(cont. from § 4) Research (cont. UbU11)

Mats Wiking (S)

Mr. Speaker! Regarding research, the government writes in its budget for 2023 that Sweden belongs to the world-leading countries within research. It is written that the competition is fierce and that Sweden to a greater extent needs to prioritize scientific excellence first. It wants a greater focus on building outstanding research and innovation environments. It thinks that a focus on Swedish research areas of strength will enable educational institutions and the business sector to compete with the world's leading science and innovation environments.

It is further argued that we do not automatically get better research with an increased research volume. They want to invest in prominent environments and research areas, and they argue that Sweden must dare to make priorities so that we can become the best within certain strategic areas. But for Sweden to hold its own in the competition, a greater focus on areas of strength within research is needed.

When the government writes that one should invest in excellent research without increasing the research volume, my question – and my concern – is this: Will the government move research resources from colleges to fund the universities' research?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the question, Mats Wiking!

Just as the member pointed out, one sometimes has to make priorities when it comes to research. We also have many other funders - it is not only the state that funds research, but as I mentioned earlier, it is agencies, research councils, foundations and private funders. There are therefore many who fund the research. The EU also does so. That is why it is not entirely easy to say how the research is funded, rather it is quite complex.

We now have the research bill, which I also spoke about earlier today. The idea is that it should pass next year, and then we will have to make important prioritizations regarding how we are to finance it. I therefore cannot reassure the member right now regarding exactly how the money will be distributed, but of course, higher education research is just as important as university research. All research is of course important, even if one sometimes has to make prioritizations.

I see, therefore, that we will be able to invest in more excellence. That is absolutely the intention. The members do not, therefore, need to be worried about that.

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

Mats Wiking (S)

Mr. Speaker! We Social Democrats are also convinced that excellent research is needed, but we believe that breadth is needed to achieve excellent research. In that regard, the colleges are also important when it comes to conducting research.

We are nevertheless concerned that any potential redistribution of research grants would need to be carried out and that it would kill the development of the small colleges. The collaboration with local businesses, municipalities, and the rest of the local community that is conducted at our small colleges – for example in Borås, Skövde, and Trollhättan – means very much. It is significant for local businesses, municipalities, and regions that there is a collaboration and a will for innovation when it comes to developing both companies and municipalities.

I do not feel that I received a really clear answer from the member, so I ask again: Will the government reduce the research grants to the small colleges in favor of the universities?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank the member again for the question. I thought I answered it earlier: At this moment, we cannot really say what the prioritization will look like.

We obviously see that research is very important for both the business sector and municipalities. I also said in my speech that it is incredibly important. We shall have socially beneficial research. I cannot say at this stage what prioritization we will make, but it will show itself in the research proposal. Everyone must be included there; it is almost a hundred referral bodies that are allowed to respond. Our research councils are also being reviewed to see how one can prioritize. They are simply making analyses of where it is best to conduct the research.

It is, however, very important with the research that is conducted close to the industry, for example.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the speech, Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström! Towards the end of it, you touched briefly on this regarding ethics review issues and academic freedom with the board appointments. I would like to vent a bit of my concern regarding the ongoing work on the Ethics Review Act.

Already in February, I asked the Minister for Education what was in the works, and the answer then was that something would be coming soon. I was just about ready to ask how long "soon" is when the announcement about the investigation arrived. My concern, however, is that the debate surrounding this will fall silent. I am curious as to how it is that one has not taken hold of some rather low-hanging fruit in a faster way.

If I have understood correctly, this debate between us can be reviewed by a journalist but not by a media and communication researcher because the information regarding the Moderate MP and the Green Party MP is to be considered a privacy-sensitive personal data point. This is something we have waived by running in general elections.

It would truly be an important complement if it were easy to investigate what happens in the heart of politics. Perhaps Hänel Sandströms and my debates are not the most interesting, but it is still a concrete example of an obstacle that exists. I believe that one could quite easily remedy it.

