(cont. from § 9) Research and innovation for the future, curiosity and utility (cont. UbU15)

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Here in the chamber, we now have two opposition parties taking points from one another. We see at the same time that block politics does not need to be as cemented as political reporters and many imagine. We can debate and take points from one another even in the opposition.

We are debating the research bill, and Linus Sköld has given a speech. The Social Democrats and the Centre Party share views in many parts. This concerns, for example, equality as a sub-goal and having a freer funding of the research landscape. We share the view on woke and internal threats, but we also share the view that we need colleges throughout the country – these being mentioned as some examples.

However, we do not share the same view regarding how the sector should be organized. The Social Democrats have a reservation stating that they do not want to investigate forms of association. From the Social Democrats' side, they do not want to increase the distance regarding direct management from politics into the leadership of the educational institutions.

A rector at a university is both an academic leader and an administrative head, an administrative manager. A rector is the government's extended arm. There is no difference.

Therefore, I want to ask Linus Sköld: How is it possible that in a previous exchange of remarks to say that there must be an autonomy at the educational institutions without simultaneously realizing that if there is to be an autonomy, we must also organizationally ensure that we have a distance between politics and the educational institutions?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! There are a number of policy areas where we broadly recognize the need for a distance between the political level and more independent actors. Cultural policy is one such area. We have plenty of state cultural institutions. There, it is called arm's length distance.

The parallel when it comes to higher education and research is academic freedom. In the same way, we have state institutions that are educational institutions – all except three as far as I know, Anders Ådahl can correct me if I am wrong – and which are state agencies.

What put the question on our agenda from the beginning are the oversteps that have occurred from the political level when it comes to interfering in matters that reasonably should be decided by those active in academia. It concerns matters that reasonably should be up to them to comment on, research, or publish results about.

We see corresponding tendencies when it comes to arm's length distance in cultural policy. We see corresponding tendencies toward shifted positions when it comes to political governance of folk education.

There are very many examples of policy areas where we want a wall between the political level and those who should be free to shape the implementation, because it is important that it is not politics and political conviction that govern how it becomes. This works perfectly as long as we have politicians who respect academic freedom.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! It is precisely that last point that is the problem with the Social Democrats' stance. If we have politicians who respect academic freedom, says Linus Sköld. But what happens if we do not have that? What happens if we have a Swedish Donald Trump in power?

I read a report in Dagens Nyheter today about Sida and their position regarding the UN agency UNRWA. DN asked: Sida's humanitarian department concludes that UNRWA can provide aid most effectively. Why does it still become a political issue? The Director-General answered: Sida is an administrative agency that works on the government's mandate under laws and regulations, as all Swedish administrative agencies do.

Let us for a moment try to swap Sida for the University of Gothenburg. Let us say that the question had been posed like this: The University of Gothenburg's Faculty of Medicine concludes that a certain cancer research can provide help most effectively. Why does it still become a political question? The Rector must then answer: GU is an administrative authority working on the government's mandate under laws and regulations, as all Swedish administrative authorities do.

Madam Speaker! A Swedish Donald Trump or a Swedish party, whichever it is, that wants to directly control our administrative authorities, can do exactly what they want. For the Center Party, it is a situation that is not sustainable and a situation we cannot accept.

If we are to grow as a society, we need freer academies where politicians who do not respect academic freedom cannot behave however they want. How do the Social Democrats want it to be?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I think Anders Ådahl's example speaks against his own conclusion. UNRWA does not fall under the administrative authority and is therefore an independent organization that is not governed by the government, but which is partially funded by the same. Therefore, there will be no money for UNRWA, because the government does not like UNRWA.

In the same way: If the government does not like Chalmers, there will be no money for Chalmers. If we do not have politicians who respect academic freedom, there is no form of association in the world that can protect the universities from that type of interference. The Sweden Democrats have illustrated this for us just a few weeks ago, possibly months by this point.

As long as we want to keep the principle that research and higher education at the universities shall be financed by the public sector, we will need politicians who are capable of respecting academic freedom. Otherwise, there will be no academic freedom. Then a different financing system is needed, and then Anders Ådahl truly opens the door to a privatization of higher education and research. Then it is philanthropists who decide which research is funded, and it is students' tuition fees that have to finance which education takes place.

