The increasing polarization and the high tone of voice where the world is increasingly dressed in only black or white reinforces these demands. Campaign-like appeals on social media are becoming increasingly common, where the logic that if you are not in, you are against seems to apply. This type of discussion climate does not fit well with the researcher’s task of using facts to highlight several different perspectives and advocate different results as part of an academic dialogue.

I am well aware that these are genuinely difficult questions and, given the high standards in academia, there is a responsibility to create an atmosphere that encourages a free search for knowledge, free dissemination of knowledge and free debate. But at the same time, it is a priority that our students and staff feel safe and secure on our campuses regardless of where they come from and what their opinions are.

In our vision we write “Our academic freedom and our principles of openness and transparency are fundamental to the development of knowledge and democracy” and this can also serve as a guide in the difficult delineations that we may be forced to make when it comes to everything from taking positions in conflicts in other parts of the world or considering what is knowledge worth protecting in the new, more complex international environment.

In other words, balancing the aim of KTH as an open and internationalized knowledge arena on the one hand, and on the other hand a protected place where neither national security interests nor individual groups are harmed, is difficult and we should be aware that there are no simple, ready-made answers to all the questions that arise. Some starting points, however, are that we follow the government’s line in terms of foreign policy positions, internally we have an ethical policy and our vision and goal documents to relate to, we have a new security organisation and also a security protection analysis that has recently been carried out, and we have greater awareness throughout the organisation.

But what is crucial in everyday life is the safety and security of students and staff. If this is lost, we risk ending up in a culture of silence, which would be devastating for a university.

Working at KTH, which is full of talent and stars, makes me undeniably proud – soon our second Nobel Prize may be on its way – who knows?Hannes Alfvén received the prize in physics in 1970 and I have always been curious about him as a person. Who was he and what was his legacy to his alma mater?

To answer this question, a while ago I got my hands on a fantastic book “Tidens retorik”. It was written by Svante Lindqvist, a former professor of history of technology at KTH Royal Institute of Technology who has long been fascinated by Alfvén.

I have not yet read the entire comprehensive volume – I will readily admit – but the picture of a highly committed and solid researcher emerges. He seems to have been genuinely curious not only about science but also about the society in which it operates.

To dare to be critical and see how various technological advances can also have a downside feels like a legacy from Alfvén. In addition to being an extraordinary scientist, he was also a committed social debater and eventually took a stand against nuclear power. It was a position that was not appreciated in all parts of society at the time, but which nevertheless shows his great integrity and commitment to contemporary issues.

Another commitment, if one may speculate, was as the bearer of KTH’s tradition of close co-operation and interaction with industry and society in general. Something that we carry on more than 80 years later in our strategic partnerships.

Alfvén apparently invented the trochotron whose patent was sold to LM Ericsson in 1946 for a sum that exceeded the Nobel Prize he received much later.

By the way, I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in due time!

As usual, the input from the different players involved reads much like a wish list, essentially requesting more funding. If you don’t ask, you don’t get, and the research bill is expected to include additional resources for the higher education sector. Otherwise, there’s very little point in writing a bill.

But the big question that no one is asking is how do you create a stable, transparent long-term higher education policy? Or put another way: what are the vital and most fundamental issues that need to be managed and resolved in order to create a successful, sustainable higher education sector that works long-term, and can meet society’s many needs for higher education and research?

Looking back, the major reform of 1977 for instance, when many new universities came into being, was preceded by a far-reaching inquiry that went on for many years and produced a variety of reports along the way. And even earlier than that, from the mid-1950s, a universities inquiry strove to produce “an all-round and unconditional assessment of the duties and needs of universities and colleges in modern society”. It is worth noting that the focus was both on what the higher education sector should do, and on what needs universities and colleges have.

The dynamics here mean that higher education is not only viewed as a provider of societal benefit, but also as a sector that needs to have certain conditions met to be able to operate – and these needs ought reasonably to be politically guaranteed.

Another question is whether the higher education sector is the kind of area that should have long-term political majorities in place for the fundamental issues, on which shorter-term research bills can draw. Other fields such as defence and energy are also areas that should require broader consensus, where politicians strive to tackle and resolve specific issues that extend beyond a parliamentary mandate period.

There are many issues of this kind that could be brought to the fore. One important question is how (political) control can be exercised in a system that simultaneously guarantees institutional autonomy for the universities. Another is how the wide variety of types of university and college today can be given space for their particular speciality, as well as the conditions they need to contribute to society in different ways. A third is how national missions can make an impression in the kind of diverse university landscape we have today, and how important national initiatives on, say, infrastructure, can be made possible.

There is also, and perhaps always, a need to express the freedom of education and research, and to problematise how freedom for the institutions, researchers/teachers and students can be combined with ambitions for societal relevance and labour market interests.

While every research bill does tend to include discussions of more fundamental issues, it has been some time since the state united to formulate both the duties and the needs of universities and colleges, in the way it did in 1955.

Or the people behind the mRNA technology that won the Nobel Prize in physiology and medicine. Imagine making a discovery that changes the world. I wonder how it feels. And how much time, patience and rethinking is involved.

All research contributes to just that, not least that conducted at KTH in a number of different areas.

Not everyone gets a Nobel Prize – Hannes Alfvén at KTH received one in physics in 1970 – but everyone contributes to the development of knowledge and new results with the potential to meet and counter the complex societal challenges we face. Just as students, with their curiosity and questioning, drive new answers and solutions.

The situation in the world is not optimal at the moment, to use an understatement, but these revolutionary discoveries give me great hope for the future.

Also, no researcher works in an empty room, but is in a group, in collaborations, in networks and in contexts across disciplinary and subject boundaries – often even national boundaries.

At KTH we have a number of researchers who have been inspired by, maybe competed against or collaborated with Nobel Prize winners over the years. Here you can read some of their thoughts  about both the Nobel Prize in Physics and the development of the mRNA technology and the Nobel Prize in Medicine that laid the foundation for the vaccine developed to combat COVID-19.

Or the Nobel Prize in Chemistry  that went to those who developed quantum dots. These have changed and illuminated our everyday lives in many ways, for example in LED lighting and TV screens.