Competitive calls for proposals, such as those for strategic research areas (SFO in Swedish), contribute to both long-term planning and coordination. However, there is a risk that they will increase national competition instead of strengthening Sweden’s position as an international research player.

The strategic research areas is an instrument used by the government to allocate long-term funding to designated higher education institutions for research in specific scientific areas. The application period for the SFOs has now closed, and it is time to approve applications.

In our response to the research bill, we at KTH welcomed the government’s decision to establish new SFOs. They meet both the needs of higher education institutions for long-term investments that provide a basis for strategic investments in personnel and infrastructure, and the needs of the government to have certain research carried out. This type of research governance involves resources with a very long time horizon, unlike the short-term commitments of many other research funders.

The announcement of new SFOs also initiates a search for partners nationally in order to create the very best applications. Almost all applications involve more than one university, which also serves as a tool for creating national coordination and division of labour.

It would have been a fantastic opportunity if the new SFO funds had had some additional resources beyond what was ultimately allocated, for example at the expense of investments via external financiers. It would, of course, have been beneficial if the total had been a portfolio of investments that did not further increase the degree of external financing.

This type of competitive call for proposals comes with a number of challenges. One risk is that we will end up with fierce national competition for a few higher education institutions in each field to become the best in Sweden, when the real challenge is for Sweden to become the best in Europe and the world. Creating national alliances also takes time, and there will always be questions about which alliances are the strongest for Sweden. This is easier in some areas than in others, and we hope that it will be as successful as possible. The same applies to Sweden in international competition.

The bill means that a total of SEK 6.5 billion will be allocated to Swedish research when the initiatives are fully implemented in 2028. These are significant resources. Several important initiatives will go to STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics), infrastructure and research excellence. Life sciences, quantum, AI, space, batteries, cyber security and research infrastructure are some of the areas that will receive specific funding. In addition, several frontier technologies will receive funding opportunities.

It is good to see such a significant increase in funding at a time when many other policy areas are in need of increased funding. If you like, you can read the bill as part of Sweden’s response to an increasingly complicated world situation and growing tensions between Europe and the other major continents competing for global influence. Free basic research and success in translating research into application are also important instruments for freedom, democracy and independence!

Of course, there is always a Christmas wish list, and I thought I would share my higher education policy wish list with you this year.

In one package, I hope to see stronger core funding for university research and, in the longer term, greater control over resources so that we can take clearer responsibility for long-term and strategic funding of research.
This has not been fully included in the bill, although there is a significant increase in funding, albeit via external research funding bodies. KTH has traditionally been successful in this competition, and we are driven by excellence, so I am sure that the outcome will be positive for us in the long term, which is a good thing.

But the Research Bill shows that even the increase in basic funding is controlled to an extent that we are not used to, and it has to be said that this makes it more difficult for us to take responsibility and create long-term stable conditions for the most excellent research. So it’s a bit worrying that the proportion of external funding is increasing, and that the proportion that goes directly to universities is largely externally directed, so while it’s great to see large increases in funding for the sector, we’re concerned about the increased governance.

An alternative and freer way of running universities would fit well into another package. And just such an inquiry is announced in the Bill. The government writes that it will set up an inquiry to analyse the appropriateness of the form of authority we currently have for state universities. This is a good thing.

The third package I would like to see is a completely new model for the provision of premises to universities, which would free us from the stranglehold of the current model with Akademiska Hus.
If this was not in the package, there could have been a special compensation to offset the rising costs of premises in recent years. None of this is in the bill, so it is not so good.

Another thing on the wish list is more attention to the need for coordinated investment in research and innovation to create a broader strategic research and innovation agenda for Sweden. This is included in various parts of the bill, including under the heading of clusters of excellence for high technology, which is a good thing.

Efforts to increase the attractiveness and mobility of university activities are also on the wish list. A small package of this kind has also been included, with studies on migration law and proposals for changes to facilitate international recruitment. That’s good!

All in all, there were many gifts that went our way, even if some were missing. In any case, it’s now time to take a break and celebrate the holidays.

So I would like to take this opportunity to wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

This year’s Physics Prize was shared between John J. Hopfield and Geoffrey Hinton for discoveries further back in time that had a major impact on the development of AI, paving the way for the AI that is now increasingly fundamental to scientific work and everyday life.

The AI Commission has also recently presented its roadmap for Sweden, outlining the risks, needs and opportunities it sees for our country. Sweden has the prerequisites, but is at risk of falling behind, and therefore needs to invest heavily in AI in order to secure our position and also to be able to contribute to the long-term development of AI.

At KTH, we have solid experience and a lot of relevant research in this field. Hundreds of researchers are also using AI every day in areas such as energy, transport, health and social planning. AI will affect and change all research and education in a profound way.

To name just a few of the many examples of exciting research with AI at KTH, there are examples such as detecting early signs of infection in babies before it breaks out. Another example is applications in neuroscience and how to track how immune cells in our brains change their shape and respond to environmental signals, even before neurological symptoms appear, such as in Parkinson’s disease.

Efforts must also be made to manage the risks associated with AI. These include the risk of data moving unchecked in global networks in ways we do not want, for example in geopolitical terms. There is also the risk of AI ‘taking over’, a risk that Nobel Laureate Geoffrey Hinton has articulated by saying ‘we have no idea whether we can stay in control’.

However, the solution is not to try to stop development; what is needed is free and independent research that addresses the major issues raised by AI in a responsible and ethically sustainable way. There are, of course, issues of pure technological development, but also issues that have more to do with the use and consequences of AI. As AI in one way or another characterizes science in general and is no longer a separate subject, this is a responsibility that rests on the shoulders of many researchers and a great responsibility for us as a university community.

That’s a lot of money – in fact, it’s one of the largest investments in recent decades. In 2023, direct government funding will amount to SEK 22.8 billion and total external research funding (government, private, national and international) will amount to SEK 29.3 billion.

Given that research policy did not seem to be a priority in the Tidö cooperation and that there are so many areas that need investment, it is very positive news that so much money is being invested in Swedish research. The government has also shown when and how it intends to distribute the investments. The new funds will be added in stages, with SEK 1.5 billion in 2025 and, as I said, SEK 6.5 billion in 2028.

Of the SEK 6.5 billion, just under SEK 4.9 billion will go to the research councils (VR, Formas, Forte) as well as Vinnova, Rise and the Swedish National Space Board. Just over SEK 1.6 billion will be distributed as increased basic grants to universities and colleges. VR alone will receive a larger increase (just over SEK 2.5 billion) than the higher education sector as a whole. One assumption is that this includes specific funding for large national research infrastructures.

This means that overall external funding for universities will increase. We currently have 62 per cent external funding, and with reasonable success in relation to the additional funding, this percentage will increase in the future.

A high proportion of external funding means a lot of quality-assured allocations, but also considerable transaction costs. There are many judgments to be made and, as always, the question is where the optimal balance lies: When does quality assured funding at project level cost more than the quality gain that this model of funding provides? I think we passed that point a long time ago.

Now that the government has decided to further increase external funding at the expense of basic funding, I would still like to see some innovations in the way research funding organisations work.

Large and long-term funding packages, perhaps focused on broader themes defined by researchers, preferably in collaboration between different higher education institutions; or

strong research career grants that give the most successful researchers more time to freely build successful research environments; or

investment in specific technology areas for the long-term development of innovation capacity, research and scale-up. The key words are long term, long term and long term!