Then you can build completely autonomous organizations that are not dependent on public funds. But I don't think that is what Anders Ådahl is proposing, because then we are talking about a privatization of the higher education sector for real. This is just a step in a voucher system that risks becoming the same market failure as it has become in the area of schools or of the vehicle testing.

(Applause)

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Listening to the Social Democrats in a debate about universities, colleges, and research is a bit like having a clock that runs backwards. It goes in the other direction in some way.

Let me begin with this, Madam Speaker: Linus Sköld says in his speech that higher education and research are financed by the public sector. Is that so? In Sweden, we invest, in broad terms, 3.6 percent of our gross national product in research and development. Of that, the public sector accounts for 0.8 percentage points, and the private business sector accounts for 2.8 percentage points.

Our universities and colleges, Madam Speaker, are authorities. There is not much that distinguishes Uppsala University from the Post and Telecom Authority or the Transport Administration. This means that it is the government that appoints rectors. Our educational institutions are restricted in certain aspects when it comes to being able to enter into, for example, international research collaborations, being able to own real estate and much more, which is possible in many other places in the world. This has not gone unnoticed, and it has also been noted internationally that Sweden stands out in this regard.

The government wants to conduct a review of how appropriate the association form is. The Social Democrats are now trying to block this, citing a fear of "increased influence of market forces in the higher education sector." But a large majority of the research in Sweden today is financed by these market forces. It is thanks to Volvo, Wallenberg, Ax:son Johnson and a number of other so-called philanthropists, as Linus Sköld calls them, that we have such large investments in research as Sweden has today.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! To compare me to a clock running backwards, I believe, was an attempt at an insult, but I do not understand it. Fredrik Malm is welcome to clarify what he means by this more or less personal attempt at an attack in his next reply.

When it comes to academic freedom and the form of association of the higher education institutions, it is as I have now said in reply after reply: As long as we want to keep the principle that research and higher education shall be financed by the public, we will need politicians who are capable of respecting academic freedom.

A deregulated system where one lets market forces rule fails – this has been shown in attempt after attempt – to distribute common utilities in a fair way so that one achieves equal access for people regardless of what circumstances they have. It is the reason why we want higher education available in the whole country, for everyone to apply with the same merit evaluation. Regardless of whether one is rich or poor and what background one has, one shall be valued in the same way and be able to be admitted in the same way.

The relationship that exists between the public, the general, and the individual is furthermore regulated by the constitution. This covers authorities, not foundations or other types of private companies. Fredrik Malm's objection that this would not entail a risk of privatization and market failure is therefore invalid.

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

Fredrik Malm (L)

Madam Speaker! Handelshögskolan and Chalmers are examples of other forms of association. Does the Social Democrats perhaps mean that Chalmers is an example of a market failure, to be equated with Thorengruppen when it comes to independent schools or something of the sort? This exceeds my understanding.

We will never be able to strengthen and develop research in Sweden with the medicine that Linus Sköld prescribes here, which means that we are only to fund with tax money and that all higher education shall be conducted in the form of authorities. I perceive it as the Social Democrats' policy.

Then the question is: What does Linus Sköld want to do with Volvo? How are we to develop Jas? Is it solely through the state budget with appropriations in budget propositions? What will happen with the particle accelerator ESS, our research infrastructure and the advanced research – which of course is very cost-driving – to produce the medicines of the future and to solve the climate challenges?

We need even more private capital and even more tax funding into higher education. We need to inject billions and billions again into this sector to cope with the new, large land gains. Then Linus Sköld's answer is: No, there should only be money from the tax bill to higher education, otherwise it will be market forces that rule.

2.8 of the 3.6 percent of our GDP that we spend on research and development comes precisely from the market forces that Linus Sköld stands here and says it would be terrible to introduce into the higher education sector. We are extremely dependent on the business sector for this. Do the Social Democrats not see that?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I shall quote myself again. In the speech for which Fredrik Malm requested a reply, I explicitly said the following: ”Regional cooperation between academia, business, and society is important for building regional competitiveness and skills supply.”

There is no obstacle to cooperation between the publicly funded academy and the business sector in research, innovation, and development – of course not. That Fredrik Malm wants to attribute such a view to me only shows Fredrik Malm's lack of historical perspective. It is we who have built up this system.

The point is that the association form works. It delivers what we want it to deliver – as long as politicians refrain from making the type of political interventions in what the educational institutions are allowed to engage in that both liberal and Sweden Democrat representatives have made themselves guilty of during this mandate period.

