An interdisciplinary approach is often the way forward to find solutions to complex problems where a number of different aspects are highlighted based on each researcher’s disciplinary domicile.

At the annual Baltic Sea Seminar held a few weeks ago, researchers presented studies showing the environmental problems of the Baltic Sea, but also different solutions to save the sea. These included everything from recreating spawning grounds for predatory fish, using sensor technology for monitoring, wind-powered modern ships and, not least, developing aquaculture and so-called blue food.

When the presentations were linked together, it was clear how different scientific disciplines, each in their own way, contribute to understanding the complex marine environment in the Baltic Sea, the relationship between the marine environment and activities on land and how new technology can be used to create new sustainable solutions that also provide great added value to society.

In medical technology, KTH and KI jointly run MedTechLab and within this collaboration, several innovative and scientifically successful projects are conducted in collaboration between KTH, KI and clinical activities. One example involves technology for imaging cancer tumours so that they can be detected earlier and with better precision by doctors. Technology development, diagnostics and medical science need to work together.

Another example is the mapping of nerve impulses to eventually influence nerve pathways and cure diseases such as rheumatism or other inflammatory diseases through new medical devices. Mathematics, engineering, medical science and clinical activities Mathematics, engineering, medical science and clinical activities are involved in the project to contribute to the common goal of better health and quality of life through more precise medical treatment.

Last week the Franco-Swedish Research Days focused on nuclear energy. Here, too, many disciplines are working together to create the conditions for the nuclear reactors of the future, which will be modular and safer than today’s systems. This also includes legislation, license assessments and cooperation between authorities as an important part of the problem complex that needs scientific contributions to improve society’s long-term energy supply.

It is easy to feel a strong sense of confidence in the ability of universities to contribute to the climate transition and a better society when you see progress that is based on truly interdisciplinary working methods where deep scientific disciplinary expertise is developed and utilized. For KTH it feels almost like a badge of honor to be able to work in this way.

The term ‘open science’ refers partly to open access to scientific publications and partly to open access to research data. Both aspects have their specific challenges to consider and are currently being debated in many parts of the sector, both nationally and internationally. The Swedish government has commissioned the National Library of Sweden to develop national guidelines for open science by 1 January 2024. Recently, a two-day conference was held on the theme under the title Open Science from policy to practice in which KTH was involved.

When it comes to scientific publications, there are financial gains that publishing firms now risk losing out on if the research community can build new, innovative digital solutions for scientific publication. The conventional model is that the universities pay for the research to be conducted, then the researchers help quality assure articles submitted for assessment (often without being paid) and then the same researchers have to pay to read the articles once they have been published.

The publishing industry is therefore protecting its business models and is naturally reluctant to change. In the past, the universities have paid to access and read the articles, while nowadays open access to the material is often guaranteed through paying for publication instead. Or in fact, both models still exist, some publications are still closed behind subscription services and others are open by means of publication fees. In practice, there are many variations on how the articles are made available with combinations of open and closed access and different types of fees. The models have names like diamond, green, gold or hybrid.

Whatever the solution, all the attempts to maintain the conventional, costly model for scientific publication are contrary to the concept of open science, and significant sums are being transferred from research to publishing firms. The publishers’ business models are therefore clear obstacles to open science. In an ideal world, a ‘Spotify revolution’ would take place where the powerful position of the publishing firms is broken, or at least fundamentally changed, and where the research community steps forward and, within the framework of digital solutions, makes research openly available – without compromising on quality and without the publishing firms acting as costly intermediaries.

This is not without its challenges. The quality control that the publishing firms are currently responsible for, the strong ‘brands’ of individual titles and the importance that universities attach to publication data and the impact values of the journals in all kinds of assessment must in that case be managed differently. There are also people who vigorously defend the publication model, and who are prepared to fight for it, while at the same time community-driven publication models are being developed where the researchers themselves are in control of the journals.

We are clearly somewhere in the middle of a transition to open access and we must stand firm so that we do not go back to costly models, where the only change is in the method of charging high fees from subscription to publication. The transition is being driven at both national and European level by research funders and political decision-makers, although we still lack a clear disruptor capable of fundamentally changing the conditions.

