Research and innovation for the future, curiosity and utility

Fredrik Malm (L)

Mr. Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of reservation 92 under point 49. It is a reservation that is common to the Liberals, the Moderates, the Christian Democrats and the Centre Party and which concerns forms of association.

Today we are debating the government's research and innovation bill for the period 2025–2028. This is an ambitious and necessary future investment in a time when knowledge, technology, and innovation determine nations' freedom, security, and prosperity.

Let me start with the big picture. This research bill represents the largest additions to research ever in Sweden. Adjusted for inflation – that is, in constant prices – it is the second largest, surpassed only by the bill of 2008. That one was also put forward by a liberal Minister of Education, Lars Leijonborg. This is no coincidence, Mr. Speaker. With the Liberals, one always gets the largest investments in knowledge and research. It is not only because we believe in science. We also know that Sweden, as a small, open and export-dependent country, has no other path to the future than to be one of the world's most knowledgeable countries.

The proposition also contains an important and decisive recognition: Sweden is losing momentum in the global knowledge competition. USA and China are investing on a scale that changes the playing field. We must respond, not with symbolic politics but with real, long-term resources that go to the absolute best research.

It is exactly what this bill does. A few years ago, there was hardly any talk of quantum computers or artificial intelligence. Now, these are established fields. Unlike the previous government, we are investing more money in free research. This means that researchers can choose areas to explore to a greater extent. This is achieved through investments of 1.4 billion SEK via the Swedish Research Council to expand excellence centers and establish excellence clusters and a new program for groundbreaking technology. This shall provide the conditions for new research breakthroughs.

Sweden shall lead the climate transition with technological development. We account for the unknown and create conditions for new research breakthroughs. We are investing particularly in research on metals, minerals, and batteries.

One example is the career support for young researchers. We are strengthening research recruitment with almost half a billion per year in 2028. It is about giving more of our most promising young researchers the opportunity to build their careers here in Sweden. When American media interview Swedish researchers about why they are leaving the country, it is about exactly this: a lack of long-term career paths, a lack of security, and a lack of recognition. Now we are taking a step to improve this.

In this moment, Mr. Speaker, something very serious is happening on the other side of the Atlantic. The American research world, which has long been a guiding star for many Swedish academics, is in crisis. Under the pressure of political eagerness and canceled grants, many of the world's leading research talents are now seeking new homes. What was just a dream – a career at a top American university – has for many become a warning sign. Swedish universities now testify that American researchers themselves are spreading Swedish job advertisements. Researchers are canceling trips, projects are being stopped, and students are hesitating before exchanges.

Here we stand with open doors, long-term resources, career support, academic freedom, and a society where research is protected and not suppressed. We are already looking at advancing the career supports, not as an emergency solution but as a structural response to the new situation. We already have completed proposals to simplify migration for researchers. We offer security, trust, and not least freedom.

We are also strengthening academic freedom. There are researchers today who are subjected to threats, not from the state power but from students, colleagues, or digital bullying. It is not acceptable. Research must be free even when it is uncomfortable. Therefore, the government has appointed a special inquiry into academic freedom. We have already strengthened the legal protection for researchers. The right to think freely, speak freely, and research freely is a liberal principle.

Unfortunately, the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats have agreed in their will to govern the country's higher education institutions from a political standpoint, Mr. Speaker, and have signaled their opposition to our inquiry on academic freedom. Let me be clear: the Liberals will always defend the universities' independence and academic freedom.

We are also making structural reforms. We propose an amendment to the Higher Education Act to facilitate so-called joint appointments, i.e., positions where researchers also work within industry, within healthcare, or elsewhere in society. It strengthens mobility, innovation, and application.

We are creating better conditions to attract international top talent to Sweden. In this year's budget bill, there are specific funds for talent recruitment, and through Tillväxtverket's initiative Work in Sweden, we are helping international researchers to establish themselves in the country. This government is one step ahead.

We are also investing heavily in research infrastructure. Sci Life Lab, Max IV and ESS are some of the world's most advanced research facilities. They enable world-class research. We are strengthening these, as well as the digital infrastructure for supercomputers, quantum technology and AI. Here, Sweden shall be at the absolute forefront of research.

Madam Speaker! We shall also conduct research that helps us meet major societal challenges, such as the risk of illiteracy in Swedish schools and the escalating gang crime. We are therefore investing in research to understand which methods work best to get more students to pass school and to break the new recruitment into the gangs.

