Author
Many events and conflicts in the world around us attract attention, and from time to time there are demands that KTH as a university should take a position in favour for or against a particular conflict or geopolitical event.
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.
Author
A year ago, the opera ‘The Tale of the Great Computing Machine’, based on ‘The Tale of the Great Computer’ written by Hannes Alfvén in 1966, was a success at KTH. He was a KTH professor and Nobel Prize winner, and yesterday the various Nobel Prizes were awarded.
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!
Author
The green transition was the theme of the Sweden Indo-Pacific Business Summit organised in Singapore in early December. As usual, it was noted that the threats to the climate are clearly verified in research and that the emerging threats require a transition at a faster pace than before.
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.
Author
As many already know, KTH’s board has decided to relocate the current operations from Södertälje and Kista to KTH’s main campus and, as far as the basic year programme is concerned, to Campus Flemingsberg. It is a decision that arouses emotions and, in some cases, almost emotional storms.
The future is always uncertain, but we know that KTH’s position as a leading internationalised and successful university needs to be nurtured. It is essential to build the university in such a way that as many resources as possible can be used for education and research, that we have room for strategic recruitment within the framework of a well-thought-out career system, that our educational programme is designed to be attractive to foreign talent and that our successful work in attracting external competitive funding can be combined with ambitions for a long-term approach and a good working environment for our employees.
Part of all this is of course also how our physical environment should look and how we should distribute activities between our different campuses. This issue has also been put under extra pressure because economic realities and previous board decisions mean that we must find ways forward that involve a more optimised and lean use of our premises. But, and I have at least said this all the times the issue has been discussed, in order to make major changes that affect our campuses, the future picture must be shaped around goals that involve business development.
For both Södertälje and Kista, there are long-term advantages to a single location, and the Board has now confirmed the direction of further work. It is therefore time to start the more detailed work of planning how the Board’s decision will be realized. It is almost obvious that the details must come as a result of knowing the long-term goal.
KTH has important industrial partners throughout the country and also has structured strategic partnerships with 15 different private and public partners. Within the framework of these agreements, collaboration has also been established with large parts of KTH from our closest partners in Södertälje and Kista.
We intend to continue to develop this work and also to expand the partnerships through more targeted initiatives. KTH is also prepared to be on site in other ways than what the current model has entailed, for example via learning centre environments, for lifelong learning or with various demo arenas or similar.
The responsibility that falls to the university management and board is largely about creating conditions, resolving challenges that the various parts of the organisation cannot handle, supporting successful development efforts and taking up the major future issues for joint discussion and problem solving.
Right now, work is also underway to shape KTH’s business plan and multi-year development agenda both at the central level and within each school. When we have new faculty boards and faculty council in place, I hope that we will also have more forums for discussing our long-term future issues.
It goes without saying that change is difficult. But the fact that it is difficult does not mean that we can refrain from implementing the changes that we believe will lead KTH to a more favourable position in the longer term.
Author
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.