As long as we provide funding in a freer form so that one can create long-term perspectives, secure employment, and less bureaucracy, the conditions for academic freedom increase. But if we do as the Liberals do – narrow down what the money can be used for and say that politics should dictate that one should research this or that funds should be redistributed from one university to another – academic freedom and the possibility to plan long-term, have secure employment, and have a protection from political steering are reduced.

Fredrik Malm wants to investigate the association form as a diversionary maneuver so that he and his party do not make themselves guilty of political interference in academic freedom.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! There have been many big words about academic freedom here. There has also been a great deal of opposition for Linus Sköld, I have noted. However, there have not been so many own proposals. That is unfortunately somewhat telling for the debate. Therefore, I would like to give Linus Sköld an opportunity to describe here what is actually the Social Democrats' policy to increase academic freedom.

Until now, I have understood that there is opposition to evaluating the forms of association that we know have functioned very well, both in other parts of the world and in different parts of Sweden. There is opposition to specializing and clustering resources so that we can become better through specialization, where some educational institutions are allowed to focus on research in certain areas in order to become world leaders. I have also noted that Linus Sköld is against this.

I have, however, not heard very much about what Linus Sköld actually is, Madam Speaker. I would very much like to hear that from Linus Sköld.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! A freer distribution of research funds.

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Madam Speaker! My follow-up question to Linus Sköld is: What is it that contributes to strengthening academic freedom? Is it the development that we have historically seen within higher education in Sweden?

I am specifically thinking of the evaluation that SNS has conducted, where they looked at the development of research grants. From 2004 to 2019, the number of students increased by 10 percent. The number of teachers and researchers remained constant. What increased, dear colleagues, was the number of communicators and administrators. That increased during the same period by 66 percent.

So the number of students increased by 10 percent and the number of communicators and administrators by 66 percent. Can Linus Sköld answer how that contributes to strengthening academic freedom in Sweden?

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! I do not intend to sit here in judgment over decisions made at the universities. That is my entire point: If we are to have a stronger academic freedom, we need politicians who respect academic freedom. Decisions made at the universities must be accounted for by the universities' representatives, not by me.

Josefin Malmqvist may belong to a government base that does not respect that boundary. However, I will not sit here and judge decisions that have been made at the educational institutions.

(Applause)

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I begin by moving for the approval of our reservation 93. It concerns changes to increase the proportion of academics on the boards of universities in order to increase academic freedom, which we have talked so much about here.

It is worth noting that we also have two special opinions in the report. The first concerns a secondary request, point 45, reservation 85. The second special opinion concerns the fact that in point 49 we clarify our position regarding the board structure for the universities. That is what we have debated. I will go into this in my speech, but in brief, it concerns the reasonableness of transparency and influence from a democratically elected government. It sounds here almost as if Sweden has non-democratically elected governments and that we emphasize academic freedom more than university autonomy.

Madam Speaker! Now to the bill. My first reflection is that it is more concrete than previous research bills. Some of those that I have received during my time in this assembly have been so vague that it has been difficult to write follow-up motions on them. That is how bad it has been. The bill is also objectively better than those I have previously received. It contains fewer slogans and a good deal of good ideas and thoughts. Furthermore, it is probably the bill that has allocated the most money to research.

Regarding the potential for improvement, I want to highlight a few things – apart from our own motions, which we stand behind – without formally moving them. I will mention page numbers so that everyone can see for themselves what has been written. It concerns the research bill.

On page 52, the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate is addressed. There is no analysis of the impact of carbon dioxide on the climate compared to other factors such as solar activity and the Milanković cycles. I request such research – real scientific research.

On page 100, it states that the procurement of a new research icebreaker is being investigated. I believe it is high time to order a new research icebreaker after Oden II. It will, of course, be called Oden III. But the wording and the level of ambition are too low. Specify the requirements for the icebreaker, order it, and include it in the upcoming budget!

There is a very limited number of shipyards in the world that can build research icebreakers. There is only one outside of Russia, as far as I know, and it is located in Finland. Suddenly, a lot of other nations have become very interested in ordering research icebreakers. This means that we could end up last in the queue. I believe you have all heard about the interest in minerals and the like up in the Arctic and in Greenland. It is important that we do not end up last in the queue if we are to be able to get a replacement for Oden II. It is important.