Madam Speaker! Life science accounts for nearly 10 percent of Sweden's exports and is one of our absolutely most important basic industries. We are therefore investing 600 million in medicine and health.

Sweden's position as a leading space nation in Europe shall be strengthened. We are also investing in polar research, which conducts important studies of the sea ice and the climate changes in the north.

We reject proposals to start new universities. It is not about us being against universities, but about quality. It is about building strong, excellent environments, not about creating new institutions of higher education to satisfy local political interests. Higher education should not be reduced to simple regional politics.

Madam Speaker! We have a goal. Sweden shall be among the world's leading research and innovation countries. Sweden shall be at the top globally when it comes to R&D investments as a share of GDP. Today, Sweden stands at 3.6 percent. This impresses European colleagues, but we shall build further on this.

The Social Democrats often talk about wanting to invest in knowledge, but it is with the Liberals in the government that the investments actually happen. The largest research investments are the ones we create, and that is because we do not just say that we value knowledge the most, but we also show it.

Madam Speaker! With this, Sweden's largest research bill ever, we are preparing our country for the future. Sweden shall not only award Nobel Prizes; we shall also receive them.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me first say a few words about Fredrik Malm's direct attack on the Social Democrats. With the Social Democrats' budget, one gets 700 million more than in the Liberals' budget, that is to say a 50 percent larger investment.

Fredrik Malm said that the Liberals will always defend the freedom of higher education institutions. These are big words from a party that in recent years has shown a remarkable eagerness when it comes to the boards of higher education institutions and a baffling arrogance towards the content of specific educations. This is not a party that respects the freedom of higher education institutions.

The Liberals propose that the goal of equality should be phased out, and this is what I want to ask Fredrik Malm about. The Liberals' party program from 2022 states that equality between the sexes shall permeate activities within both higher education and research. At the same time, a report from Sweden's university teachers and researchers, Sulf, states that women are subjected to more burdens and have access to fewer resources than men, and that women perceive themselves as being treated differently than men in both daily work and the distribution of tasks.

Does this mean that Fredrik Malm and Liberalerna make the assessment that gender equality permeates the activities within both higher education and research, which is Liberalernas explicit policy? What other grounds does he have to present the proposal to phase out the goal of gender equality?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! The question of political governance and academic freedom is interesting. In Sweden, we have an arrangement that deviates significantly from other countries, namely the fact that virtually all of Sweden's universities are authorities. We can reflect on what would have happened if Harvard had been an authority now that Donald Trump is withdrawing the funding. He could have closed Harvard in a day. A future Swedish government that has a different opinion than a higher education institution could act in the same way.

The Social Democrats, together with the Sweden Democrats, have a statement where they refer to the fact that educational institutions that are not authorities should be governed by market forces. I do not know if the Social Democrats mean that Columbia University in New York is governed by market forces and that it is some kind of venture capitalist bastion in the USA. I do not think so. I see enormously serious leaders for the universities in the USA.

Madam Speaker! As a Social Democrat, one should probably not speak of political governance if one is of the opinion that the state should have the political control and that it is divinely ordained that the government, for example, should appoint all principals at our educational institutions.

Equality permeates regulatory letters, the Higher Education Act, and a number of different documents. It is obvious that we shall strive for equality within higher education. There are many measurable goals and more. Linus Sköld chooses to turn a blind eye to all of this, but that is how it is. Swedish higher education and university education should truly strive for increased equality. It is very important.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Let me point out that I am not overlooking anything. I am asking my question based on a proposal that the Liberals' minister has signed and placed on the Riksdag's table for consideration. We have a debate on this proposal, and the proposal is that the overall sub-goal regarding equality shall be decommissioned. As a representative for a party that says equality should permeate academia, Fredrik Malm must have concluded that academia is equal. Otherwise, the overall goal would not be decommissioned. How has Fredrik Malm reached the conclusion that he, as a representative for a party that wants the activities to be permeated by equality, can support this proposal? How have the Liberals landed on this conclusion?

The sub-targets the government wants to change were decided in 2017 by the Riksdag, and they were to apply for ten years. Now they have applied for eight years, and the government, without making any evaluation or presenting any review, has come with a proposal to change them so drastically that one sidelines important principles such as equality. On what grounds does Fredrik Malm present such a proposal? On what grounds does Fredrik Malm vote to remove the pursuit of equality within higher education and research?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Yes, for the simple reason that we do not do so, Linus Sköld. There have been a number of different goals in Swedish higher education policy since three, four, or certainly five decades ago. It is about new appointments of professors, about the strive for equal gender distribution, and about a number of different measures that are continuously made for equal treatment and to enable, for example, parents of small children to be able to study more.

