Academic mobility is a hot topic right now. Scholars often move in search of better conditions for conducting serious, meaningful work. Today, perhaps more than ever, talent retention and attraction are crucial issues. Countries are responding in various ways: some invest heavily to attract talent, while others focus on visibility and scale. What I believe is sometimes overlooked is the immense value of environments where research is still treated as something worth protecting.

For me, that place was Sweden.

I first came to Sweden as a postdoc at the Mittag-Leffler Institute, one of the world’s most respected research centers in mathematics, a place where ideas breathe and fundamental, long-term research isn’t just allowed, it’s expected. From there, I spent a year in Germany and a couple of years in the U.S. Then I returned to Sweden as faculty at KTH.

Not because of the salary—that’s not Sweden’s selling point. But what I found here was something that, to me, mattered more: a research culture with room to grow, a school system I (mostly) trust, and a social structure that makes academic life compatible with family life.

At KTH, I found something else, too: a truly international academic environment. Many of my colleagues come from outside Sweden. Diversity isn’t just a statistic—it shapes how we work, teach, and think. Even as someone who didn’t grow up in this system, I’ve been able to find my place—and eventually became dean of the school. That says something about how open the environment can be.

For those of us already at KTH, this is a reminder that what we create together, through mentorship, collegiality, and the way we conduct research and education, matters deeply. A welcoming and intellectually rich environment doesn’t happen automatically. It’s something we build, choice by choice, and it is one of our greatest assets in a global academic landscape.

And beyond the institution, Sweden’s approach to research is, so far, serious and steady. This is the country of the Nobel Prize, yes—but also of long-term investment in science. Programs like those from the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet) or the Wallenberg foundations offer stable, long-term research support, aiming also to attract talent from other countries.

So, is it perfect? Of course not. But maybe that’s not the point. For me, the real question was: what kind of academic life do we want to build?

Sweden might not be on everyone’s radar. But maybe it should be.

We live in a chaotic and uncertain time. The world feels unstable, economically, socially, and politically, and the effects of global developments are already reaching us. International policy changes and shifting discussions have tangible impacts, especially concerning funding, research priorities, and attitudes to academic freedom and equality.

At times like these, it’s understandable to feel uneasy or cautious. But moments like these also invite reflection. What kind of university do we want to be in a world that is rapidly changing around us?

Yes, there are reasons to feel concerned, but there are also reasons to be hopeful. In Sweden, political support for research remains strong. Recent government initiatives promise increased investment and emphasize protecting research freedom. This provides a valuable foundation, something we should not take for granted but should continue to build on thoughtfully.

A university is where the next generation takes shape. In uncertain times, students look to us, not expecting all the answers, but searching for guidance, intellectual honesty, and the courage to face complexity. Our responsibility is to provide rigorous, open, and inspiring environment where knowledge matters and where it is acceptable to not yet have all the answers.

Meanwhile, new technologies are reshaping entire research fields. Artificial intelligence and quantum technology are not just abstract ideas. They are already transforming research in life sciences, energy, and materials, while raising entirely new fundamental questions. Young researchers are often at the forefront of these fields. The potential is huge, but realizing it requires ongoing investment, long-term vision, and trust in the scientific process.

We may not control the global winds, but we can choose how we respond. This means remaining open to the world while being clear about our own values. It means making room for deep, long-term thinking, even when pressures push us in other directions. It also means holding onto the curiosity, creativity, and dialogue that are at the heart of academic life.

Difficult times can help us clarify what’s truly important. They remind us why universities exist in the first place.

As we prepare to open nominations for the 2025 Borelius Medal, it is timely to pause and reflect on the life and legacy of the man whose name the medal proudly bears – Professor Gudmund Borelius (1889–1985).

Professor Borelius was a physicist whose influence at KTH and within Swedish science remains deeply felt. After completing his doctorate at Lund University in 1915, he was appointed professor of physics at KTH in 1922 – a position he held until 1955.

During this time, he not only led important research in solid-state physics and the properties of metals, but also shaped the very foundations of how we educate future physicists and engineers in Sweden.

One of his most enduring contributions was the establishment of the civilingenjör program in Engineering Physics (Teknisk Fysik) in 1932 – a bold and visionary initiative that brought a deeper theoretical grounding to engineering education.

This program has since become a flagship of Swedish technical education, producing generations of graduates who combine scientific rigor with engineering excellence.

In the early decades of Teknisk Fysik, the educational path was relatively streamlined. Students followed a shared, rigorous curriculum rooted in mathematics, physics, and fundamental engineering principles.

Specialization came late,  if at all. Today, by contrast, a student in Teknisk Fysik can choose among more than a dozen master’s programs, spanning areas as diverse as quantum technology, machine learning, medical physics, financial mathematics, and more.

This diversity reflects a remarkable success story: the foundational training is so robust that it opens doors to many advanced fields.

Yet it also invites reflection. What do we gain from this breadth? What might we lose? How do we maintain a shared identity and depth of knowledge when the paths forward have multiplied so significantly?

Professor Borelius understood that depth and breadth are not opposites, but partners. He believed in the power of foundational knowledge – not as an end in itself, but as a platform for innovation, flexibility, and lifelong learning. As the landscape of engineering and physics continues to evolve, his legacy offers both inspiration and a timely reminder: strong foundations are not constraints, but enablers.

The Borelius Medal commemorates this legacy and recognizes those who, in their own way, have made outstanding contributions to the development and success of Engineering Sciences at KTH.