On page 140, it says about the equality work within academia. It is included in the research bill. I have nothing against what is written in the bill regarding this. I just wonder why one cannot simply follow meritocratic principles. Simple!

Another thing that I have reflected on many times is why the gender distribution among professorships and other positions within academia is a major issue. It is, after all, a non-issue within, for example, the mining industry or the garbage collection trade. Equality is completely uninteresting within occupations that are heavy and dirty.

On page 104, it states that nuclear power research has been neglected and that it is now time to accelerate that research. I completely agree, and I have pointed that out much earlier in the chamber. It states that the funding for nuclear basic research needs to increase. If we are to have enough electricity in the future for both companies and people, we need to research nuclear power and expand it – it is that simple. There are no alternatives, unless we are to build out the rivers. Well done, the government!

On page 133, it states regarding increased self-determination for the universities and colleges. When it comes to the vast majority of issues, it is in my opinion – I want to be clear about that – entirely up to the institutions themselves to decide. In many issues, the staff at universities and colleges are the real experts. No one else should interfere there – no politicians either. As I have previously touched upon, in certain issues we want to see significantly more academic freedom than today.

Madam Speaker! The Government intends – or intended – to appoint an inquiry on how our universities should best be governed. We are negative towards them being operated in foundation form. Firstly, they shall continue to be tax-financed. In activities that are tax-financed, it is reasonable to have some oversight and influence from the Government and the Riksdag. Secondly, some universities have spiraled out of control in connection with the Middle East conflict.

Madam Speaker! I cannot help but mention an article in the newspaper Curie written by a docent in Uppsala, Ylva Söderfeldt. There, a terrible situation at Uppsala University is described. It is, therefore, our foremost university, which is supposed to attract foreign researchers from the USA. A group of activists – probably dressed in Palestinian scarves – threaten others, carry out pure terrorist activities, and undertake actions, according to the article's author.

The Board of Uppsala University has changed the name of a building that had a Jewish name. Here we stand and talk about academic freedom. What kind of academic freedom is that, my friends? It is completely off the rails. I do not know how much of what Söderfeldt writes is true or if there are exaggerations, but she perceives that the university management has begun to yield when it comes to conducting foreign policy and perhaps suggests that Uppsala University should propose a boycott of Israeli goods. The government can decide on that if it wishes. But we should not have any universities – which fortunately are state agencies – going that far.

Söderfeldt also describes an atmosphere of fear and threats hitting those with deviating opinions. That, my friends, is anything but academic freedom. It is happening now. It is not some future Trump reality, but it is happening now, today, and it is deplorable.

The foundations that are partially exempt are Akademiska Hus. I believe someone was touching on that. They seem to be a heavy burden for many educational institutions. However, it must be possible to reform the mission of Akademiska Hus without touching the operating model itself. We have pointed that out many times. On the other hand, we are positive about increased cooperation between the universities to streamline operations and increase quality. Such a comprehensive reform was carried out in Denmark with very good results. One should look at the Danish reform and do something similar.

We should increase the specialization at our educational institutions so that they can offer cutting-edge education and cutting-edge research in their niche areas. We should also designate a few of our universities as cutting-edge research universities, which have the task of attracting foreign researchers. This will come with an extra grant. I had intended that Uppsala University should be just such an institution.

On page 69, it mentions responsible internationalization. What does that mean? It is, of course, about ensuring that important information for our society and future prosperity does not improperly end up in foreign hands. A number of agencies have been tasked with drawing up national guidelines. The assignment is apparently not completed yet. I have tried to look into it. There seems to have been a regulatory framework on information security since at least 2006–2007. The National Audit Office checked this in 2010, with appalling results.

There is a contradiction here, which the bill addresses, Madam Speaker. Research benefits from being as open as possible, while at the same time we must protect certain knowledge. That is how reality looks. But it must be possible to determine what is worth protecting and what absolutely is not. Then there is always a gray area. For that, we have common sense.

In summary, information security has not functioned. There, we must see an improvement.

Madam Speaker! We talk a lot about academic freedom. Today, we have talked very much about it. But we do not talk at all about academic responsibility. With freedom comes also responsibility – responsibility that the operations are conducted with quality, responsibility that the tax money is managed to the best of one's ability, and responsibility that the Higher Education Act is followed and that all activities are conducted on a scientific basis. Upon a balanced assessment, we conclude that our higher education institutions shall continue to be operated in the form of authorities.