It looks different in academia. Girls generally perform better than boys in school. At the professor level, there is still male dominance, but at the undergraduate level, women often perform much better.

The goals are present in legislation and regulatory letters, and specific resources are also allocated to the Swedish Research Council and others to ensure that this continues to be implemented. It is very clear in the steering documents for the higher education institutions.

I note, however, that the Social Democrats choose to turn a blind eye to this and believe that the Liberals do not want equality. My party has stood for equality for over a hundred years, and we pushed through women's suffrage in Sweden together with the Social Democrats. We also continue to be very deeply committed to ensuring that Sweden has a more equal academy.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the speech!

We will probably discover that today's debate revolves around academic freedom in many ways. There are two types of academic freedom. One is institutional freedom, which Fredrik Malm touched upon. It is an independence for the higher education institutions and their managements that allows them to make their own decisions and pursue their own agendas at the universities. The other freedom is the researchers' individual freedom. It is that they themselves choose research questions and dig deeper and reflect on how they should discover new things.

The only party in this chamber that fully embraces both freedoms is the Center Party. When it comes to the funding of Swedish research, you in the Liberals go very far in ensuring that it is not the researchers who have the opportunity for their own curiosity-driven research. The money prioritized in the budget goes to the research councils, and almost nothing goes to basic funding. I would therefore like to ask a first question to Fredrik Malm: How is it that you want to take away the freedom from the researchers and let someone other than the researchers decide what is important to research?

The second question concerns Ulf Kristersson. He usually says: "On our side in politics, we are in agreement." When it comes to the investigation on forms of association, it is obvious that the government parties and the Sweden Democrats are not in agreement. Will Fredrik Malm explain how it is that what is the strong card on the government side is no card at all?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! I can begin by answering the last question. The reason is that the Sverigedemokraterna have joined the Socialdemokraterna's view. The Socialdemokraterna happen to be the party that the Centerpartiet wants to lead Sweden, and their view is the exact opposite of the Centerpartiet's view, my view, the Moderaterna's view, and the Kristdemokraterna's view.

We are in agreement, Anders Ådahl and I, that it is fully reasonable to conduct a review of the forms of association in higher education. It will be a bit strange that we two, who stand behind the same reservation, are to have a rebuttal exchange with each other when we think exactly the same thing. It would probably have been better to take a rebuttal after Linus Sköld's speech than after mine.

Madam Speaker! Academic freedom is being attacked from various sides today. There are activists who are trying to influence researchers. There is a risk of being ousted from one's profession. There are a number of different challenges for academic freedom. There are also security policy and geopolitical aspects that have an impact.

We have now appointed an inquiry to further strengthen academic freedom. I would like to see not only the freedom of research but also academic freedom written into the constitution. It is regulated today in other legislation.

When it comes to the USA, Madam Speaker, we must closely follow the developments on the other side of the Atlantic, for they are very worrying. What happens in the USA usually reaches Europe in different ways a few years later. I shudder at a debate like the one they have in the USA. It would be very serious. It is urgent to protect academic freedom more clearly in Sweden.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! I believe that I can decide for myself whom I take the floor from and what types of remarks I choose to take.

I can also inform Member Malm that the Center Party is an opposition party that has Anna-Karin Hatt as its prime ministerial candidate. We can at least agree on that here in the chamber; that is how it looks for the Center Party.

There are two ways to govern the academy. One is how one chooses to organize the sector. Precisely there, we are in complete agreement. A greater distance needs to be created between the political power and the power that the academy itself can have. Therefore, we have joined forces and have a joint reservation stating that we need to investigate the forms of association.

The second point, how research is financed, is just as important, but there we are not in agreement. There is reason for me to continue to ask the question, as I did not receive an answer in the previous reply: How is it that the Liberals and the government, with the support of the Sweden Democrats, are pursuing a line where research is to become less free, where researchers will have to seek more and more money, where someone other than the researchers decides what are important research areas and research questions, and where the share of basic grants is decreasing?

How is it that the Liberals choose to go against academic freedom when it comes to organizing, but go in the opposite direction when it comes to funding?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! This exchange is becoming very strange. What Anders Ådahl says is simply not true. Through the bill, the largest investments ever are being made in Swedish research, even in the basic funding. They will increase compared to today's levels. In 2028, they will be one and a half billion above today's levels – even more, I believe.