I wanted to air my concern, but I also have a question. What will the Moderates do to keep the conversation alive and push forward on the issue?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Camilla Hansén for the question. I agree that it is very important. I raised it towards the end. When I saw that my speaking time was about to run out, I had to speak briefly about the Ethical Review Authority and the Ethical Review Act.

Just as the member says, it is complicated now. And we politicians, as said, almost want to be scrutinized. That is why we are politicians. Therefore, this should not pose an obstacle.

As it stands now, it creates obstacles for researchers. It takes time away from them because the ethics review takes an enormous amount of time. It also affects academic freedom. We absolutely believe that this should be expedited to facilitate the whole process.

One must protect privacy and protect people. That is actually why this exists. If, for example, social research is not affected, I absolutely think that one should facilitate for the researchers. We are pushing on. We are part of the government and we are also pushing the Minister for Education so that it gets finished.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! Hänel Sandström is coming in on academic freedom. I would like to know what measures the Moderates want to take to strengthen academic freedom. I do not mean "only" the freedom of research, which already has a fairly strong protection, but I am thinking of the entire academic freedom for higher education and the organization of higher education and research.

Thus, we also come to the boards and the threat to academic freedom in this regard. We have all heard the Minister for Education say that the change does not involve any threat to academic freedom because that was not the intention. But the universities have perceived it that way. It may seem like a trivial matter to make a big deal out of halving the mandate term on some single occasion, but this is truly a matter where the devil is in the details.

I assert that the government is acting naively regarding the damage to trust caused by the decision to shorten the mandate period. Therefore, I want to hear forward-looking proposals. What do the Moderaterna want to do to strengthen academic freedom?

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Camilla Hansén for the question, which we have discussed previously from these two speaking stands.

Academic freedom is absolutely an important issue. That is why the Swedish Higher Education Authority has been given the assignment that I previously mentioned to review that work is being done on academic freedom at all higher education institutions. They shall also look at case studies to see how academic freedom can promote the entire university and college world.

Regarding the question about the boards, this has indeed happened once before - 2016 - when the method for appointing the boards was changed. Then it reverted to three years again. That is the intention now as well.

When we have discussed this, it has emerged that the threat remains. There is concern that there is espionage at universities and colleges. One sees, for example, that patents are disappearing from our colleges in a way that was not intended. The threat is therefore real.

What can be said as criticism, something that we also agree with, is that this came suddenly and without any good information. I have spoken with an incredibly large number of principals at universities and colleges, and the minister has also done so. He has also said that it came quickly but explained why it has been done this way. It went fast without sufficient information being provided, which they have now tried to repair by having many meetings. The Minister for Education is also very accessible to meet all principals who so wish.

I still think we have done as well as we could. The Moderates' view is that when it comes to serious threats and we find out about them from several instances, including Säpo and FOI, we must take care of and see what we can do to reduce them. But obviously, the idea is that it should return to three-year mandate periods after this.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 8 in the report and also wish to point out that we have a specific statement under point 2.

Dynamite 1865, the steam turbine 1883, the Primus stove 1888, the adjustable wrench 1892, the spherical ball bearing 1907, the percussion cap 1910, the refrigerator 1921, Tetra Pak 1944, the respirator 1950, the pacemaker 1958 and most recently the color graphics on computer screens by Håkan Lans are all examples of epoch-making Swedish inventions.

These inventions reveal what a great nation of inventors Sweden once was. Are we that today? I would actually hesitate to sign off on that. We have lost something that we once had. What is it that we have lost? It is difficult to give a simple answer to that, but I will give my reflections on it.

With that said, Swedish research stands quite well even today. I am convinced that we will produce very good research results in the future as well.

It is not possible to simply educate forward Håkan Lans-types. I believe everyone here understands that. But we need a bit more of the Lans spirit in Swedish research, a bit more of geniuses who break new ground and who do so out of an inner drive and pure curiosity. Our research infrastructure must be able to take advantage of and nurture future Håkan Lans and get the most out of the natural talents we already have and, above all, will get. I assert that we do not need more researchers in our country, but we need more Håkan Lans.

