Research

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Now we have to debate research. It is something that is important for Sweden.

Sweden is a fantastic country. If one looks at what has historically been achieved in the field of education and science, one can see that it is very much. Sweden is a research nation. There are strong educational institutions, and they have contributed enormously to development, not only in our own country but in the whole world, with innovations, inventions, and research that form the basis for large, extensive, and important gains within medicine, technology, economy, industry, welfare, and much more. We shall, of course, continue to do this. Many of the great societal challenges that we now face, not least the climate issue, will require more knowledge and more research for us to be able to solve them.

Education is also important from an ideological perspective. For me as a liberal, it is about the individual's liberation and freedom. Research benefits the entire society, but it is nothing without its researchers. It is people who invest an enormous amount of time and mental effort in delving into often specific, narrow, and quite nerdy issues in order to constantly increase their own knowledge and contribute to everyone's increased well-being.

Research is also important for us to become more resistant to conspiracy theories, disinformation, self-appointed experts, and fortune seekers in general. Knowledge strengthens society's resilience. A well-educated populace, Madam Speaker, becomes much harder for an extremist to incite. A group that is well-educated becomes harder for a demagogue to manipulate and deceive with simple solutions. Research plays an enormously important role in strengthening, protecting, and developing our freedom and our democracy.

It is, of course, a significant difference between what the scientific community as a whole concludes when they delve deeper into issues and produce climate panels and climate reports or vaccines against corona, and what a person comes up with in a few hours by googling around and hanging out on YouTube.

The Riksdag and the government have high ambitions for research in Sweden. This autumn, the research policy bill—the research prop, as it is commonly called in political language—will be presented. It arrives in the middle of every parliamentary term. Then we take further steps, Madam Speaker, to strengthen higher education in Sweden in the long term and to strengthen our research and our innovative power. The government has received over 300 inputs and proposals from various actors for the research policy bill, and these are currently being analyzed at the Ministry of Education.

Parallel to this work, several other initiatives are being taken by the government, which I truly welcome. At the beginning of February, for example, a memorandum was sent out for consultation. It concerns increasing mobility between higher education and other sectors to strengthen the supply of skills in Sweden. It needs to become easier, for example, to be able to combine work as a researcher and teacher at a higher education institution with work within, for example, healthcare or industry. Work is also ongoing to strengthen research security, the infrastructure for research, and a good deal of other things.

The upcoming research policy bill is, among other things, about strengthening quality and excellence, which has also had great support in the Education Committee's various reports over the years. This is incredibly important for Sweden to be competitive in the future and for our prosperity to increase.

Madam Speaker! Education, knowledge, innovation and research need the business committee's attention to grow. That is why we as politicians have a great responsibility to ensure both resources and good conditions for the academy as a whole. Colleges and universities should, of course, always focus on what is significant. For example, it is about merits, competence and academic expertise when appointing positions.

The basis for good research is a good education. The government is now working very actively – this involves a number of different departments – on developing a STEM strategy. STEM stands for science, technology, engineering and mathematics – forgive all the anglicisms here in the rostrum. This is being done so that more people will choose to educate themselves within STEM, for example to become engineers, math teachers or chemists.

The government increased the compensation for the so-called NT price tag in the budget and also announced upcoming increases for the same price tag. I think it is very important. If we are to produce skilled researchers in the future, not least within natural science subjects, this is truly needed. But there is also a need to look at the whole and to see what can be done earlier in the education system.

If we in Sweden think that we have a shortage of engineers or if we think that there are too few who want to become engineers, we must ensure that we have a strategy for natural sciences, technology, and mathematics that runs across the entire education system. It is about starting as early as preschool and about awakening this interest.

Madam Speaker! I very much look forward to us getting a STEM strategy with clear measurable goals. Then we in Sweden can take a new step to further sharpen ourselves in this area and increase our breadth so that we produce more engineers in the future.

With this, I vote in favor of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the speech! I share the opinion on very much of what Member Malm described during his speech. It is about the importance of research and how important it is that we have a good education that generates skilled researchers in the future.

I still thought I would give Fredrik Malm the chance to put out the text on central policy to actually develop research in Sweden. From the statistics, it seems that the Swedish quality in research is falling slightly. We also see that we are losing a little bit in the innovation area. There we usually rank among the top three or even number one. There are some tendencies that we might slip down there as well. It is something to be vigilant about, these are early signals, I think, because it takes time to change within the research world.

I heard quite little from Member Malm regarding political proposals and the role of politics in reversing such a trend. How can the quality of research in Sweden increase? Fredrik Malm explained that we are a nation that has a proud tradition, and we must continue to be that. The question is: If we now see early signals that it is declining, what does the government party Liberalerna want to do to change such a trend?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the question. I believe that we, in all humility, share the starting point. We are both liberals, Anders Ådahl and I, it should be added. It is also the case for the Speaker. Ådahl is furthermore a Chalmerite and is very well informed about the situation at our universities.

We can look very broadly. That involves, for example, that large Swedish companies that invest heavily in research should keep their headquarters in Sweden and that they should feel that there is a business climate and a corporate climate that makes them want to stay in the country.

We can look specifically at the educational institutions. Then it is partly about appropriations and partly, of course, about which priorities one makes.

Madam Speaker! I would particularly like to point out the importance of investments in our long-term research infrastructure. It is also about us in Sweden sharpening our focus on securing more of the funds available at the European level in the European Union's Horizon program so that we can have more research in Sweden.

Madam Speaker! There is one thing that I pushed myself. I know that the government is now working on this and investigating the possibilities – the previous one did as well. It is about how we can sharpen climate research, for example, when we will likely need a new research icebreaker when the ship Oden is retired in a number of years. I see that a major investment will be needed there in the future. It is unclear when it can happen, but it will be needed.

Then, of course, there is that which we often discuss in the Education Committee, Madam Speaker, namely the entire primary school and upper secondary school. It is about more students passing school, that the interest in researching and inventing things should grow, and that our children and youth should not only look down at their mobile phones on TikTok but also exert more effort in school.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the statement! I still want to return to my question regarding structural measures that perhaps need to be implemented early from the political side to reverse such a trend. I am thinking, for example, of the balance between, on one hand, free research and on the other hand, directed research.

Free research means that from the political side, one can imagine providing money and resources to universities and researchers so that the researchers themselves can define research questions, conduct research, and then arrive at something that they actually do not know in advance at all. Directed research can be that from the politics one wants to invest extra in certain areas or that from the business sector one perhaps wants an investment in electrification and so on.

Can Fredrik Malm possibly explain a bit how this balance looks today and how it could look tomorrow? Is there too much free research today or is there too little?

If we ask the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, they would say that we should invest in more free research, and when we meet the business community, they say that we should listen more to the business community. The question is where Fredrik Malm and the Liberals are located in this playing field?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I really appreciate it when the person taking the floor says, "Can you not elaborate a bit on what you think about this area?". I do that very gladly!

Madam Speaker! Even in this issue, I believe that both Anders Ådahl and I see that one needs to keep two thoughts in mind at the same time. There are no really categorical and certain answers, I would say. The balance points are partly fluid and can partly be cyclical, depending on how we view the competence needs on the labor market, for example.