We are investing broadly across the entire field, but from the government's side, we are also clear that what ultimately makes Sweden relevant in an international research context is excellence and quality. This means that we must sharpen ourselves where we are also strong.

Then we point out a number of areas, Madam Speaker, which I perceive the Centre Party thinks is completely wrong. The Government makes the assessment that the technology area, for example STEM subjects, climate research and some other areas are very important. They are important for Swedish business. They are important for innovation and development. They are important for the individual's future freedom and for us to meet the challenges that our planet faces.

It is clear that we must be able to identify areas. Then we do not go in and micro-manage specific technologies and other things. On the contrary, resources are allocated for what we call groundbreaking research, which means that one can find new technologies, new methods, and so on. It is something that will serve Sweden well both in the short and long term.

The basis is strengthened. The excellence side of higher education is strengthened. We point out a number of areas that are central for Sweden to also be able to be an industrial nation, a welfare nation, and a climate-neutral nation in the future.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Fredrik Malm, for the speech!

Sweden's Minister for Education Johan Pehrson welcomes American researchers here with the words: "Things are going quite wild in the White House and it is very bad for research there. Then we should just say: Look here, America! Welcome here. We can offer trust. We have academic freedom."

It is, of course, a welcome that Miljöpartiet also agrees with, but the question is how it stands with academic freedom and with trust. We want to see a stronger protection for academic freedom – a strengthened constitutional protection, which I have understood that both Fredrik Malm and the Liberals as a party want, even if the government they represent does not want it.

We know that some of the things that can happen in the USA can also happen here. Some have even already happened. In that case, I am referring to the shortened mandate for the university boards. It is not illegal. It has just not been used in that way before. This also occurred with very short notice. This sparked such reactions in the academic sphere that it took less than two days for the universities' rectors to protest against the measure.

We have also heard disparaging remarks from ministers regarding details about which courses maintain academic quality and which do not. We have also seen an investigation where it is pointed out that political governance is a threat to academic freedom, but this is not highlighted by the government.

Now, a measure is planned regarding the institutions' forms of association, but it will take time. I want to know what the government is doing now, in the short term, to give a sincere welcome to the foreign researchers who seek trust and academic freedom.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Miljöpartiet pushed through a new Aliens Act together with the Socialdemokrater over four years ago. It led to dramatically worsened opportunities for foreign students who, for example, have defended a thesis in Sweden to stay in the country. We are correcting that now. We have had an investigation for this.

This government is very keen that we should have migration legislation that means we do not turn away foreign students and researchers from Sweden. We corrected the mistakes that Miljöpartiet pushed through, to mention one example.

When it comes to the university boards, Madam Speaker, it had to do with security aspects. We are now living in a geopolitical situation with Russia, Iran, China and a number of other countries that are significantly more hardline than Sweden is, to put it mildly. They challenge our educational institutions in various ways through espionage and by trying to gain access to innovations and much more, and we really need to step up and strengthen security at the Swedish educational institutions. It was in order to bring in more of that competence that this was done.

It has never been used before, says Miljöpartiet. Yes, if I remember correctly, the Socialdemokraterna actually did the same thing a number of years ago. But we offer trust. We should be very proud of how well Sweden performs and has performed. We can rise even further – that is the case – and we do that through this proposition. But I do not think one should express oneself in such a way that one relativizes or equates Swedish higher education with the situation under Donald Trump in the USA. I think that is wrong.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Madam Speaker! It is well known, however, that when it comes to migration policy, the Liberals and the Green Party perhaps stand on slightly different sides. It is not the Green Party that builds walls; rather, we build bridges.

Another example of the government's actions concerns development research. There, funds were allocated and applications submitted, and the preparation of decisions was underway when the government changed the conditions so that the process had to be interrupted.

What can also be seen regarding the American situation is that it is not solely about the form of association. Threats to academic freedom from governments also involve many other things, for example economic dependencies. It becomes a vulnerability, and it is something that needs to be investigated.

The investigation into academic freedom that the government has commissioned explicitly prohibits any investigation of constitutional protection. That is reasonable, because a parliamentary committee is needed to do that. But one can still let an individual investigator investigate what different conditions exist for such a committee to be able to start its work more quickly.

My question was not what Miljöpartiet and Socialdemokraterna did during the last or the period before that, but what this government intends to do now, in the near future, to strengthen academic freedom and to strengthen trust and welcome the American researchers – and for all parts, researchers from other countries where academic freedom is threatened. What will happen in the near future, within the coming year?