I read some time ago about Linnaeus University which applied for a professorship in design and visual communication. From the advertisement text, we could read that norm criticism, decolonialism, queer theory as well as theories on post-growth would constitute perspectives for the research. These are political preferences that one sets up for a research position. This is, my friends, politically steered research. That is what I believe, at least.

This is the exact opposite of the spirit that I believe Håkan Lans represents. To set such requirements is a sure recipe for conducting unproductive research that leads to neither useful nor lasting breakthroughs.

I believe that this is an explanation for why the long list of groundbreaking inventions has stalled. That being said, development has also stalled in more Western countries. It could also be that we have picked the low-hanging fruit.

Håkan Lan became an honorary doctor at Uppsala University over time. It is an honorary title he was truly worthy of, which unfortunately cannot be said about all such honorary titles.

Mr. Speaker! Let me speak about common sense.

On the morning of Wednesday, March 29, I saw a news report on SVT about a research team that had developed automatic drones that follow cyclists and light up the way for them. This was intended to replace expensive street lighting. Could Håkan Lan launched something like that? I don't think so. Why not? Yes, because we have another invention - bicycle lights - which become significantly cheaper to use. Today, one can advantageously place a lamp, already invented by Thomas Edison, on one's bicycle. Today, these bicycle lights are as bright as car headlights. I have one myself.

I believe that the lack of just common sense is another reason why our research has fallen behind internationally.

Mr. Speaker! Lennart Bengtsson, perhaps our foremost climate researcher in Sweden, gave a lecture on climate change at the Senior University in Sollefteå, organized by Folkuniversitetet. None of the senior researchers had anything to object to regarding the lecture itself. But after the lecture, Folkuniversitetet refused to pay for it, as Bengtsson was said to have a deviating opinion on the climate issue.

Bengtsson has written 270 scientific articles on the subject, and he is cited in the IPCC's latest report. He was therefore denied compensation because he held a deviating opinion from the one that Rockström so often gets the opportunity to present in our major media. Rockström may have rock star status, at least in SVT, but wasn't it scientific integrity we were supposed to be talking about?

It all boils down to the fact that the same people who talk themselves hoarse about academic freedom and the freedom of research actually believe: Think like me, otherwise you will be excluded or at least left without pay!

This is gossiping about the same unfree world of thought as during Copernicus's time. Admit that the sun moves around the earth - otherwise. Lennart Bengtsson may well say as Galileo Galilei said 100 years after Copernicus - however, it does move - so as not to be burned at the stake by today's Catholic Church. Dear congregation, can we not take a step forward and return to the Enlightenment?

What requirements should we set for artistic research, Mr. Speaker? We do set requirements on all other research. Can we even assess artistic research? Most often not, I would say. But sometimes, on rare occasions, we actually can. Now I cannot refrain from kicking the ball into the open goal—with a small measure of pleasure, I must admit.

A couple of months ago, we could read that a docent in musicology at Örebro University, in his research, concluded that misogynistic men have a preference for the metal genre – I hope you know what that is. This is what the docent says in the Expressen article: "Pop has clear melodies intended to attract as broad an audience as possible, while metal stands outside of that, perhaps even a bit outside of society." The journalist who wrote the article and refers to the docent has previously commented on Yasin as follows: "He comes across a bit as a papa-feminist." It is therefore the same Yasin who was convicted for the kidnapping of the now murdered Einár.

Metal is misogynistic, while gangster rap is somewhat "dad-feminist" - according to music research, or at least the writer. One might get the suspicion that the conclusions have more to do with the musical preferences of the docent and the writer than with the results of high-quality research.

Mr. Speaker! I would say that this is a long way from proven experience and scientific evidence - and common sense.

Finally, Mr. Speaker: Alongside scientific knowledge and proven experience, perhaps we should also add common sense to the Higher Education Act.

(Applause)

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

Mathias Bengtsson (KD)

Mr. Speaker! The research that we are now debating is a fundamental part of our democracy but must never be taken for granted. Research has taken us to where we are today and is also crucial for where we are going. Through research, we increase our knowledge capital, develop new medicines and vaccines in times of pandemic and crisis, and generate new technology that enables what we never thought would be possible.