Madam Speaker! A few weeks ago, we had a debate here about upper secondary school. There, the question of dimensioning also comes into play, which in some sense meets other values such as the student's own freedom of choice and what education one wants to study.

It is in a sense the same thing here. Sweden as a nation needs certain things. At the same time, we have individuals who want to study, learn, educate themselves, and delve deeper. In that part, the question of political governance comes in, as the member highlights.

I would say that politicians should not micro-manage too much. We have freedom of research protected by the constitution in Sweden. What does come to the table for politics, however, is that when we lay out the research policy propositions and when we make important strategic investments that the Riksdag is responsible for with decisions on the budget and so on, then there must be a perception of which path Sweden should take.

I do not think it is wrong - and I do not think Member Ådahl thinks either - that from a political standpoint one can identify that, for example, medical research is of particularly great interest and that we should invest more in it.

It is always a balancing act. We should not interfere with what the individual researchers do, but there must also be a direction for how we want to lead higher education in Sweden.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! I have not attended Chalmers, but I have attended Högskolan Väst and the University of Gothenburg. I hope that it will still go well!

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating the Education Committee's report UbU15 on research. I stand behind all our reservations, but I wish to move for approval of reservation 1.

For us Social Democrats, research is not just an investment in the future but a fundamental part of our society and our vision for a just and sustainable society for all.

Freedom of research is a fundamental principle that we as a society must safeguard with the utmost care. That researchers can freely choose their subjects and methods, as well as freely publish their results, is not only crucial for the quality of research but also for the very core of our democracy.

Our research policy has a dual task. We need to direct resources to solve societal problems and support the business sector. We also need to create favorable conditions for free knowledge-seeking. We Social Democrats are therefore clear that politicians must never be allowed to direct the results of research or the choice of methods, and that no pressure shall be exerted on individual researchers.

Madam Speaker! Sweden as a country must stand up for the freedom of research both nationally and internationally, especially in a time of increased resistance to facts and threats against researchers. We unfortunately see a worrying trend with authoritarian regimes that limit the independence of research and even close universities or force them to move their operations. The Swedish government should clearly take a stand against such tendencies.

Madam Speaker! The threats against Sweden have also increased, according to the Swedish Security Service. Foreign powers are investing extensive resources to gain access to advanced technology from Sweden. These threats affect not only society as a whole but also our universities and colleges. It is therefore necessary that the higher education institutions actively handle security policy issues, including strengthening the protection of information and operations.

The threats against academic freedom are real and serious. We must therefore act resolutely to safeguard the freedom of research and ensure that our researchers can conduct their work without fear or restrictions.

Madam Speaker! Researchers also need a safer working environment. It is important that the number of fixed-term employments among young researchers is limited. This measure is not only crucial for the quality of research but is also a matter of equality and a healthy working environment.

Already in the Higher Education Act, which entered into force in 1992, the importance of equality between women and men was underscored. The Research Proposition 2020, which the S-government drafted, also emphasized the importance of promoting an equal higher education with good working conditions.

Despite the fact that we see some progress in equality, surveys still show that significant gender differences remain. For example, studies show that women are systematically attributed less recognition than men within science and that men significantly more often than women end up in decision-making positions. This is a clear sign that the work to increase equality must continue with renewed vigor.

Madam Speaker! Today we face a time where open science is not just an opportunity but a necessity. Open science offers not only a unique chance to increase the accessibility of research results but also an opportunity to improve the transparency in the research process.

However, for this to become a reality, significant changes are required in both the publishing process and the academic merit systems. Researchers themselves want a process that better reflects the actual quality and impact of scientific research while simultaneously supporting the principles of openness, fairness, and diversity within the research community.

Madam Speaker! Sweden has long been prominent in development research. We have had a long tradition of contributing generous financial support to research aimed at, for example, combating poverty, promoting sustainable development, and meeting global challenges such as climate change and inequality.

The sudden reduction of the development research budget this year and the withdrawal of already announced research funds, without regard for the time and resources that researchers have invested, damages the trust in the state as a reliable research funder. This action has not only direct consequences for Swedish researchers but also damages our country's reputation internationally. How do the government representatives view this?

Madam Speaker! When it comes to the funding of research, all educational institutions point out that research and education are underfunded, and significant supplements are required for Swedish research to be one of the leading research nations in the world. Therefore, I am proud that the Social Democrats in the previous research bill strengthened the funding in Sweden.

During the last parliamentary term, we have invested long-term in research and increased the state research grants by an impressive 3.75 billion kronor during the period 2021-2024. This significant investment is part of our vision to promote innovation, increase our competitiveness, and meet the challenges that our time faces.

Madam Speaker! By prioritizing research in areas such as climate and environment, health and welfare, digitalization as well as skills supply and working life, we strengthen Sweden in the international competition and ensure our place as a leading actor within science and technology.

We Social Democrats, however, do not want to stop there. We realize that if Sweden is to be successful, a special investment in infrastructure within research is required, which can be used by both researchers and industry. It is something that we believe will promote cooperation and innovation across sector boundaries.

Madam Speaker! In order to evaluate and adapt our research funding so that it becomes as effective as possible, the S-government commissioned a government inquiry in June 2022. The inquiry report has been presented and is titled Research for the Future. Our aim with this review was to promote national and global collaborations as well as to ensure access to research infrastructure in a way that is adapted to today's societal development.

The investigation has been presented, and we Social Democrats are waiting for the government to act. Here we ask ourselves where the government stands on the issue.

Finally, Madam Speaker: We Social Democrats are firmly convinced that a strong and forward-looking research policy is the foundation for solving tomorrow's challenges, creating jobs, promoting sustainable development, and strengthening our competitiveness on the global arena.

We therefore need to continue investing in research and development, ensure access to modern research infrastructure, and promote national and global collaborations. Only in this way can we be a leading research nation.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I promised not to take the floor, but I did it anyway.

The Chairman Mats Wiking speaks about more women coming into decision-making positions and in other positions within the world of higher education.

We Sweden Democrats want a strict meritocratic view – that the best suited takes the position, so to speak, regardless of whether it is a woman or a man. We see that there are now more women than men at our colleges and universities, and it is completely okay if the best suited get in.

Madam Speaker! I wonder if the Social Democrats are prepared to abandon meritocratic principles in order to get more women into various positions. That is question one.

Since then, I have some questions about this matter of development research and the withdrawn grant. It has lowered Sweden's reputation abroad - however one can know that, Madam Speaker. It could be that the more one talks about the withdrawal, the more it lowers Sweden's reputation because one, so to speak, fuels it a little extra oneself.

If I have understood correctly, this was originally an appropriation introduced by the previous government. Now another government has removed that appropriation. It should be natural, Madam Speaker, that different governments can remove appropriations that were introduced by previous governments.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Robert Stenkvist, for the questions!

When it comes to women and men in the academic world, in the corporate world, and in society as a whole, gender research clearly shows that women are not equal to men when it comes to merits. This can be seen in many research reports that have been produced on the issue of gender. Especially within the research world, women do not have the same conditions, according to these reports.