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! We are now fast-tracking – or we at least intend to fast-track; we shall see how quickly we can do it – these career initiatives in order to be able to meet an increased demand from American students and researchers who want to come here. I think this is very important.

It should also be said, Madam Speaker, that we in Sweden have a tradition of welcoming academics from different parts of the world who have difficulty researching freely in the countries where they operate. It could be a country like Turkey, where one does not have a free academy in the same way as here.

Sweden also has many foreign students who have come here thanks to our academic freedom – and not only that, Madam Speaker, but also thanks to other values that I think are worth mentioning in this context. We have a welfare society. We have a relatively egalitarian society. We have a secular society. We have, at least compared to many other countries, a fairly high degree of equality and so on. We have a good parental leave and so on. These are also things that can be valued and that make one come to Sweden to conduct research.

Then I recoiled a bit, Madam Speaker, at what Camilla Hansén said regarding development research. It does not fall within this committee's preparatory area, it should be said to begin with, but rather within the Committee on Foreign Affairs. But the fact is that there have been major changes within Swedish aid, and that is primarily to free up resources to increase the support for Ukraine. I mean that if one then singles out an individual area in the aid and says that here you are not allowed to cut back, then one must be honest and say which of the Ukrainian cities will receive less ammunition and less air defense. Is it Odessa, Kramatorsk, Kherson, or Kharkiv? That is what it is about – being able to increase the support for Ukraine. Then we have to make certain prioritizations.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! ”Sweden shall be one of the world's foremost research and innovation countries and a leading knowledge nation, where high-quality research, higher education and innovation lead to society's development and welfare, the business sector's competitiveness and respond to the societal challenges we face, both in Sweden and globally.”

So it reads, the overall goal for the research policy. For us Social Democrats, it is important because we want to build our country's competitiveness on knowledge and competence, not on low wages and poor working conditions.

We are an export-dependent country. Several million Swedish jobs are directly dependent on our exports. Our exports are, of course, based on the fact that we have large natural resources, but just as much they are based on the fact that we are superbly good at building knowledge. It is not so much because we mine iron ore at the cheapest price in the world that it benefits our country's balance of trade, but it is because we know how to make good things out of it.

That is what we mean when we say that we shall compete with knowledge, not with low wages. In that way, it can be argued that research and innovation build Swedish prosperity and are a prerequisite for the country's economy and the citizens' welfare.

Eight years ago, the Riksdag adopted the now-current goals for research policy. What I just read out was, therefore, the overarching goal. To that, three sub-goals are added. Those goals were to apply for ten years, according to the decision made at that time.

The Government has now presented a proposal that the overall goal shall remain, but it proposes extensive changes to the sub-goals despite the fact that they have two years of validity remaining. The Government claims to have conducted a review of the sub-goals but presents no such review. There is no evaluation or follow-up that justifies the proposed changes.

Until now, there has been a sub-objective that equality should increase. The government proposes that this sub-objective should be deleted entirely. This means that the government proposes that the research policy's pursuit of increasing equality should be phased out. It is a change that we, of course, reject because equality within academia is still lacking.

The Government also proposes a decommissioning of the goal that collaboration and societal impact shall increase. If that sub-goal is abolished, there is a risk of steering away from the societal impact of research and researchers' collaboration with the surrounding society.

Regional cooperation between academia, the business sector and society is important for building regional competitiveness and skills supply. Thus, we naturally also reject that change.

Our proposal is instead that the three current sub-goals for research policy remain in place, but that they are evaluated during the next four-year period. We do, however, share the government's assessment that it would be appropriate to introduce a fourth sub-goal that Sweden shall be one of the world's leading innovation countries. It complements the wording that exists in the overall goal well and should therefore be added.

Madam Speaker! The government has launched the resources in this bill as historical. The Liberals' representative said from the rostrum just now that they are the largest ever. History, however, has taught us that it is time to become suspicious when this government launches investments as historical.

Upon closer inspection, it was not true this time either. This year, resources for research increased by one and a half billion. That corresponds almost exactly to the price and wage adjustment that the government has assessed the higher education sector needs in 2025 – after productivity deductions.

In the same way, the claim that this is the largest investment ever is only true if one does not account for the fact that price increases occur every year. In inflation-adjusted prices, the resource increases in this bill are less than what was the case in the bill in 2020.

In our budget proposal, we have allocated approximately 700 million more than the government for research and innovation. It is an investment that is extra important now when we have a prolonged recession and an uneasy world.