We must always safeguard the independence of research. At the same time, politics can promote research in particularly knowledge-poor areas where we as a country need to improve. The Christian Democrats have, for example, long pointed out the need for national research programs to strengthen the health of women and the elderly and nuclear power research programs to strengthen the energy supply.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is already one of the world's leading research and innovation countries, but we need to continuously strive to further strengthen our position. That Sweden today ranks quite well on the ranking lists is a result of historical investments in new research and development.

One trend over the recent years that one should be a bit vigilant about is that ownership of more and more European companies has shifted. Much Swedish and European ownership has been bought up by investors outside the continent. It is, in a way, naturally good, because foreign investments drive the economy and create more job opportunities for Swedes. But at the same time, there is also a risk when some strategically important projects do not stay within Sweden.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is welcome that the government has decided on a review system which will, among other things, cover investments in companies that develop technology deemed to be particularly important for Sweden's security - this is to avoid the risks that exist when foreign actors acquire Swedish companies that conduct security-sensitive activities. It has a connection to precisely the research and development of new technology.

As part of that, I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that one needs to be somewhat vigilant regarding which research companies need extra attention so that cutting-edge knowledge remains within the country. We need to know what concrete investments are needed and which areas are in the risk zone of being affected by brain drain.

Another part of ensuring that researchers stay in Sweden is about strengthening the academy. Today, there is a lack of clear and predictable career paths for researchers within the Swedish academy. For example, the processing times for residence permits for foreign researchers are unjustifiably long. There are also deficiencies regarding merit-based appointments and a problem with the stacking of fixed-term employment. Poor conditions for researchers contribute to brain drain from Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! The Christian Democrats safeguard the high standard of Swedish research. By strengthening the conditions within academia and investigating which research companies need support, we can ensure that knowledge is preserved in Sweden - for the sake of competitiveness, for the sake of the green transition, and for Sweden as a knowledge nation.

I vote in favor of the proposal in the report.

(Applause)

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

Lorena Delgado Varas (V)

Mr. Speaker! Research has an incredibly great importance for Sweden as a knowledge nation and an industrial nation, but also for society and the development of democracy. It is research in all its forms that helps us meet the climate crisis and understand society. It is research that points out injustices, shows how we can improve healthcare and develop education, provides proposals for new economic systems, and much more.

We have a need to strengthen academic freedom, especially in these times of crisis and democratic backsliding. In that case, it is important that our researchers are given the conditions for this. That does not only include being able to choose which subject one should research, which methods one should use, and how one should publish the results. It is several things that affect researchers' opportunities for academic freedom.

We have universities and colleges that today are working underfunded. Some are looking into how they should reduce their teacher-led hours and premises. Researchers choose to quit as researchers because of the economic uncertainty and its implications on what one chooses to research and what not to. The economy is therefore A and O for academic freedom and also a factor that affects where we will stand as a society in the future.

Mr. Speaker! I mentioned earlier the decline of democracy. Unfortunately, it is not just a phenomenon here in Sweden, but we see a shrinking democratic space in quite large parts of the world.

And how does it affect, or could it affect, the research? It can affect which areas researchers choose to research in, depending on whether they have to endure hate and threats or if the research in certain areas is disparaged or the results are even questioned or diminished by, for example, politics.

We have horror examples such as Hungary, where requirements have been introduced that have caused the right to conduct educational activities to no longer be based on professional criteria but on political criteria, and where they have restricted the possibility for non-European universities to enter into cooperation with Hungarian universities. The changes were intended to attack gender studies, LGBTQ+ work, and so on. The Hungarian government pointed to nationalism and security but actually wanted to attack these issues politically through academic freedom.

I do not mean that the same thing happens here in Sweden, but I point out how dangerous it can be. On the other hand, the social climate has made certain issues harder to talk about, and in that regard, I wish that researchers could present results without enduring hate and threats.

In addition to academic freedom, I choose to highlight the issue of equality. It is also a limiting factor for our society. There is much to be done to increase equality at Sweden's universities and colleges.