Of course, one should receive different services based on the merits one has, regardless of whether one is a man or a woman. In that way, it should not be a prioritization to the advantage of women. But we have been fighting for quite a long time to achieve an equal society, for example by ensuring that women enter the workforce, and we still have some work left in certain areas.

The university world perhaps remains an area where work needs to be done. I am not only referring to my own brain there, but I am referring to the research and the reports that have been submitted. Then perhaps we have read somewhat different reports. But it absolutely must be based on the merits one has, regardless of whether one is a woman or a man.

In the field of development research, I have an image of Sweden being quite large in the world, having helped very much with poverty research and contributed quite strongly to the fact that various developing countries have been able to develop. Also in the area of environment and climate, we contribute research resources in a good way.

What was somewhat unfortunate, besides that resources were reduced quite significantly, was that some projects were underway and had to be interrupted.

As Member Stenkvist says, it is clear that every government makes its own choice. The Swedish people get to judge whether the right choice is made, regardless of which government is in power.

I believe I have answered the questions.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is possible that the grant for development research was very good. I would very much like to see some results of such research. How do you provide contributions to countries without them ending up in the pockets of the wrong people so that one keeps dictators under control? It is indeed very important research. I do not know if that is what this grant went towards, but it is truly desirable research.

When it comes to women, I believe that if any board does not hire a woman when she is the most qualified, that board is guilty of professional misconduct, plain and simple. Naturally, such a thing should not happen. But I want to point out that I believe women have exactly the same prerequisites as men to take positions and achieve results within higher education. I thought Mats Wiking said something else, but the prerequisites for women are exactly the same. Women are not less intelligent than men when it comes to higher education studies.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! There is absolutely no difference in the conditions intellectually; rather, it is about the conditions that we, through heritage and environment, have given women in society. We still see traces of that today. Even though Sweden is a fairly equal country compared to many other countries, I and we Social Democrats believe that there is still more to be done when it comes to that work.

In development research, it is often the case that Sweden is involved in the research that takes place in the different countries with the aim of creating better conditions for a country to grow economically and in terms of health. Sweden is usually involved, so one does not leave a contribution without having good control over it when it comes to development research. That is, at least, my view.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the proposal in the report on expenditure area 15.

We have come to the area of research, and it is interesting. It is very exciting and very fun.

Right now, we are placing a very large focus on the research and innovation bill, which Fredrik Malm mentioned earlier. It is a piece of work we do every four years. The focus for this bill is excellence, internationalization and innovation.

How then should this bill be developed? Well, we have invited research funders, universities and colleges, authorities, organizations and companies to submit responses to the referral regarding what they wish to propose and what analyses exist on how the research should look. Spontaneous responses have also been received from entities other than the referral bodies, so it can be said that the commitment to the research is great.

There is also a research preparation committee with 15 members. It is an expert group appointed by the government to help with the drafting of the research bill, as it is very important.

We Moderates also meet many educational institutions and various other actors. What we can clearly see when we meet the actors is that research is constantly changing. We must constantly keep up with the developments, both nationally and internationally.

An important question is, of course, how the appropriations shall be distributed and that they shall be distributed equally.

Madam Speaker! One can say that without education and research, Sweden stands still. Sweden shall, of course, continue to be a great land of success. It is a small country but large in research, and that is something I am very proud of.

During 2023, 46.8 billion was allocated for research and development. Of these, 20 billion went directly to research grants.

Furthermore, the four large research funders received 13.4 billion. The research funders shall, in consultation with higher education institutions, find the best funding model and fund research that maintains high quality.

As Member Mats Wiking mentioned, a research funding inquiry was appointed. It was to review that the research is effective and how it can be designed to reduce administration and maintain higher quality.

A final report has been submitted, and it has been concluded that they want to change it so that there will be three new research agencies. They propose the Science Agency, the Agency for Strategic Research, and the Innovation Agency.

The investigation is currently being prepared at the Government Offices, so Member Mats Wiking will have to wait a little for the answer. I understand that he is curious about how this will develop – I believe we all are. The important thing is that we can reduce the administration and increase the quality.

But, Madam Speaker, there are also other research funders. The EU's research and innovation framework program, Horizon Europe, is incredibly important, and it is important that we are present out there in Europe. There are also other private funders, such as the Riksbank's Jubilee Fund and the Cancer Foundation, which of course fund cancer research, and we have a lot of research regarding the humanities.

Madam Speaker! One tries to keep up with the times and with what is important within research, and then Chat GPT is always mentioned. I looked again – sometimes it is fun to do so – to see what it would say about the very speech I was going to give. Chat GPT answered me like this: "Important aspects within higher education, universities, and research include rigorous methodology, scientific integrity, interdisciplinary collaboration, and open communication of results to promote knowledge development and societal benefit."

So this is what is important, according to Chat GPT, and I can agree quite a bit; this is probably the essence, even though we should obviously be critical of what Chat GPT says. But here we can probably agree on a good deal.

Madam Speaker! We are all a bit worried about everything that is happening in the world. Much is happening that is sad right now, but also much that is positive. In our immediate surroundings, very much is happening regarding the green and the digital transition. It is interesting, and it is moving fast. It is important to keep up.

As a resident of Gothenburg, I meet many large industrial companies and also many other companies, of course. Everyone says that the skills shortage is the big issue right now. It is interesting that one needs a lot of staff, but we must also manage the skills shortage.

What do we need to do then? We need to make investments in technical education. More continuing education and also more transition are needed, as mentioned here earlier.

Someone also said that the Moderaterna and the government are very engaged and are working a lot with the STEM strategy; it is about science, technology, engineering and mathematics. We have a Swedish STEM strategy that is planned to be launched at the end of the year. The entire labor market desires quick effects from this, but the strategy is probably no real quick fix. We must start early, already in preschool, and we must include both boys and girls in the STEM strategy. Science is important and fun.

Madam Speaker! Another important issue is the freedom of research, which is regulated in the constitution. There are also clear provisions regarding the freedom of research in the Higher Education Act. Naturally, academic freedom shall be promoted and protected.

The Swedish Higher Education Authority has therefore been tasked by the government to conduct an in-depth study on how the higher education institutions work to promote and safeguard academic freedom. Both a national and an international comparison shall be made. This will be presented in May this year, which is positive. It is important to constantly review that this is functioning; academic freedom is incredibly important.

Madam Speaker! Another important issue is how the educational institutions work with developing information security and planning for the future. Sweden is one of the world's most digitized countries, but unfortunately, we are quite far behind when it comes to cybersecurity. The threat from cyberattacks – I believe many noticed yesterday how, for example, many social media platforms were taken down – is increasing palpably. We must ensure that we are educated on this. We want to be able to detect it much earlier, and we must provide society with cybersecurity experts who can do this.

A major investigation has been conducted on the situation at the universities. How do we protect research data? How does the internal work with this function? How can we reduce the vulnerability? Here, the Swedish Civil Contingencies Agency plays a major role.