Madam Speaker! The funds in this research bill are not only too little and too late. They should also be distributed differently than what the government proposes. The government's proposal implies a large overweight of funds to be distributed via the external funders, that is, the research councils. In addition, the government's proposal means that even the funds that go directly to the universities shall be redistributed through competition or to politically prioritized research areas.

The base resource, that is, the funds that each higher education institution is guaranteed, is left unchanged by the government at the same level as in 2020. The social democratic governments at that time increased this base resource in the two research propositions by approximately 50 percent per proposition. It went from 8,000 per student to 12,000 in 2016 and from 12,000 per student to 17,500 in 2020.

The government is now proposing that the basic resource remains unchanged. With the inflation we have had since 2020, this implies a real value reduction of the basic resource of over 4,000 kronor per student – more than 20 percent.

The result of the government's proposal is that every additional krona shall be distributed in competition according to politically decided criteria or for politically decided purposes. In that way, the government's resource distribution proposal reduces academic freedom. This was precisely what Anders Ådahl pointed out in an exchange of remarks just now.

Madam Speaker! Academic freedom is an important principle in research policy. Researchers must be able to freely choose their research questions and their methods and freely be able to publish their results. The higher education institutions must be free to prioritize, to be able to plan long-term and to decide for themselves. The only way to achieve academic freedom is for politicians to take responsibility for respecting the autonomy of researchers, teachers, and higher education institutions.

In recent years, flagrant transgressions have occurred from a political side. The government's greed regarding the boards of educational institutions is one example. Another example is hopelessly mocking statements about the content of individual courses. The Sweden Democrats' attacks on the internal work of educational institutions is a third example. The latter is, moreover, proof that the educational institutions' association form does not protect the academy from political attacks. The fact that Chalmers is a foundation did not prevent the Sweden Democrats from threatening them with withdrawing their funding if they established an office for their equality work.

We Social Democrats see great risks in reforming the association form of educational institutions across the board. Such an approach risks becoming this government's next market failure. As long as we want to retain the principle that research and higher education at the educational institutions shall be financed by the public, we will need politicians who are capable of respecting academic freedom. Therefore, an inquiry into the association form of educational institutions is superfluous.

We want to see, instead, more free funds for researcher-initiated research, greater freedom for the higher education institutions to use their research funds, and better planning conditions to provide opportunities for more secure employment for researchers.

Madam Speaker! It is not just about academic freedom. It is also about higher education and research throughout the country. We Social Democrats have been responsible for an extensive expansion of educational institutions across the country. The government's proposal leads in the exact opposite direction. No matter how good Uppsala and Lund are, I am convinced that excellence cannot only arise there.

Research across the country provides conditions for regional growth clusters and regional competence supply. Several examples of world-leading research exist at smaller and newer educational institutions throughout the country.

Madam Speaker! We Social Democrats want to use education and research to solve societal challenges that are relevant here and now. Therefore, we have submitted proposals to allocate more resources to research on, for example, crime prevention. The government has a somewhat one-sided focus on crime fighting – something that is important – but the best crime is still the one that is never committed.

We want to see more resources for research on working life conditions. It is crucial for a long and healthy life. Therefore, more knowledge is needed on how serious workplace accidents can be prevented, how work-related ill health can be prevented, and what is required for people to have the strength – and maintain it – to continue working all the way until retirement age.

The climate crisis is here and now. AI development is happening here and now. More research funds are required if we are not to fall hopelessly behind.

Madam Speaker! I finally want to say something about the position of the Swedish language. The position of the Swedish language in academia has weakened in recent decades. In 2022, 94 percent of all dissertations at Swedish universities were written in English. Research on Swedish conditions is important, not least in the social sciences and humanities. If all research is conducted in languages other than Swedish, both the knowledge of Swedish conditions and major linguistic domain losses are at risk when all conceptual formation in different subjects occurs in languages other than Swedish. Conceptual formation is central to building strong professions in this country.

This is a development that we Social Democrats view with concern. We therefore want measures to be taken. More courses at the candidate level must be conducted in Swedish. More Swedish students must continue to doctoral studies, and the proportion of theses written in Swedish must increase.

In summary, we Social Democrats want more resources for research across the entire country, distributed with long-term perspective and respect for academic freedom as overarching principles. We want to maintain the strive towards equality in academia and cooperation with the surrounding society. We want to allocate external funds to find new knowledge that can contribute to solving the most pressing societal problems. We also want to strengthen the position of the Swedish language in academia.

We naturally stand behind all our reservations, but for the sake of time, I only move for the approval of reservations 7, 29 and 84.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld raised the important issue of the Swedish language's position within higher education. This issue we need to review.

