the believer whether the lie is exposed or not. Confidence in the liar is unshaken.
It was like a cartoon in which an offended young man says: ‘It doesn’t matter if it’s true or not, it’s still shitty’ after coming across a claim that the Swedish flag had been burned in a school.
Professor Åsa Wikforss, who gave a lecture at KTH, discussed how we should behave in the post-truth era and provided a comprehensible framework for understanding what is now happening in public debate and political positioning. That different political movements have different values on which they base their policies is not new – it is the desire to achieve certain societal values and goals, and how to get there, that is at the heart of political debate.
However, when the facts underpinning that direction describe the same social phenomena in very different ways, the debate becomes increasingly polarized and conflictual, creating a basis for disagreement between different opinions and facts and between different political views. Democratic dialogue becomes increasingly difficult.
The role of universities is, and will be, obviously important in all this. We must stand up for the facts of what we know and what we do not know.We should not mix research with political activism, and we should engage in debate based on the facts that research has shown.This applies to engineering as much as to any other science.
While the picture painted by Åsa Wikforss is somewhat bleak, it is clear that universities are needed more than ever. Our role is becoming increasingly important as the climate of debate hardens and truth and lies become interchangeable.
Author
The government’s STEM strategy, presented this week, expresses the ambition to increase the number of students in higher education in STEM subjects from 83,000 to 90,000 by 2035.
STEM, Science, Technology, Engineering & Mathematics, includes engineering programmes, and an increase in the number of students is necessary to cope with the greening, electrification and energy transition and to strengthen the competitiveness of Swedish industry.
The Swedish Public Employment Service’s occupational barometer shows great opportunities for jobs in traditional engineering professions as well as in new fields of knowledge such as cyber security. Investments in nuclear power, for example, require more skilled people throughout the value chain.
Teknikföretagen has stated that more engineers are needed for the transition and future development of the industry. Several representatives of large technology companies have said the same, and both the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise and the Swedish Association of Graduate Engineers have discussed the shortage of skilled labour.
At the same time, we are ready to expand our programmes in the shortage areas that have been identified. We can increase the number of students today and take our share of the responsibility for achieving the government’s target of 90,000 students in STEM.
Now is the time to increase the funding cap so that we can meet the demand for engineers. In our budget document we have clearly expressed the opportunities and ambitions to do more for the labour market. We can do it now, and Sweden needs it now. Therefore, the expansion to 90,000 students should be accelerated, for example in the next four to five years, so that Sweden does not fall behind in the transition
Author
From time to time, there are reports that some research is criticised not only for its content but also for its relevance. When the criticism comes from political representatives or certain special interests in society, it can be a sign of serious attempts to restrict academic freedom. When this happens, we must stand up for the right of research and researchers to freely define research questions and to freely publish and disseminate the results of their research.
With a new administration in the White House, there is also growing concern that research deemed controversial by the political leadership, for whatever reason, could be challenged. The federal government funds about one-fifth of university research, although this varies by state and by type of institution. In other words, there is scope to directly influence US research universities through the federal budget.
What could be perceived as controversial is anything from gender research to climate-related research issues. Things that could be perceived as left-wing research issues or research based on specific social issues where the administration has a clear opinion that it does not want to be challenged. To even try to list areas of research that the political leadership might want to stop is strange. It shows that the threats to academic freedom are not just theoretical speculations, but a real reality.
In Sweden there is not yet the same threat to university research that is now being portrayed by American debaters. But there are tendencies. There have been a number of cases where researchers have been subjected to what is sometimes called ‘dismissal’. From time to time, criticism of certain research directions is articulated in public debate, including by leaders of certain parties.
Although I have used the Trump administration as an example above, it is not so simple that all threats come from the same side of the political right-left scale.
Rather, it is probably the case that over time it has become increasingly legitimate to question research and researchers, and by extension higher education institutions, from different political perspectives.The risk is that researchers will be silenced and that research will move into less and less controversial areas. Another risk is that researchers will censor themselves to avoid criticism or, in the worst case, various forms of persecution.
The government’s announcement in the Research Bill of an inquiry to propose measures to protect and strengthen academic freedom is much needed. But we all have a responsibility to stand up for the right to free research and for academic freedom in practice.
Author
In the bill on research and innovation policy, which was presented just before Christmas, there is a statement that says: “In recent years there have been repeated discussions about the form of association of Swedish higher education institutions. The government therefore intends to commission a study to analyse the appropriateness of the current form of authority for state universities and university colleges. Two sentences that could lead to a minor revolution in the higher education sector, and that arouse curiosity about the exciting times ahead…
Employee funds were used in the early 1990s when two higher education institutions, Jönköping University and Chalmers University of Technology, were transformed into foundations. The issue was then examined as part of the Alliance government’s reform agenda around 2010. After a largely negative consultation process, none of the proposals put forward at the time to create a special form of authority for higher education institutions were implemented. It was back again in the mid-2010s, but then the proposals for the transformation of foundations were not even put out to consultation, but were scrapped after an internal departmental review.
Here we are in 2025 and the government, this time with a liberal education minister, is again launching an inquiry into the governance of higher education institutions. It is not really clear what direction the government has in mind, nor is it clear whether there are any particular challenges or problems that the inquiry should focus on this time.
But the inquiry is important. We need to get out of the sometimes overly restrictive clothes we are wearing now. This can include regulations for government agencies that bind us in ways that are not appropriate, and difficulties in acting fully in academic collaborations, nationally and internationally. So I thought I would take the liberty of suggesting some possible directions for the forthcoming inquiry.
An important starting point might be that not all higher education institutions need to change in the same way at the same time. Let us say that the government takes this opportunity to clearly articulate the different roles and missions of different institutions in the higher education landscape, which may require different forms of association. The most important thing is not to automatically assume that ‘one size fits all’, but to seriously try to link the form of association to the role in the higher education landscape and for Sweden.
There should also be money involved. We are talking about much more than a few billion kronor, but from the government’s point of view it is not a cost but an investment in the foundation’s balance sheet, which the institution must manage while maintaining its purchasing power.
Inspiration may be found in Finland, where higher education institutions received so-called matching funds in their foundations: for every euro the university received in donations, the state added a few euros to the university’s endowment. A new form of authority could also be a way of dismantling our model for the provision of premises, for example by transferring the property portfolio to foundations or companies controlled by the university.
Finally, I hope that the inquiry will be conducted in interaction and perhaps cooperation with both higher education institutions and political representatives. If there are good ideas, it would be good if they were discussed widely and intensively along the way, rather than having a consultation round that effectively kills any ambitions for change, because we need change.