From the Moderates' side, we are, of course, following this very closely. We also consider it important that a cyber campus is established at KTH. From the government's side, we are investing 25 million this year and 40 million per year moving forward to develop this cyber campus. There is already a cyber center at KTH, but it will therefore be further developed. The idea is that cooperation shall take place internationally but also across the entire nation, with research institutes, authorities, and companies, in order to be able to work more on our cybersecurity.

The Government also proposes that the Swedish Defence University shall be given the conditions to develop an educational and research environment that supports more security, which is also very important.

Madam Speaker! There are, of course, great opportunities within research, and we see that a lot is happening in both aviation and space. I do not think anyone has missed that we have received an astronaut, Marcus Wandt. Today I saw that he will be awarded an honorary doctorate at Chalmers, which pleases me even though I have not attended Chalmers. I am from Gothenburg and have many in my family at Chalmers. He receives this title because he has shown that basic research and space research are important, but also that it is important to get the research out to society. Now, he will therefore become an honorary doctor at Chalmers, which of course feels very exciting.

It is also important, Madam Speaker, that Sweden maintains its good reputation regarding the high quality of research. The competition is fierce, and we must constantly maintain high quality and demonstrate that we have excellence.

The government therefore wants to invest more in prominent environmental and research areas. There are some strategic areas. There is much that is important to research, but technology, space research, defense research, and national and global health are the major areas that we are working much on now.

In medicine, precision medicine is incredibly important. Now, one can move from alleviating to curing diseases. It is, of course, incredibly sensational that we have come so far in that research.

Madam Speaker! I want to conclude by saying that despite there being much research and much that works at universities and educational institutions, we see a worrying decrease in the number of doctoral students. Many think that it takes a long time and involves an uncertain future and perhaps difficulties with livelihood. Perhaps the companies do not always see the benefit of the doctoral students.

The Moderates want us to increase cooperation between academia, the business sector, and the municipalities to see how we can utilize doctoral students. There is great benefit in the fact that they have conducted research previously. We also want to ensure that there are good conditions for doctoral students. There must be an opportunity to support oneself as a researcher, and we have therefore tasked the Swedish Council for Higher Education, UKÄ, with monitoring the situation regarding job appointments so that there is security even within the research world.

I want to conclude by saying that I am very proud of Sweden's research. It can always be improved, and we will ensure that it does so through the research bill, which will be presented this autumn.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström, for your speech! It is quite clear that we are all addressing the funding. The research proposal has not been submitted yet; it will be interesting to see it when it arrives.

As I said in my speech and many have also pointed out, more funds are required to increase research, especially basic research, which we talk about very much. It also stands in many of the referral responses that the government has received, which we have had the opportunity to read. It is consistently taken up as something that is required for us to maintain our leading position. We have lost quite a bit in the ranking when it comes to money.

From the Social Democrats' side, we made an investment of 3.75 billion in the research bill, which was still a step in the right direction. How do the members and the government think, based on the discussion that there are still far too few funds for us to be a successful research nation in the future?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! Thank you very much, Mats Wiking, for the questions! Of course, these are incredibly important issues for the Moderaterna, the government, and the Tidö parties – to arrive at how we shall maintain our research's high quality. We know very well that basic research is important. It is also important how much is basic funding versus research grants.

This is, therefore, something that we are working on. That is why, in connection with the research bill, we are gathering all these views and analyses of how we can do this in the best way. I cannot actually precede it, but I still want to say that for the coalition parties it is important that we have good basic research, that we maintain the high quality in Sweden and that we continue to be sought after even by others who want to come to us and conduct research.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström, for the answers! It is good that it sounds like there is a desire to make a major investment in the research bill. It will be very interesting to see it. In the budgets submitted in 2023 and 2024, we saw that there were not that many more funds for universities and colleges, and we are even talking about a small saving considering how the money was distributed.

We also see within the world of colleges and universities discussions about the fact that there are some cuts occurring in certain areas. This can have many different causes. It is argued, however, that it has to do with the funds that are allocated.

When it comes to research, we also see that it is difficult to get full-time employment; most researchers have fixed-term employment. We need secure employment conditions so that we can get good researchers to stay within the university and college world. What is Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström's view on that reasoning?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Mats Wiking for the questions.

I did not mention the Research Funding Inquiry, which the member mentioned earlier. It is intended to investigate how we should finance research – exactly as it sounds – and how we can reduce administration, increase efficiency, and of course, improve quality. It is simply about how the money can be used in a better way. We have received a final report from the inquiry, and we are now processing it to see how it should be used.

The opposition says that we are making cuts, but we are making major investments in, for example, civil engineering programs at Chalmers, KTH, and Lund. It is a huge investment in an increased number of places. One cannot say that we are only cutting back. I think that is absolutely wrong. We are making major investments there.

As I mentioned in my main speech, we also have an investigation that UKÄ is conducting on what the situation is regarding services for doctoral students and how many who have fixed-term employment or some other type of employment. We are reviewing all the forms of employment. We want it to be attractive for both Swedish and international researchers to conduct research in Sweden and preferably also stay here.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 12.

Yellow over Bandasjön's water-clear through Fijian palm winds' rustle-mirrors and glimmers in the night-fires' clipping light.

Deep in the Hawaiian leadership, the friendly fires' nicknames call the Kanaken with the honorable exotic name Dalén.

It was a poem by Alf Henrikson. Everyone has guessed who and which world-leading Swedish invention it was about.

As I have said before, Sweden was once truly a world leader in inventions and innovations. We were big in the world for real. Dalén's beacons and Ericsson's propellers changed the economy in the entire world in an obvious and concrete way. I believe it is unrealistic to try to take back just that position; that is probably my assessment. But we should raise ourselves a couple of notches, taking our proud history into account.

How are we then to raise ourselves a few notches in the murderous global competition? In order to find answers to that question if possible, I waded through a number of referral responses to the upcoming research proposition, which has been mentioned earlier today. In addition to the fact that every institution, surprisingly enough, wants more money and increased grants, there were some answers that recurred in the referral responses with some regularity.

If I interpret the referral response correctly, we should change the funding system so that more of the money goes to excellent and productive research. I have myself said this many times in the rostrum, but I have also heard many within academia say exactly that. I believe that at some point we must take action and truly reform our funding system. Too much money goes to research of a hobbyist nature.

There will be strong reactions at every change of the funding system. Those who risk receiving reduced grants will speak of threats to academic freedom, threats to democracy, and threats to our entire Western civilization – rest assured. However, this is indeed what many heavy referral bodies are actually saying.

Madam Speaker! There is talk from all sides about free research. The topics should be chosen freely, and politicians should not govern research. I agree – even though someone always makes the decisions about who receives grants and who does not. To some extent, politicians must direct research funds to areas that are absolutely necessary for our society and its well-being. It is the government's responsibility. Of course, it is a delicate balancing act between necessary governance and free research.

With that said, I am most concerned about politically influenced research – research that gives the appearance of being clinically free from influence but which in reality follows an agenda or, for other reasons, is not critically scrutinized. We all have Macchiarini in fresh memory. A well-read high school student could have pointed out that the whole thing would not work. Yet, he was supported by high-ranking individuals within healthcare administration and academia. How could that happen? I think every member in here should ask themselves that.

