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.

Employee funds  were used in the early 1990s when two higher education institutions, Jönköping University and Chalmers University of Technology, were transformed into foundations. The issue was then examined as part of the Alliance government’s reform agenda around 2010. After a largely negative consultation process, none of the proposals put forward at the time to create a special form of authority for higher education institutions were implemented. It was back again in the mid-2010s, but then the proposals for the transformation of foundations were not even put out to consultation, but were scrapped after an internal departmental review.

Here we are in 2025 and the government, this time with a liberal education minister, is again launching an inquiry into the governance of higher education institutions. It is not really clear what direction the government has in mind, nor is it clear whether there are any particular challenges or problems that the inquiry should focus on this time.

But the inquiry is important. We need to get out of the sometimes overly restrictive clothes we are wearing now. This can include regulations for government agencies that bind us in ways that are not appropriate, and difficulties in acting fully in academic collaborations, nationally and internationally. So I thought I would take the liberty of suggesting some possible directions for the forthcoming inquiry.

An important starting point might be that not all higher education institutions need to change in the same way at the same time. Let us say that the government takes this opportunity to clearly articulate the different roles and missions of different institutions in the higher education landscape, which may require different forms of association. The most important thing is not to automatically assume that ‘one size fits all’, but to seriously try to link the form of association to the role in the higher education landscape and for Sweden.

There should also be money involved. We are talking about much more than a few billion kronor, but from the government’s point of view it is not a cost but an investment in the foundation’s balance sheet, which the institution must manage while maintaining its purchasing power.

Inspiration may be found in Finland, where higher education institutions received so-called matching funds in their foundations: for every euro the university received in donations, the state added a few euros to the university’s endowment. A new form of authority could also be a way of dismantling our model for the provision of premises, for example by transferring the property portfolio to foundations or companies controlled by the university.

Finally, I hope that the inquiry will be conducted in interaction and perhaps cooperation with both higher education institutions and political representatives. If there are good ideas, it would be good if they were discussed widely and intensively along the way, rather than having a consultation round that effectively kills any ambitions for change, because we need change.

Before Christmas, the newspaper Dagens Industri started a series of articles on this topic. Under the headline “Researcher drain hits industry hard”, the article discusses the fact that many doctoral students at Swedish universities come from other countries and move abroad after graduation. This is known as the ‘brain drain’ and the consequence is that Swedish industry has less access to qualified, research-trained personnel.

 In 2023, there were 17,500 doctoral students in Sweden, 36 percent of whom will be from other countries, compared to 13 percent in 2000. In engineering, the figures are 54 and 18 percent respectively. The trend is clear. Doctoral education has become much more international in the 2000’s, as have other categories of performance and student groups. Since the total number of doctoral students is now about the same as it was 20 years ago, this means that the number of Swedish doctoral students has fallen by the same amount.

We also know that many foreign doctoral students leave Sweden after their studies. Among those who graduated in 2010, 38 percent remained in Sweden three years after graduation. Among those who graduated in 2015, the figure was 54 percent. The proportion staying has therefore increased. All figures are taken from UKÄ’s reports or statistical database.

It is easy to conclude that the supply of doctoral graduates in Sweden has decreased in line with increased internationalization. It is then natural to question internationalization as such, not least because doctoral education in Sweden is paid for by the taxpayer. Moreover, the times are such that internationalization can be seen as a problem for many different reasons.

So let me take the opposite view. Internationalization is essential if we want to maintain research of the highest quality, and it is only natural that graduates from Swedish universities seek careers both in Sweden and abroad. It becomes a problem when graduates in other countries do not see Sweden as a possible country for further careers. If Sweden only ‘exports’ skills to other countries, but is not able to ‘import’ graduates from other countries, internationalization will be one-sided and problematic for the Swedish supply of skills.

I have not seen any figures that shed light on the situation on the labour market in general, but I would like to rephrase the basic question: It is not just a question of how many people graduate from Swedish universities and then choose to stay and work in Sweden, but also how many people with doctorates work in the Swedish labour market, how this number has developed over time, how many people who come have Swedish or foreign doctorates, and how this corresponds to the needs of the labour market.

Questions about the attractiveness of the Swedish labour market and how easy or difficult it is to establish oneself in the Swedish labour market are therefore questions that should be included if the discussion about the ‘brain drain’ is to be used as a basis for change and measures.Such measures should therefore be aimed at strengthening the attractiveness of the Swedish labour market, regardless of where the doctoral degree was obtained.

This includes a basic understanding that the solution to the problems of supplying doctoral graduates is not less internationalization, but a better ability to attract talent in an international or global competition.