For a long time, we have had a research and higher education community where most students choose places of study based on stereotypical gender role models and where professors are largely men and where men find it easier to advance into positions. Therefore, this work is extremely important.

Despite the fact that women have long been in the majority in undergraduate education, men have been in the majority in doctoral education. There are various reasons for this. Since we already know what the reasons are and we know that there are opportunities to improve, this is something that we actually should take responsibility for.

Even the forms of employment affect women's opportunities, and we must also include that in the picture. We cannot have it this way. It is our task to work to counteract these differences.

I also want to raise the issue of animal testing. Currently, many animals are subjected to great suffering during the execution of experiments, and in some cases even before the experiments are carried out. In addition to the animals used for animal testing, there are also all the animals that are to be bred for the industry, whose sole goal is to breed a life without freedom.

The EU's directive on laboratory animals is very clear that the ultimate goal for animal testing is to replace all testing on live animals as soon as it is scientifically possible. Vänsterpartiet believes that it is high time that Sweden adopts a plan to enable this. There are countries that have begun such work, for example the Netherlands. We therefore do not need to invent new things but can take the examples that exist and follow them.

Finally, I take with me the conversation we had with the researchers at the research day organized in the Riksdag today. Many pointed out that society cannot be built in a vacuum. Then I think about the future. We need new researchers to take their place in ten years, but today many students in primary school are threatened by the fact that there are not enough teachers. We will see the consequences of this for Sweden as a knowledge nation and an innovation nation in ten to twenty years.

I am pleased that Member Mats Wiking moved for approval of reservation 2, so that I can move for approval of reservation 9 on gender equality.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Today we have gathered to debate and discuss research. Few things are as infinitely important for our country as having a high level and good quality of research and higher education. That is how we can get food on the table in the end, and that is how we build prosperity in Sweden.

We are a small export-dependent country and a knowledge nation, so the question of research is extremely important. Let us also state that higher education and universities have three missions, namely research, education, and utilization. When the government and the state, in their budget, send money to this sector in the form of basic funds, it is directed towards education and research but actually not towards utilization. There is a kind of basic thought that utilization is a consequence of research. I believe that we in Sweden as a nation need to review and reflect on what utilization actually is. It is both the education and the research, and we need a system that reflects on utilization better and more wisely.

Centerpartiet has three ambitions when it comes to research. The first concerns academic freedom, which we safeguard and want to strengthen. It is about the individual freedom to personally seek out questions and to research what one considers interesting and arrive at results, completely free from business, politics, or ideologies. It is also about institutional freedom, that is to say that our universities are those that can best assess and manage their own activities. We have spoken about this previously in the chamber.

Centerpartiets second ambition is that we shall strengthen the quality of our peak. I will return to that.

The third ambition is that higher education and research shall be present throughout the entire country. There is both a point in terms of knowledge building but also a regional political point when it comes to supplying regional and local labor markets with competence and skill. Therefore, there need to be universities of applied sciences in the whole country.

Back to the cutting edge of research. We have a funding system today that does not really drive the cutting edge, if we are to be completely honest. We have basic funding and we have competitive funds. So far, that looks good. The idea with the basic funding is that it should be used for free research. But how is it de facto?

Firstly: The administration at the universities is eating up the basic funding. The more one wants to directly manage from politics to its agency universities and the more it becomes new public management, the more administration the universities must have. When one moves away from trust and towards new public management, the administration costs increase.

Secondly: Co-financing requirements eat up basic funding. Today, when researchers apply for funds from the Swedish Energy Agency and others, there are requirements for co-financing that must be taken from the basic funds, and then money disappears from free research.

Thirdly: Academic houses consume basic funding. Enormous sums go for most of the country's educational institutions to rents for Academic Houses instead of to research.

For the fourth: Utilization activities consume base funding, as they do not have their own funding track.

The basic funding that was intended to be the guarantee for free research has instead become the filler for the black holes. It is not quite wise. This is something we need to investigate in Sweden. What remains is directed research and, in many instances, unfortunately, mediocre research.