Who critically examines the IPCC's reports? I have seen almost none. If research that is never so urgent cannot withstand or even wants to be critically examined, it is not actually research but religion or politics. In fact, the researchers should learn from us politicians. We are good at critically examining each other.

Madam Speaker! Who made those epoch-making inventions in the past? From what I have gathered, they were highly educated individuals who remarkably often came from the lower social classes. They were not, however, over-educated; it was not the length of education that was decisive. They often started on the factory floor after completing their studies to work their way up. They had an untamable inner drive to achieve and improve things. I wonder if today's researchers have the same drive; I hope so. They also did not spend their time unnecessarily within the university world.

We live in a different society today, with different conditions. We must acknowledge that. But what can we today learn from those who once laid the foundation for the world's leading country of invention? It is a question for reflection, but it is clear that we need more industry-related research.

What does the consultation response say regarding the research proposal for more successful research? It is not only the Ministry of Education that has analyzed the consultation responses, but I have as well. I will briefly go through some gems and some grains of sand.

Iva writes that the universities should develop profile areas and not invest in too many areas. Good, Iva - I agree! An increased proportion of all grants should go to STEM education. The proportion of the grants that have gone to STEM education has decreased over time. I agree - very good, Iva!

Chalmers answers that the compensation amount for natural science education and technology education should be increased. Good, Chalmers! I also believe that it must be done, and if I remember correctly, the government has increased the compensation amount by 1.6 percent for these educations.

KTH wants investment in research and competence enhancement within nuclear technology. KTH can also undertake that mission. It is also wanted that investment is made in Sweden's participation in the European Chips Act. It concerns targeted research towards semiconductors and quantum chips. That sounds great. Good, KTH!

Stockholms universitet: More of everything for everyone! That was a summary, Madam Speaker.

I can frankly say that I am disappointed by the Swedish Defence University's referral response. It says a lot about cooperation and being the best. Well, be the best then! In a referral response, one has a chance to say what one truly thinks and wants, and yet one does not take that chance. I am disappointed; I would have expected more.

The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has raised the issue with Akademiska Hus. The model we have now is not purposeful and should be reformed. It is a matter for the Minister for Education to take action on. Many people are saying the same thing.

The University of Gothenburg wants that previous research proposals be evaluated. It is not a crazy idea, actually. There is both gold and definitely gravel there. They also want the share of basic grants in the research funding to increase. That question is a dividing line. We lean towards increasing the share of basic grants of the total research appropriations. But there are truly divided opinions out in academia.

Madam Speaker! Some referral bodies want to increase the proportion of teacher-led teaching time, which is a very good proposal. I have myself emphasized this many times from the rostrum. We are among the lowest in the entire world regarding teacher-led teaching time. After the pandemic, we have a golden opportunity to reduce the number of places to raise the quality of the educations, and we raise the quality primarily by increasing the teacher-led teaching time.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank Robert Stenkvist for the speech. I always find it interesting to listen to Member Stenkvist, because it is a thoughtful and well-elaborated material that is presented in the speaker's chair. Then we do not always share views on how it should be, but quite often it is still so.

I would like to ask a question about political decisions and the role of politics, which I personally find quite difficult. I note that the Sweden Democrats in the report have a number of motions concerning a desire to invest in certain areas. For example, mental health, cancer research, development of new materials that can decompose in the sea and thereby reduce the risk of animals getting caught in abandoned fishing gear, and that research should be prioritized to promote AI were highlighted.

Personally, I find it very difficult to point out individual and rather narrow areas, because it simultaneously means that there are a lot of other areas that one does not want to focus on. Since one does not bring up electrification, infectious diseases, Germanic languages, or gang crime as research areas, my question is: Are these areas that the Sverigedemokraterna in that case perhaps do not think one should invest resources in? The fundamental question, Member Stenkvist, is then naturally: What is the role of politics? Should one point out individual and narrow areas, or should one leave that task to the educational institutions and possibly to the funding agencies?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! There are a number of motions that we did not put forward and stand behind in the committee. The reason is that we politicians cannot micro-manage too far.

Madam Speaker! Anders Ådahl is absolutely right that there must be a limit to what politicians can micro-manage. It is entirely correct and something that I completely agree with.

There are members here who are incredibly passionate about their issues and would like us to invest research funds in these. This will certainly be done and will certainly be done. We politicians shall steer to some extent. We have spoken here about a balance point. And we already have today, Madam Speaker, the strategic research grants that Anders Ådahl is aware of.

We have opinions on which areas are in the strategic research areas. But we must keep them, and I believe there is political agreement on them. I believe it was a bourgeois government, with the Center Party's support, that introduced them at one time or another.

It will be an eternal question how much we politicians should rule or not rule and how far we should go in the ruling. We must definitely not influence the research in a certain direction and the results of the research. Then we politicians are involved there and want to steer it in a certain direction. Then we commit a gross dereliction of duty, which I touched upon slightly in my speech. And the researchers who allow that to happen commit a gross dereliction of duty, I also want to point out.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you very much for the answer, which I found to be clarifying.

I share the view, and even in my party, there are discussions where individuals want to highlight certain areas and that I should stand for it in some way. There we seem to land on the same conclusion, that one should be a bit careful about pointing out specific areas and that it can be wrong in the long run.

Then I am thinking again about this with political steering. The member mentioned in his speech Gustaf Dalén, the inventor of Agafyr. I do not believe that anyone in the beginning of the 1900s said to Gustaf: Hey you, shouldn't you go and invent a lighthouse? The research was, therefore, not steered then either. I do not know what such an insight creates for opportunities for reflection in Stenkvist.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! No, it was absolutely not. As I said in my speech, he and the other industrial geniuses of that time, in the beginning of the 1900s and perhaps at the end of the 1800s, were driven by an untamable inner drive. I miss that a bit. There we are entering another area. I actually think that researchers complain a bit too much today. Now I am sticking my neck out. But look at the industrial geniuses in Sweden! We were truly the best in the world. What is it that we have lost? Those are the kinds of thoughts I have. They didn't complain. They just rolled up their sleeves and worked. But that doesn't mean that people within academia and researchers should not be allowed to point out deficiencies and errors. They certainly should do that.

It is a very interesting question what it was that made the industrial geniuses, not just Gustaf Dalén but a long line of other industrial geniuses, truly changed the economy in the entire world. It is actually true. It is for real. And we should be immensely proud of that.

Then I believe that we live in a different society today. All the basic things may already have been invented. We may be at such a high level that one must have enormous economic resources to achieve things like those they predominantly do at the American universities.

I do not think Sweden should give up. We shall take up the fight. We were world-leading once upon a time. We may not be able to get back exactly that position, but I think we should fight our way up as far as we ever can and with the old industrial geniuses in mind. We shall be very proud of them.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of the committee's proposal in the report and for the rejection of all motions.

We Christian Democrats take a clear stand for quality and excellence in higher education and research. We therefore stand behind the national research policy goal that Sweden shall be one of the world's leading research and innovation countries and a leading knowledge nation.

High-quality research, higher education and innovation lead to society's development and welfare as well as the business sector's competitiveness, so that we can respond to the societal challenges we face both in Sweden and globally.