There have been framework programmes for research (and innovation) within the EU system since 1984, and they have become an increasingly important source of research funding. The current programme encompasses EUR 95 billion over seven years. And while Europe is certainly a big place, that is a lot of money.

The three pillars of the programme are Excellent Science, Global Challenges and European Industrial Competitiveness (e.g. health and climate), and Innovative Europe. As representatives of the universities, we have many access points into the various pillars, based on research issues, partnerships and forms of funding.

This was very clear during a two-day stay in Brussels.  KTH, Karolinska Institute and Stockholm University jointly make up the University Alliance Stockholm Trio, part of which includes having a shared office in Brussels. The trio also has a research funding collaboration. Taken together, the presence in Brussels and the research funding can be important resources for increasing success within the framework programme. Together, we already have just under 40 per cent of all the funding coming into Sweden via the programme, but of course there’s always scope for more.

During the visit to Brussels, we met people at the Commission and the many organisations that work in lobbying and monitoring, and we attended the Science Business conference. It was very clear that the research profiles represented by the Stockholm Trio were of great interest in Brussels. Sustainable development was discussed at every meeting (!), linked for example to digitalization, health, climate and other areas. What we are doing at KTH and within the Stockholm Trio is of genuine relevance also to the European political system.

One of the key points for the future is to increase the proportion of funding awarded via the European Research Council (part of the Excellent Science pillar), so as to expand the scope of excellent research.

Another is to continue efforts to include non-EU countries in the programme, such as Canada, New Zealand and South Korea. This is a clear signal that research is, by nature, global. The parts of the programme that focus on special societal challenges should have a distinct element of scientific research to ensure that it is possible to find solutions to the major issues.

One example among many is the Environmental Humanities Lab, which is now a research centre at KTH. The lab conducts analyses from an experimental approach based on a raft of different human and social science theories, in an endeavour to find answers to the global challenges society is facing. This could be anything from political ecology and migration, to the role of cities in the climate transition.

Or industrial economics and organisation at the intersection between economics/management and engineering/science, highlighting areas such as logistics, production management and entrepreneurialism.

Interdisciplinary collaborations like these are ever more important in dealing with the increasingly complex issues the world is facing today. It is therefore crucial that we have these combined environments also at KTH, and I hope they can be even more successful.

The mixture of heavy engineering and humanities/social sciences can be found in many places around the world, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, MIT. At KTH too, we have a tradition in history of technology that is crucial in broadening perspectives in research and education.

At a meeting in mid-January, the minister gave a brief programme statement on how he sees the future of education and research in Sweden. Swedish universities uphold high standards when it comes to research and its results, but a sharper focus on excellence is necessary if we are to remain at the forefront.

KTH works methodically in different ways to stay in the game and keep its position in the global competition, a prime example being our RAE (Research Assessment Exercise) that was completed a year ago. The results are very useful in continuing to develop our research, in terms of both the scrutiny of our research by external experts and ourselves, and recommendations on how we can take it to the next level.

The many strategic initiatives taken by KTH itself and jointly with other universities and research financiers guarantee continued excellence in our research. This goes for everything from the Science for Life Laboratory and Digital Futures, to KTH’s involvement in urban development and sustainable production, to name but a few areas.

Collaboration across national borders and disciplines is something we have consciously focused on for a long time, as the major societal challenges we are facing call for a wide range of expertise, perspectives and interdisciplinary research collaboration. One good example is our EU strategy: by taking part in Framework Programme 9 for Research and Innovation, Horizon Europe, we can influence the focus and future development of research. Our involvement in various international networks, such as our EUI alliance Unite!, also presents greater opportunities to deepen our international collaboration.

And of course, innovation fits KTH Innovation like a glove, whereby applied research that brings real benefits is a cornerstone for KTH. We have many examples where successful research has been translated into innovative business ideas, and we have a well-equipped support system for fostering innovations from students and researchers alike.

Once the government and the minister have concretised and more closely defined their key words, KTH looks forward to being an active discussion partner for future university policy, and indeed on the next research bill scheduled for presentation in autumn 2024.