The government says that it wants to remedy weak research quality with targeted investments and increased internationalization. I would like to comment on that. In the report, one can read that the government writes: "Sweden is a small country and it is important to dare to make priorities so that Sweden can instead become a country that is world-best in certain strategic areas where free research-initiated research has a central place."

In the very last part, there is a contradiction that is quite interesting. On one hand, from a political side, one wants to steer the research towards certain areas, and then one says that the research should be free there. It is like a spring release of cattle where you tell the cows that there is an entire field that they are allowed to run out and graze in, but when the cows then come out, it is an enclosure of ten by ten meters that they are allowed to be within. It is not good for the cows, and it is not good for the research. There, the government probably needs a little help in thinking about how one can strengthen the edge in Swedish research.

The second ambition is increased internationalization. Professor emerita Alexandra Waluszewski from Uppsala University commented on this in Svenska Dagbladet Debatt on national day. She wrote: International recruitment requires that Sweden appears as an attractive country for both young research students and established researchers. It is not enough to be able to offer a high-quality and stimulating research environment. It is also a matter of being attractive for accompanying partners and not least for accompanying children. What universities and colleges are sounding the alarm about is essentially the opposite: Sweden is beginning to appear as a cautionary tale in the treatment of international researchers.

It is not good news that this is how things look at universities and colleges. They are, therefore, having difficulty attracting international researchers because it is perceived that Sweden as a country gives people from the outside a cold shoulder. Multiculturalism in the form of experiences from different research traditions is therefore not allowed to be present at Swedish universities and colleges. How are we to be able to build excellence, and how are we to be able to build internationalization when we have a political context where people from other countries who want to come and work in Sweden are shut out? It is unfortunate.

Mr. Speaker! Finally, I would like to move for approval of reservation 18 on innovation support, where the Center Party sees that we need to work much more with the area around innovation, where research results can be taken further out towards products and services. We also want to strengthen our research institutes and our incubators.

(Applause)

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Anders Ådahl, for the speech! I understand that there is a concern when it was spoken about cow releases and other things.

From the Moderates' and the government's side, we will of course conduct a major review when it comes to the research bill and how we are to prioritize. Unfortunately, one must prioritize. That is the case with all finances; one must prioritize.

We also of course want a breadth. But to achieve real focus, it is perhaps still a matter of the areas where we are most skilled, and that is why we want to invest more there. But we absolutely want to see broad research.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, member, for the question! I believe we all look forward to the research bill and the work that is to be done.

I personally hope that the Minister for Education would like to see a broad cooperation in this work so that we can record our different points of view and use the experiences that exist in the different parties. I believe that would be very fortunate.

Yes, one must prioritize in research. But my point was that if, on one hand, you want to steer and prioritize research, you cannot, on the other hand, talk about research being free. One must consider how we should organize Swedish research so that we can both manage to prioritize against strong environments and simultaneously have free research.

I do not think Albert Einstein would have been so delighted if someone had told him: You are going to work with life science! He wanted to ponder a bit himself on the speed of light, mass, relativity and such things. We must manage to both prioritize towards areas of strength for Sweden and keep research free. We cannot bake these two together in one and the same breath.

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

Marie-Louise Hänel Sandström (M)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you very much, Anders Ådahl, for the answer! I was perhaps a bit vague in the question, but I still think I received a good answer.

As I said earlier, we must, of course, prioritize and look at what is the social benefit of the research. But we still, of course, want curiosity-driven research, because we know that it is that which leads to results. The reason we talk about technology, for example, is that it is an area Sweden is very good at. We want to remain world-leading there, and it is good to be able to invest in that. Then we do not say exactly how it should be invested, but we also believe that it is the researchers who know how to invest and prioritize.

We want to see broad research. But we also know that one must prioritize, and we have said that it should be where we can find excellence.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I agree with the ambition, but the thing is that with such an ambition, one must consider how Swedish research, the universities and the colleges should in that case be organized.

We can look at other countries such as Germany, where they work with Universität and Fachschule and have large institutes like Max Planck-institut and such places. There, they have divided free and directed research into different places, because they have understood that the culture is essentially different when one is going to make investments.