I want to further emphasize what the report also addresses regarding the importance of freedom of research. We Christian Democrats safeguard academic freedom. It is also regulated in the Instrument of Government and protected in the Higher Education Act. Academic freedom shall be promoted and protected.

Regarding questions concerning appropriations for research, the government intends to return in the upcoming research and innovation bill. It is an important bill that we look forward to, and in which it will be shown how the appropriations for the universities will be distributed.

Madam Speaker! Research plays a crucial role for growth and development and ensures welfare in the long term. This is particularly tangible within health and medical care.

Today's medicines and treatment methods are the results of yesterday's research. Development within life science is becoming increasingly data-driven, and AI can create new conditions for intelligent decision support and diagnostics. Being able to utilize health data for research and innovation has over time become a key issue for driving the medical field forward.

We must always safeguard the independence of research, Madam Speaker. At the same time, research funds can be directed toward particularly knowledge-poor areas where we as a country need to improve. The Christian Democrats, for example, have long pointed out the need for national research programs to strengthen the health of women and the elderly. There are large competence gaps within mental health, and here research is needed to improve the knowledge base.

The government is now highlighting the need to establish a national research program on mental health. This research program should include children's and adolescents' mental health, prevention and early interventions, suicide prevention, as well as coordinated interventions for persons with severe psychiatric problems. We, the Christian Democrats, welcome this.

Research in the mentioned area is expected to increase the understanding of why mental ill-health is increasing in society and to develop methods, interventions, and treatments to reduce the extent and alleviate the consequences of mental ill-health and various mental illnesses. There are many interacting factors that lead to mental ill-health, and the area spans several disciplines. Therefore, it is very good that the proposed program is tasked with stimulating interdisciplinary research and innovation.

Madam Speaker! The specific research area I have just raised is well-suited for the reform that we Christian Democrats have championed for a long time – a reform for a state ownership of healthcare, an initiative that Minister for Health Acko Ankarberg Johansson has initiated. The government's step towards an increased national responsibility for healthcare improves the conditions for research and development by directing competence and resources in a purposeful manner.

Madam Speaker! We Christian Democrats strongly advocate that more people should educate themselves in natural sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics, not least because the international competition is so great. The Government is making several initiatives here to strengthen Sweden as an engineering nation. It is about meeting the competence needs that exist, investing in technical education, and making it possible for Sweden to take the lead in the green transition.

The government does this through a targeted investment to expand the civil engineering programs in the coming years. With more trained engineers, we can meet the need for competence that follows from the industry's green and digital transition as well as the large corporate establishments and expansions taking place all over the country. To fill these places, the government is developing the STEM strategy that we have previously highlighted today. We are also increasing the investments in basic year education, which is important for filling the places in our engineering programs.

According to the Swedish Research Council's research barometer 2023, Sweden is one of the countries in the OECD that invests the most funds in research in relation to GDP. Additionally, Sweden is a country with a high proportion of researchers, a high proportion of scientific publications per inhabitant, and a population with high confidence in research.

Unfortunately, we are lagging behind a bit when it comes to the quality of research, which is reflected in the proportion of highly cited publications. In order for higher education and research in Sweden to hold its own in the international competition, a clearer focus on excellence is required. Here, we welcome the Christian Democrats that the government in the autumn gave the Office of the Chancellor of the Universities the mandate to further strengthen quality and promote excellence in the national quality assurance system. Proposals on how the national quality assurance system can be developed shall be developed in dialogue with the higher education institutions. The mandate shall be reported in September 2024.

Madam Speaker! The research being conducted aims to increase our knowledge, meet societal challenges, and strengthen the business sector's competitiveness. Research and innovation are of the utmost importance for us as a country to be able to respond to the challenges we see today and in the future. It is about climate and environment, social cohesion, healthcare, care and well-being, technological development and competitiveness. Sweden's prosperity has historically rested on a strong innovative power among individuals and in the business sector.

Madam Speaker! Finally, I would like to say a few words about the upcoming research and innovation policy bill. As a Christian Democrat, I want to see a bill that focuses on excellence, internationalization, and innovation with the goal that Swedish research and innovation shall maintain high quality and be globally competitive. The Government highlights, among other things, that investments should be directed towards outstanding environments and research areas with international significance.

The Christian Democrats' view is that we must politically dare to prioritize between different research areas. We have a couple of three universities that stay on the top 100 lists when the world's universities are ranked. Our researchers collaborate in international research programs and projects of the highest class. It is good and completely necessary.

We Christian Democrats, however, believe that we must provide our best universities and colleges with the conditions to rise in international reputation and excellence. We shall be internationally attractive research environments that top students and researchers want to seek out. This should be a priority not only in upcoming research and education propositions, but this is something we want to see several parliamentary terms ahead. For Sweden as a knowledge nation, the development of new knowledge of high quality is central for us to be internationally competitive.

Madam Speaker! With this, I would like to once again move for the approval of the committee's proposal in the report.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Lili André from Kristdemokraterna!

There is a tradition within the Christian Democrats to see aid policy as very important. Based on my speech and the discussion I had earlier with Robert Stenkvist, I would like to ask Lili André about the reduction in development research. That cannot be missed. It concerns a cut of approximately 40 percent.

Has the government conducted any analysis before cutting back on aid research? When I myself am in contact with various researchers who describe the cuts within development research, they mean that there have been major consequences for the least well-off in many of the world's most vulnerable areas. These are people who are already severely affected by the covid-19 pandemic, Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and the war between Israel and Hamas. In the long run, it affects not only people but also important collaborations in Swedish health and medical care.

The member speaks about leading nations in research, and Sweden has been a leading nation precisely when it comes to aid research. What are the thoughts of member Lili André? Have the Christian Democrats changed their opinion regarding the support for aid research?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Mats Wiking, for an interesting question! I hear that the member is very well-informed on this research issue.

As the member may have heard, I move very much within technical innovation and healthcare. But if I were to express anything regarding aid research, Madam Speaker, it is that the Christian Democrats are keen that we have high-quality aid research. It is important for us that our aid truly reaches the needs that exist in the world. We Christian Democrats therefore see that aid research is important.

That the funds are decreasing, Madam Speaker, is about priorities, perhaps something to do with our time. It is simply a matter of that other high-quality research areas have been looked at. Then there are also other ways to provide assistance.

The government makes different priorities, different priorities than previous governments have made. It is a way for us to strengthen the areas that we are responsible for.

Once again, I want to state that the Christian Democrats are concerned that aid is provided in the best possible way, but that research is also active in that area.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Mats Wiking (S)

Madam Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Lili André from Kristdemokraterna!

I thought I heard clearly in the speech that the member spoke about priorities and excellence. Different choices have had to be made, just as the member describes. It sounds like one is prepared to opt out of aid research and development research, which can help people out of poverty and stop climate threats. We know that climate threats are not just national but international, and poverty also tends to give countries greater climate problems that cause people to need to flee from their countries.

We Social Democrats believe that aid research is important for Sweden to be able to have a good economy and for societies around the world to be able to develop and have prosperity. One becomes a bit thoughtful. Is the government and the Christian Democrats prepared to choose areas that are excellent and important for Sweden over aid research?