Tonight's debate topic seems to be academic freedom. We actually have some good proposals that would expand academic freedom. We want, for example, to change the composition of the boards so that there are more academics on the board and fewer people from outside.

We want to review the mandate of Akademiska Hus. When speaking with rectors and others from various universities and colleges, a recurring theme is that the relationship with Akademiska Hus is beginning to become burdensome.

We have raised the German concept *die Lehrfreiheit*. I believe that Anders Ådahl has touched upon that issue. Teachers at universities and colleges should decide for themselves, for example, the reading list. It was a noted case earlier. Erik Ringmar was forced to include literature that did not fit his history course. We do not consider this to be academic freedom. Real academic freedom is more freedom for those who actually work at the universities – the teachers. That a dean, pro-rector, or vice-rector comes and orders someone to include literature that does not belong on a course at all, we consider to be a violation of academic freedom. These specific questions are not talked about so much in the chamber, but rather, people express themselves in more sweeping terms.

I am a bit curious about what Linus Sköld thinks.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld considers that academic freedom should be strengthened. Researchers should be able to freely choose research questions, freely choose methods, and freely publish their results. Teachers should be able to freely control the content of education on a scientific basis and freely choose methods for their teaching. There is no doubt about this.

The right of educational institutions to decide over their internal work must, of course, also be respected. There must, naturally, be an autonomy for the individuals who work in academia and for the institutions.

I wonder if Robert Stenkvist is prepared to agree that researchers are free to choose their own research topics. I wonder if Robert Stenkvist is prepared to agree that teachers are free to choose content in teaching and methods to educate their students. It is more than once that I have heard Robert Stenkvist disparage entire institutions and center formations in the chamber, specifically regarding gender research.

If Robert Stenkvist is worried that the dean or the pro-rector intervenes in the compilation of a reading list, I am worried that Robert Stenkvist intervenes in the choice of research question and the content of teaching in the academy.

I pose a question back to Robert Stenkvist: What does he think about academic freedom and the risks that his own policy entails?

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! Robert Stenkvist will certainly answer question two. Regarding question one, there is a grant procedure. Not all researchers receive grants, but it is not we politicians who choose which researchers receive grants or not. It should not be we politicians who decide in detail which researchers should receive grants.

The Swedish Research Council has groups that decide who receives grants and who does not. Then we politicians can have views and opinions. When we express views and opinions, it becomes for the Social Democrats that we are ordering things. No, it is a completely different matter. We cannot order a lot of things within the higher education sector. It is not possible because the researchers are independent.

Then there was the question regarding the Department of Gender Studies. I have never here in the speaker's chair said anything about giving orders. We consider that the department does not follow the Higher Education Act's requirements for scientific integrity. Now, I have not brought a lot of examples with me. I should naturally have done so because I knew the question would be raised. It is a recurring question.

I have read things that obviously contradict all common sense. I have listened to another person, Anna-Karin Wyndhamn. She worked at the institution for several years, and she quit because she felt they were engaged in quackery.

Then there is the view that they do not follow the Higher Education Act's requirements for scientific rigor or proven experience. That is a view, Linus Sköld. The Higher Education Act should be followed. I do not know where the Social Democrats stand on the issue, but Linus Sköld can tell that.

(Applause)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Robert Stenkvist stands for academic freedom as long as the research questions that researchers pose or the teaching provided at the universities do not displease Robert Stenkvist and his political views. When they do, he takes the liberty of making judgments about them publicly. He stands here in the speaker's chair and rejects them, or he lashes out in the media and says that funding should be withdrawn if an office for equality is established at Chalmers. It was, admittedly, not Robert Stenkvist but a party comrade of his who said this.

The Sweden Democrats do not respect academic freedom in the slightest. The Sweden Democrats do not keep a proper distance from micro-managing and do not leave room for autonomy for either individuals or institutions in academia. That is why we are having this discussion in the first place.

This is actually about us Social Democrats, and also the Liberals, wanting to protect academia from the type of interventions that the Sweden Democrats want to make in the freedom of researchers, teachers, and institutions.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I thank Member Linus Sköld for his speech.

Sweden's universities and colleges are in a stage of increased international competition for researchers, students, and excellence. Our institutions of higher education bear witness to challenges regarding academic freedom, a lack of long-term perspective, and limitations in developing operations on their own terms.