(Applause)

In this speech, Eric Palmqvist and Patrick Reslow (both SD) concurred.

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! To begin with, I would like to inform Robert Stenkvist of my view on how the business examples of equality that he gave reflect reality. I perceive it as that both mining companies and cleaning companies also strive for an equal composition of their workforce – just as one should do within academia. I simply believe that Robert Stenkvist is wrong when he says that those who run businesses such as these want them to be male-dominated operations.

Then Robert Stenkvist presented a parade of evidence of what politicians do when one does not respect academic freedom. The keyword here was "real" scientific research, as if Robert Stenkvist were the one who decides what is real research. He speaks of colleges that have gone off the rails and that it is completely out of control. These are his reviews of activities.

It is remarkable how Robert Stenkvist takes the liberty to, despite the ongoing debate on academic freedom, make such statements about the activities whose freedom we want to safeguard.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I noticed that Linus Sköld reacted to what I said about Uppsala University. I reacted to what the docent from Uppsala University writes. These are appalling conditions, with calls for a boycott.

I have some tolerance for students revolting from time to time. But here, researchers and teachers are part of the revolt. She writes about recurring threats and that there are outright attacks against researchers. They demand that Uppsala officially join a boycott against Israel. This is foreign policy. Students can demand such things, but I demand more from those who work at a university.

Ylva Söderfeldt, who is the docent, writes that there are tendencies that the management is beginning to give in to public opinion. Is it not somewhere there that opinions should clash – if one is not afraid of them – and where we should have different opinions and be able to have different opinions, bounce ideas off each other and debate, is it at our universities? She also writes that it is an atmosphere that is the exact opposite of that. People are afraid, and there is an atmosphere of silence and fear – at a university! What the hell kind of academic freedom is that?

Excuse me, Madam Speaker, but I am upset when I read this. How can one stand behind this?

Linus Sköld! These are probably people dressed in Palestinian scarves. There are sometimes some people here in the Riksdag who are dressed in Palestinian scarves. It is about your intended government base, if I have understood the matter correctly.

(Applause)

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

ANDRE VICE TALMANNEN

I must ask the member to consider their language. We do not usually swear here in the chamber.

(ROBERT STENKVIST (SD): I apologize, Madam Speaker.)

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

Linus Sköld (S)

Madam Speaker! Robert Stenkvist says that he may have a certain tolerance for students occasionally rebelling. Robert Stenkvist, his party, and the government that obeys him have shown with desirable clarity that they do not have any tolerance at all for students who organize themselves. On the contrary, they will remove a third of the funding to the student organizations next year. There is, therefore, no tolerance for students who organize themselves for a certain cause.

In this bill, every additional krona is distributed through competition, according to politically decided criteria, or to politically prioritized areas. Even the existing appropriations shall be able to be redistributed between the higher education institutions according to the new politically decided distribution criteria.

Under the guise of excellence, the government has proposed a distribution model that means research funds will be concentrated among the already large universities. Under the guise of excellence, the government wants to sharpen the competition, not only regarding the funds that go through external funders but also the competition for the basic grants. Under the guise of excellence, the government wants to invest in natural sciences and technology but hardly mentions humanities and social sciences and completely refrains from mentioning artistic research.

Overall, it will increase bureaucracy and reduce the conditions for long-term planning and thus secure employment. It will reduce academic freedom and threaten regional growth and, in the long run, the supply of skills throughout the country.

When Robert Stenkvist stands in the speaker's chair and talks about "real" research, I wonder if this is Robert Stenkvist's construction to defund humanities, social sciences, and artistic research and instead fund that which Robert Stenkvist judges to be real research.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! I will not have time to answer everything. But we stand behind the government one hundred percent when it comes to investing in natural sciences and technology. We must do that considering the country's future welfare.

We think the proposals to outsource many different grants are something that should be evaluated. This is not our proposal from the beginning. One must evaluate and see how it works. If it does not work, we will have to redo it.

Such as strategic research areas that both blue and red governments have had, which means that one has invested in certain research areas. I believe it was the Alliance government that introduced it at one time. Then social democratic governments have also had such areas. One could imagine reducing the number of strategic research areas. It would not be completely impossible.