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Member Mats Wiking, for your great commitment to precisely this research area!

We have continued free research. Funds are distributed to the universities, and this is based on the number of publications and which highly cited publications one has. Research funds for aid research also go there.

It may be that researchers within aid research may need to link up with international projects. There are various opportunities for our researchers within aid research to do this. We need to be internationally strong. We need to strengthen what I took up in my speech, that we need to have our eyes fixed on a stronger internationalization in order to strengthen our country.

I would, Madam Speaker, like to answer the question from Mats Wiking by stating that there is free research but also excellent research. If we in Kristdemokraterna see that we do not contribute sufficiently within this research area, we could, of course, submit a proposal to also direct funds to that part.

Right now, however, I see that the government is prioritizing correctly. I very much look forward to taking part in and working within the bill on research and innovation, because there we will also be able to strengthen Sweden as a knowledge nation today, in the future, and during many parliamentary terms further ahead.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Today we are debating research. It is sometimes said sloppily that research and higher education policy is not something one wins elections on. At the same time, it is the case that without really good higher education and really good research, we do not have a chance in Sweden to have very good healthcare, very good schools, and very good elderly care. The area is therefore incredibly important.

When we see statistics indicating that Sweden seems to be slowly losing a bit in research quality and innovation quality, these are for me early signals that we politicians must start acting. I believe this applies across the board.

In Centerpartiet, we are currently working on developing new policy under some kind of heading that we can call Sweden as a knowledge nation. I will present a few somewhat unfinished thoughts here today.

Let us begin with the basics, because if we are to be able to carry out a reform, we must understand them. What is research, really? How is it divided? Something that many recognize is that it is usually divided into three parts.

The first is basic research, which is a systematic and methodical search for new knowledge and new ideas, without actually having a specific application in sight.

The second is applied research, which is also foundational and methodical work, but where one actually has an application directly in sight.

The third is usually called development, where one already has finished knowledge but needs to package and produce products and services based on known new knowledge.

We recognize this. Swedish research funding and much of the research funding in Europe and the world is also organized according to that principle. I mean that this is probably wrong. I would like us instead to consider two concepts, and they are curiosity-based research and directed research.

I want to assert that we achieve the greatest success in both basic research as well as applied research and development if the individuals there are driven by an inner force and curiosity.

I do not think it was anyone who told Martin Lorentzon and Daniel Ek at Spotify that they should develop a music app, but I believe this came from an inner drive in their work. I do not think that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak at Apple received instructions from the US government to develop a computer that they would call Apple. And I do not think that Elon Musk was told to develop an electric car or a space company.

Let us jointly state that it is with curiosity and freedom that the greatest breakthroughs are achieved, whether it is basic research, applied research or development.

I wanted to say a few words about good research ethics, so that we can define the subject of research. The Swedish Research Council had a document in 2017 with the exact title Good research ethics, where they listed eight rules of conduct for the scientific community. Let me mention two of these points. Number 1 is: "You shall speak the truth about your research." This is important so that we can understand and show respect for the knowledge that is produced. Number 8 is: "You shall be fair in your assessment of others' research."

Earlier today, we heard from the rostrum a proposal that researchers might be able to learn some of the politics in critical thinking. I think the opposite probably also applies, i.e., that politics can learn some of the research. Then number 1 becomes: You shall speak the truth about your politics. And number 8 becomes: You shall be fair in your assessment of others' politics.

I believe it would benefit the political climate if we took inspiration from there.

As said, I would like to see a reforming of the Swedish research funding system. We have a couple of problems today. One is that we are simply organized incorrectly. Even the Research Funding Inquiry, I think, takes off from the wrong starting point in the classical division that I mentioned initially.

We have a double problem. We have basic funds that today are to be distributed to universities and colleges so that these, with the help of the funds, can conduct curiosity-based research. The problem is only that co-financing is often requested when applying for funds from, for example, the Swedish Energy Agency, Forte, or some other more applied research funders.

They say this to the universities: If you receive money from us within this dedicated area, you must also use and contribute your free funds to co-finance such a project. This means that free research actually receives much less funding than the basic funds that are reported. We therefore have a double problem there.

I mean that we need to have relevant and high-quality research that takes into account two perspectives. We need to create a system that gives free research the conditions to define research problems and methods itself, but we must also have a responsiveness in the research system for what the politics and the business sector have for priorities. We must not forget that, and we must not throw it away. It must remain.

But organizationally, perhaps it should be so that one works in slightly different ways, that the academy's task perhaps should primarily be free research, free, applied basic research and free development, while institutes or something similar perhaps could much more clearly devote themselves to that which is responsiveness-based.

Furthermore, one could consider the idea that the funding could have three levels. Instead of basic funding, one could imagine an operational funding that gives universities and colleges enough money to manage the operations, and on top of that, have money for free research and for responsiveness-based research. It is an idea that could be developed.

Furthermore, we would have a system where we develop towards more free research. This means that the universities receive much greater freedom than today. It means simultaneously, which we must be careful about from the political side, that one also receives much greater responsibility. To bear much freedom is to bear much responsibility. I see that the universities and colleges today would have a journey to make when it comes to this. Therefore, politics must be careful with this moving forward.

At the same time, we know that few are as scrutinized as researchers regarding what they engage in. In the research community, we have the peer review system, which means that other researchers review what one has done and what results one has produced. Then one can proceed to publication.

With this statement, I move for the approval of reservation 3, which concerns reforming the research funding system.

Madam Speaker! I also want to highlight what has recently emerged regarding security threats. There are threats and risks in our university system. The Center Party highlights this in our work. We perhaps do not see that the best method is to place security policy competence in the boards. We see instead that it is the operational responsibility of the university managements to manage it. Instead, we propose that a state function should be established that provides support and assistance to the university managements.

Madam Speaker! In conclusion, I also want to mention a few words about equality in the university and college world. We are on the right track, but we in Centerpartiet believe it is going too slowly. Among doctoral students, it is equal. But when we reach the professor level, it looks worse. We want a meritocratic order. But the system needs help. For various reasons, women today do not find it as easy to secure a professorship. We must work together to fix this.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I really did not intend to bring up the security work within higher education today. I intended to save that as a small treat for the next speech on higher education. But now Anders Ådahl has mentioned this.

No, the universities' boards and the universities have not managed this. That is actually the truth. Legislation was introduced in 2008 regarding this. In 2011, a check was conducted by the National Audit Office on Mälardalen University. The school received serious and thorough criticism. They had not managed this in 2011. Now a new investigation was conducted by the National Audit Office. But nothing has happened from 2011 to 2023. That is a number of years. Nothing has happened there when it comes to the security work.

Then the government took a decision, in which SD, as you know, was not involved, to introduce security work in the boards of the universities. I do not think that even that will be enough, but I believe that other measures are required.

It was not this that I actually wanted to ask Anders Ådahl. It was a spontaneous thought that occurred at the end.

I would like to ask a question to Anders Ådahl regarding the co-financing. It is a problem that has been mentioned very many times. But it is the universities themselves that decide on this. If we politicians were to step in and start regulating this, it would be a restriction of academic freedom.

