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!

The theme of the discussions was how research, innovation, education and talent hunting can, or must, contribute to the transition. As usual, all of us who attend these conferences say the right things, show an awareness of the problems, and then go home with the wrong priorities because there are so many other short-term problems on the agenda.

However, one hope for the future is that the younger generation, which was also represented, has a much stronger feeling and higher level of ambition regarding the need for change than the older generation as a whole. It is also encouraging to see how successful research actually contributes to the transition here and now and how innovative educational programs create the conditions for the gradual renewal of skills in society to work with broader systemic issues of importance to the climate. A lot is actually happening at the universities, not least KTH, which is of crucial importance for the future. Research and education are truly a factory of the future.

Climate is important, but the transition also involves many other things that are important for the sustainability of society. Energy efficiencies, new materials, new digital solutions and sustainable urban planning contribute in many different ways to conserving the planet’s resources and contributing to the green transition.

In addition to the high-level meeting, with a few hundred participants from Sweden and Southeast Asia, we also visited Nanyang Technical University (NTU) and A-Star in Singapore. NTU is an important and strategic partner to KTH and, like many Swedish companies, Singapore can serve as a hub for many other collaborations in the region. Our hope is to be able to expand the already successful postgraduate education cooperation with NTU and to also develop forms for a deeper collaboration with A-Star’s research lab, which in many respects has similar development agendas as we have.

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.