The Swedish government has presented an important STEM strategy aimed at securing the country’s future in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics.

The proposal includes investments at all levels—from preschool to higher education—to ensure that Sweden remains competitive and innovative.  Read the full proposal here.

Two key challenges highlight the urgency of this initiative:

• Declining PISA results in mathematics and science, showing weaker foundational knowledge.
• Decreasing enrollment in science and technology programs at the high school level, limiting the future supply of engineers, researchers, and technical experts.

The only way to reverse this trend is by increasing interest in STEM subjects—and that starts early. A child’s curiosity about science and technology is often shaped by their family, culture, and school environment.

Parents, teachers, and society as a whole play a role in fostering (or discouraging) curiosity and confidence in these fields.

• The way we talk about math and science at home matters. A single discouraging comment can make a child believe they are “not a math person.”
• Schools must provide inspiring teaching and high standards to nurture and retain interest in STEM.
•  Role models, hands-on learning, and engaging experiences help build a culture where STEM is exciting and accessible to all.

Investing in education, culture, and teaching quality is not just about creating more scientists and engineers—it’s about equipping future generations with the skills to solve global challenges and drive Sweden forward.

Universities have a key role to play in this transformation. Some concrete actions we can take include:

• Stronger outreach programs – Engaging younger students through science camps, school collaborations, and mentorship programs.
• More diverse role models – Encouraging women and underrepresented groups in STEM by highlighting diverse success stories.
• Innovative teaching methods – Making STEM education more interactive, interdisciplinary, and connected to real-world challenges.
• Lifelong learning opportunities – Ensuring that professionals can update their skills to meet the evolving demands of the job market.

A key initiative in the government’s strategy is the creation of a STEM delegation, which will work to strengthen collaboration between schools, universities, authorities, and industry.

One of its specific goals is to increase the number of women pursuing STEM degrees by identifying and supporting activities that attract and retain female students in these fields.

This is an important step in ensuring diversity and inclusivity in science and technology, and universities have an important role to play in supporting these efforts.

What more can we do at KTH and at universities in general to strengthen STEM education and inspire future generations?

This is a challenge that requires collaboration across academia, industry, and society. By working together, we can ensure that Sweden remains at the forefront of innovation and scientific excellence.

Ensuring stable financial resources for faculty is crucial to maintaining high-quality research, attracting top talent, and fostering a thriving academic environment. However, in Sweden—particularly at technical universities—faculty funding is heavily dependent on external grants. This situation creates challenges in maintaining stability and continuity in research efforts. How can we structure faculty research funding to ensure both stability and efficiency?

At Swedish  universities, faculty funding comes from two primary internal revenue streams:

• Educational Revenues (GRU): Linked to student enrollment and distributed based on teaching assignments. These funds can only be used for teaching-related activities.
• Internal Research Revenues (FoFU): Supports faculty research activities, including Ph.D. advising and research time.

GRU and FoFU are separate and cannot be merged into a single budget. Unlike educational revenues, which are relatively predictable, research funding is more volatile, as much of our infrastructure, Ph.D. students, and short-term researchers rely on external research grants. Given this reality, the key question remains:

How should we allocate faculty research funding to ensure stability while maintaining academic excellence?

Stable research funding per faculty member is essential for:

– Sustaining high research quality
– Attracting and retaining top faculty talent
– Enabling long-term research planning and doctoral education

One of the key challenges in academia is determining the appropriate faculty volume—that is, the number of faculty members needed to sustain both teaching and research at a high level. Faculty volume directly impacts the distribution of internal research funding (FoFU), making it a critical factor in long-term academic planning.

At the School of Engineering Sciences (SCI) at KTH, we believe that research funding should not be allocated arbitrarily or based solely on historical structures. Instead, it should be closely tied to faculty assignments (uppdrag) to ensure fairness, sustainability, and strategic alignment with the university’s mission.

But what does this mean in practice?

• Avoiding Fragmentation of Resources – If faculty volume expands without a proportional increase in funding, internal research resources (FoFU) risk being spread too thin. This could weaken research quality and limit support for Ph.D. students.
• Ensuring Fair and Transparent Allocation – A model based on assignments ensures that funding is linked to faculty contributions, both in terms of teaching and external research engagement.
• Supporting Faculty Career Development – By tying funding to faculty responsibilities, we create an environment where all can plan their careers with greater financial predictability.

At SCI, we focus on two key indicators when aligning research funding with faculty assignments:

Teaching Volume: Faculty members contribute significantly to education, and their teaching load should be factored into their research funding allocation.

External Research Funding: Since external grants form a major part of research financing, the ability to secure such funding is a vital faculty responsibility.

We believe that by using faculty assignments as a guiding principle, we create a balanced approach that supports both stability and growth in research activities.

The challenge lies in striking the right balance between faculty size and available funding. A stable baseline of internal research funding per faculty member is essential to sustain high-impact research and long-term academic success. At the same time, the system must be flexible to accommodate growth in externally funded research activities.

Moving forward, we need a structured approach to link faculty assignments to faculty volume. By reinforcing stable research resources while considering external funding realities, we can foster an academic environment that promotes both innovation and sustainability.

For the faculty at SCI, a detailed description of the economic distribution of funds as well as a comprehensive reform agenda for 2025 can be found at SCI-skolans konkretisering av KTH:s verksamhetsplan 2025