Now I see that my speaking time is up, but I would have liked to develop this a bit more.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Let me begin with security and state that it is true that the colleges and universities have not succeeded in this mission until now. It is correct. We have recently received the National Audit Office's report which very clearly shows this. And the Center Party takes this very seriously. So it cannot be. We are in a deteriorated security policy situation in Sweden, and measures need to be taken.

We mean that it is about management's operational responsibility. That is where we should apply the force. Then one needs support and help. There, we believe that a support function should be established from the state's side.

When it comes to co-financing, I would say both yes and no to Stenkvist's idea that it would restrict freedom. What is strange is that the more skilled the researchers at an educational institution are at seeking funds and obtaining grants, the less money – basic funding – can go to free research at that very institution. Then a university management faces a problem. Should one tell its researchers: No, you shall not seek external research grants, because then we will not be able to afford basic grants for free research. Or should one say: Okay, we have to live with this.

I mean that we, from the political side, should tell the research funding agencies: Do not demand so much co-financing!

If one does not demand so much co-financing, the problem does not arise. I could imagine it going as far as saying: Do not demand co-financing at all!

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! We cannot just say it. We must enact laws and introduce rules. That is how it works in politics. How would the academic world react then regarding academic freedom and so on? I believe there would be an outcry like no other if we enacted such laws and introduced such rules.

Anders Ådahl was onto something very important at the end of his speech. I have thought about it many times myself, but I have probably never said it outright. It concerns this matter of freedom and responsibility. With increased freedom comes increased responsibility. One could actually apply that even to this issue. It simply does not work very well when it comes to many issues.

Co-financing is a problem. Many people complain about it. The universities have full freedom to decide on it themselves, but they are not managing it. They may have very driven researchers, and I understand this entire problematic. But I would be happy if Anders Ådahl has some recipe for how to manage this without us getting the entire research world around our necks scratching us in the face, for this is no simple problem.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I thank you for the follow-up question.

As long as we talk about co-financing as state funds - that is what we are talking about if the Swedish Energy Agency or some other research funder says that it should be co-financing - the volume of money does not decrease if we were to say that it is now forbidden to have co-financing. The only thing that happens is that there will be slightly fewer projects that are steered and slightly more projects that are free. And actually, that is exactly what we want.

I therefore do not judge that there will be an outcry in the university and research world if we were to put that kind of policy on the Riksdag's table. I absolutely do not believe that. I even know that in very many camps, it is very sought after to do so.

What I, on the other hand, would see as an interesting development would be if the state turned to the business sector and said: "We are prepared to provide free research funds – if you chip in just as much, we will also increase from our side." That is what has been done in Finland, and it became extremely successful. The business sector there finances a great deal of basic research and curiosity-based research because they realize that Finnish competitiveness gains from the fact that there is good, free research in Finland. It is, therefore, a path that could be developed instead, I think.

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Swedish higher education and research strengthens our country and will be the key that unlocks many future challenges in our country and in the world.

The foundation is built throughout our entire education system, from preschool and primary school to upper secondary school, folk high schools and adult education. The foundation is also built through access to really good higher education throughout the country and that a breadth of well-prepared students enter higher education and meet successful researchers and teachers. Some of them will then choose to proceed to doctoral studies and research themselves, and there perhaps some will research preschool and educate the next generation of preschool teachers. Thus the circle is closed.

Even though it is not a research question, I want to bring up this morning's news that Swedish higher education institutions expect a deficit this year and that teaching will be cancelled. This is thus happening in the country that already has the least amount of teaching time in Europe. This is not how you lay the foundation for Sweden as a knowledge nation. This also happens in a context where the funding of higher education has been eroded for a long time and where the government is making general savings on the higher education institutions that actually exceed the well-intentioned investments in science and technology education.

Sweden's educational institutions have an enormous potential to constitute a strong force in the transition through education, research and cooperation and through a sustainable transition of their own operations. Just like all other actors, however, the institutions' work to promote sustainable development needs to be intensified. Missions need to be clarified and resources allocated.

Our understanding of global warming, its causes, and its consequences comes from research. The collective scientific message on what is required to avoid the worst consequences of climate change is a rapid and profound transition whose like is missing in history. In other words, it is no small task that is intended in the Higher Education Act, where it is stated that higher education institutions in their activities shall promote a development that ensures current and future generations a healthy and good environment, as well as economic and social welfare and justice.

A good example of how research and politics can meet was given here in the Riksdag last week. Rifo, the Association of Members of Parliament and Researchers, together with the Swedish Academy of Young Scholars, held a seminar where research on climate change, the occurrence of extreme weather, and climate adaptation at a local level was discussed. This is a good example of how scientific knowledge and political craftsmanship can meet.

In order for educational institutions to fulfill their mission to promote sustainable development, it is required that they contribute to a rapid and profound change through education, research, and collaboration. I am convinced that this potential exists in a free and independent academy with both breadth and excellence - a free academy that has resources to devote to curious basic research and current application.

When we see that we have societal problems to solve, we also need to acquire the knowledge to handle them. Therefore, even I, as a Member of Parliament, balance a research debate on the thin line it entails to present which areas we need more knowledge in to build and develop society.

Madam Speaker! In order to detect and help more children who are subjected to or socialized into practicing honor oppression, all social institutions need the competence to identify honor oppression. It is about being able to act as early as possible. Increased investments in research on how to prevent honor violence in families where there are risk factors are needed. This is about solidarity with people, and here we need the support of research to be able to see those who are subjected to it in different ways and have tools to act.

Another heart issue for Miljöpartiet is animal rights. We want Sweden to invest more in the development of alternative methods to enable animal-free research and live up to the EU directive's goal of replacing animal testing. According to the EU's directive on laboratory animals, member states shall contribute to the development and validation of alternative methods and encourage research that steers away from animal testing.

The government appropriations for this have been at a low level for quite some time, and therefore Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to develop a national plan for how to transition to animal-free research as well as action plans to reduce the number of animal experiments within different areas. We want to strengthen this work. The specific questions and solutions are, of course, left to the research to develop.

Another and very current issue is how emissions into the environment harm us humans, for example through the water we drink. Many are certainly following how it goes for, for example, those who were exposed to PFAS in the drinking water in Blekinge.

Research

Today, there are several different methods for the purification of PFAS, but none are validated. A very high level of purification can be technically complicated and cost a lot of money. At the same time, clean water is an invaluable resource. There is a need to develop methods for purification, and for that, more research is needed from many different aspects on how the PFAS issue can be managed. Miljöpartiet therefore considers that the government, in its upcoming research proposition, should prioritize research, development, and implementation of technologies for the purification of PFAS from soil and water.

Madam Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 10 on research, development and implementation of technologies for purification of PFAS from soil and water.

(Applause)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)

Daniel Riazat (V)

Madam Speaker! Just as in my previous speech, I would simply like to move for approval of one of the Left Party's reservations, in this case number 8. The colleague who was supposed to deliver the speech is on sick leave, and therefore it is I who am making the motion.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(Decisions were made under § 17.)

The speech at riksdagen.se, in Swedish (opens in a new tab)