The government has therefore announced that it intends to appoint an inquiry to see what the current form of authority for universities and colleges can look like. It shall analyze whether today's model is truly expedient in a modern research landscape.

This is not about privatization or marketization. The responsibility we take is about strengthening the academy's self-determination, about creating better conditions for quality, education, and research, and about securing Sweden's position as a leading research nation. We want to investigate how autonomy can be strengthened. Against that background, it is regrettable that the Social Democrats are actively blocking the investigation.

Madam Speaker! The Social Democrats claim that it is the profession, not politics, that should govern the research. Yet, one does not even want to analyze whether today's governance model actually gives the profession the room for maneuver that is required. It is not only contradictory, but it is also an expression of mistrust towards the educational institutions' ability to take responsibility.

We Christian Democrats in this government see a need to review how we modernize and develop the sector's conditions. We want to see less political micro-management, stronger academic freedom, and a long-term funding structure that gives the universities stability to grow. To stop the investigation is to turn a blind eye to the problems that the research community itself points out.

Why?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! To Lili André, I want to say that I answered that question in my speech just now. I shall quote myself: "As long as we want to keep the principle that research and higher education at the universities shall be financed by the public, we will need politicians who are capable of respecting academic freedom."

As was said, there was nothing in Chalmers' foundation form that prevented Patrick Reslow and his friends from threatening to withdraw funding when one wanted to organize in a way that displeased the Sverigedemokraterna. Nothing in the foundation form prevented them from making that threat. Therefore, an investigation into the educational institutions' association form is superfluous.

What we need instead are politicians who agree that academia must be allowed to decide for itself. Academia must be allowed to be autonomous, and the individuals working there must be allowed to pose their research questions and decide on their teaching without politicians interfering in those details. It shall take place on a scientific basis, nothing else.

If Lili André really wants to increase academic freedom, she would not submit proposals to abolish the funds that were in the previous proposition for free researcher-initiated research at the Swedish Research Council. They are now proposing that the government abolish them. She would not increase the political steering of the funds that go directly to the universities. She would instead say that it is free for the universities to dispose of those funds. That would truly increase the universities' autonomy and their freedom.

But since Lili André believes in competition as the only tool to achieve quality, she is unable to make such a prioritization.

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

Lili André (KD)

Madam Speaker! I just want to reply to Linus Sköld that there are higher grants for broad pioneering research for researchers to apply for. It is therefore not true that there are no free funds for researchers.

I would, however, like to go back to the association form and an investigation that Linus Sköld seems to know how it ends, without it even having occurred.

There is not just one way to say that we should respect the researchers' autonomy. We need more money! But we need to act in several different ways to be able to ensure that the universities get a greater strategic responsibility and then also greater freedom and autonomy.

I am a bit interested in one thing. Time and again, I hear from the Social Democrats about their reluctance regarding the Sweden Democrats being a support party to the government and that it is the Sweden Democrats who are governing the government's decisions. But here we see a strange spectacle. The Social Democrats are now standing together with the Sweden Democrats in opposing an investigation aimed at giving the educational institutions more freedom and that there should be less political micro-management.

I do not know if I am surprised by this or if it is natural that the Social Democrats are now joining forces with the Sweden Democrats on a single issue, which the Christian Democrats and the government also do in the Tidö Agreement – the very thing that the Social Democrats constantly criticize.

The position, this common stance, is about trust in Sweden's research profession. Instead of opening the door for increased autonomy and conditions for increased quality within higher education, one chooses to stick to a model that today has some challenges.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall update Lili André on how this has proceeded. We Social Democrats have written a supplementary motion to a proposal from the government. It is a proposal that means the government wants to appoint an inquiry which we Social Democrats consider to be superfluous. Therefore, we have submitted a proposal in a supplementary motion that such an inquiry would be superfluous. And that proposal has been supported by the Sweden Democrats. That is exactly how it proceeded, and I also welcome Lili André to support that proposal if she wishes.

I have not made a single concession to adapt my policy or the way I formulate it to gain others' support for it. But if Lili André wants to vote for our proposal, she is of course free to do so.

When it comes to increasing and providing better conditions for academic freedom, this government has shown with desirable clarity that as long as one has a majority in this chamber, one can narrow academic freedom. Then one can control the funds more strictly, prioritize politically which research should be completed or reduce the funds to certain universities and increase them to others, completely without accounting for on what grounds this is done.

If one has a majority in this chamber, it is a weak protection to have investigated the association form. This government has shown that the only way to protect academic freedom is to have politicians who respect academic freedom.

(Applause)

(cont. § 12)

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