I can understand that politics may need to point with the whole hand and select prioritized areas. That may need to be done, but at the same time, it does not drive curiosity-based research. We do not quite get the breakthroughs we desire, even though it is desirable for Sweden as a nation to build knowledge within specific areas.

I believe that in our work with the research bill, we need to take into account the issue of organization and funding in order to be able to both prioritize and maintain curiosity.

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! A strong and vibrant democracy is built on fundamental principles such as a free academy, independent courts, a free press, and a free culture. Political influence and short-term interests must not define research questions, teaching methods, or choices of pedagogy.

Academic freedom is more than just the constitutionally protected freedom to freely choose one's research questions and research method and the publication of the results. Academic freedom also encompasses higher education, the organization of higher education institutions, and the work in the classroom between teachers and students. That protection is not sufficiently strong today, and it is a discussion that I believe we need to focus more on.

Mr. Speaker! For the Green Party, scientific basis and proven experience are an important foundation. Independent basic research is important for the development of Sweden and the entire world. At the same time, it is reasonable that some of the money that society invests can be subject to political priorities and strategic investments.

When Miljöpartiet makes its priorities, we base them on our ideological foundation: solidarity with animals, nature and ecological systems, solidarity with the world's people and solidarity with future generations. We particularly want to invest in research that helps us manage the environmental and climate crisis.

This must, however, never come at the expense of basic research. Therefore, the basic funding has an important role to play for the independence of the higher education institutions. They shall provide universities and colleges with the conditions to make their own, long-term decisions regarding their research and safeguard the institutions' integrity towards partners. A higher education institution must never be able to end up in a situation where a lack of research funding means that one does not decline funding with conditions that risk the institution's independence or open and free research, or risk leading to the taking of security policy risks.

We take seriously the role of politics in providing the conditions for the free academy to provide us with the knowledge we need to be able to carry out a just transition to a sustainable society while maintaining respect for the academy's freedom and independence.

The social transformation we face and that is required to slow down and manage the consequences of climate change constitutes a partially overwhelming challenge. This was something that was also raised at this morning's seminars: How can one tackle the truly large, system-changing issues? Here, higher education and research have a key role to play in enabling the transition. It is required that a diversity of areas and disciplines contribute to the work.

In both the constitution and the Higher Education Act, there is already a mandate to actively work to promote sustainable development, and through a multidisciplinary approach, society receives a broad picture of the causes, development, and consequences of climate change. Both natural science research, humanities research, and social science research are needed. Artistic research also has a part in this work.

Higher education institutions have an enormous potential to constitute a strong force through education, research, and collaboration and through their own internal work, which they control themselves. Just like everyone else, they also need to intensify their work, and I know that is something that is happening at many of our higher education institutions.

When it comes to the conditions for research and funding, we are, of course, eagerly awaiting the opportunity to engage in dialogue with the government regarding the upcoming research bill. In order for the universities to be able to undertake this, it is required that they truly have support both in funding and in their independence, both in breadth and in excellence.

Mr. Speaker! We are also presenting a number of proposals regarding various research areas that we consider important specifically based on how our party prioritizes. Our basis is that basic research is free, but it is still reasonable to make certain priorities.

One such is that we would very much like to see that opportunities are provided for research to discover and help children who are subjected to honor oppression or honor violence, and that we strengthen society's ability to act as early as possible to protect those children. It is truly about solidarity with people. Here we need the support of research to know how we should proceed.

Another heart issue for Miljöpartiet is animal rights. We want Sweden to invest more in alternative methods to be able to have 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 to move away from animal testing.

The state appropriations have been at a fairly low level for a long time. Therefore, Miljöpartiet wants Sweden to develop a plan for how to transition to animal-free research and action plans to reduce the number of animal experiments within various research areas. This is a task that we want to see strengthened, but the specific questions and solutions are, of course, something that the research itself must produce.

Mr. Speaker! I would like to move for approval of reservation 16 on animal-free research.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 14 June.)

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