The professors reflect the breadth of KTH’s research through their respective disciplines. These include proteomics, technical acoustics, computer science, mathematics, biophysics, vehicle dynamics, ergonomics, metallurgy, physics, polymer materials, numerical analysis and urban planning, to name but a few.

The almost 400 professors that KTH has, according to last year’s annual report, 368 professors, 84 women and 284 men, are the most highly educated teachers and as such important role models and sources of inspiration for students at undergraduate and graduate level, as well as for the doctoral students they supervise.

This year, three honorary doctorates will be awarded at the ceremony: Uwe Bornscheuer, Professor of Biotechnology at the University of Greifswald in Germany. He has worked with KTH researchers in chemistry and biotechnology for several decades. Gunilla Franzén, PhD, has worked in the field of geosafety and has promoted a safer and more sustainable society by, among other things, paving the way for regulations for construction and infrastructure projects

Göran Sandberg, Professor of Physiological Botany at Umeå University, is being honoured for his successful work as a member of the Board of the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. During his time at KAW, several strategic programmes were launched that have been crucial to the scientific success of KTH and Sweden.

Since 1944, KTH has awarded honorary doctorates to a total of 161 people who have made a significant contribution to the development of Swedish society. The list includes many names that are recognisable from the debate and context of each era.

This year, KTH’s Great Prize 2024 is awarded Johan von Schreeb, Professor of Global Disaster Medicine  at Karolinska Institutet. He is being honoured for his contributions as a researcher and coordinator in global crises and disasters, and for his efforts to alleviate human suffering. The prize was made possible by an anonymous donation to KTH in 1944.

It is fantastic to be able to share so much knowledge and academic achievement in one evening – building the society of today and tomorrow – it is the beacon of academic freedom and academic excellence to navigate by at a time when it is really needed.

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.

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.

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

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.