No, I do not decide what is research and what is not, or what is good research and what is not. But I wanted to bring up the article from Dagens Nyheter. 1,000 researchers signed an article where some things were claimed. Some things are certainly true and correct, but some things are not correct. They demanded that politicians must now listen to them. There was only one problem: 950 of these researchers had no clue what was written in the article. It would be a dereliction of duty for us to listen to such things. Then, however, other experts came forward who pointed out inaccuracies in the article.

Does Linus Sköld mean that we must listen to the 1,000 academics who signed the article? There were a lot of inaccuracies in it. One must be a bit critical and use one's own common sense, Madam Speaker.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Madam Speaker! Thank you, Robert Stenkvist, for the speech! It is always interesting to listen to Robert Stenkvist – I find great pleasure in it. I can also read parts of the Sweden Democrats' policy in this area that are not wrong at all. At the same time, it is not without one thing or another bouncing off. I thought that we could discuss two topics in our exchange of remarks. One is equality and the other, hardly surprising, academic freedom.

Let us begin with equality. At the university, today significantly more girls than boys are admitted and study. It is somewhat different for different specializations, but in total, there are significantly more women. When one then intends to pursue an academic career, fewer and fewer women remain in the system. Among those who reach the highest level in academia, professor, the proportion of women is very much lower.

We in the Center Party see this as a structural problem, not only in academia but in society at large. It is both unfortunate and unfair to skilled women that we have a structural problem that prevents them from making a career. But perhaps even more importantly: It is not good for the country Sweden that the large competence base in the form of Sweden's young women are not given equal opportunities to make a career.

We would like to retain the goal of equality in order to improve the quality of Swedish research, but the Sweden Democrats do not want that. Would it be possible to hear why?

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Madam Speaker! It is very good if more women become professors. But when it comes to one thing, we do not yield: meritocratic principles shall apply in the appointments. Then one can reflect on why there are fewer women. It is, just as Anders Ådahl said, more women who are studying. Do we have any answer to this? Is it about childbirth or family formation, or what is it due to? But in the appointment, we must have meritocratic principles, otherwise we are on a slippery slope.

I have looked into Harvard a bit – it has been in the headlines now. It is appalling. They have quotas for all sorts of things. It is about ethnic groups – blacks, Asians, Latin Americans. It is a quagmire that never ends. We Sverigedemokrater do not want such an order. We must have meritocratic principles.

Then one can ask what the reasons are. Can a certain group have poorer education? When it comes to women, what are the requirements that make them actually choose not to continue? I have no good answer to this. We research all sorts of things, and we allocate a huge amount of money to research. May I then suggest a new research area: Why do women abandon their academic careers? Wouldn't that be interesting, Anders Ådahl?

I have read up on Harvard. We in the Sweden Democrats do not want to see such an order.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I hardly believe that women, generally speaking, have worse qualifications or are less intelligent than men. To go that way feels extremely difficult, Mr. Stenkvist – we should probably not embark on that path.

It is about structural problems, as I was mentioning. In the first instance, I would like to say that it is insecure employment conditions that make it very uncertain not to have a stable job when one is in their 20s or 30s and in a family-forming situation. It is more uncertain for women than for men. There we probably have the cause. Sure, we can gladly research this more deeply. But to scrap the goal of equality feels like an extremely unwise idea.

We also spoke about academic freedom. The Sweden Democrats succeed in the feat of checking both boxes – reducing financial freedom and reducing organizational freedom. It is an achievement in itself, when, for example, the Center Party wants to increase academic freedom in both respects.

Let me just ask one question at the end. Stenkvist was in on academic responsibility. He lists a number of examples of irregularities at universities – it is about who should decide and who should set the rules. Since Stenkvist wants to keep administrative authorities that report directly to the government, the question is: Is it Stenkvist's intention that politicians should directly step in and say what is right and wrong at a university so that a rector must obey it, or is there confidence in the university managements so that they can have a self-reflection and their own academic responsibility?

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! What we want is for the Higher Education Act to be followed. Whether it is followed or not is a huge discussion. We cannot go into that; we do not have time.

I do not think we should go in and micro-manage and tell university managements how they should do things. I brought up the example of Uppsala University and what this docent is writing. It is very serious, I think. We are talking about academic freedom. People are silent, and people are afraid – my god!

One must at least be able to have a dialogue with the government. It is not the same as us going in and pointing with the whole hand. One sees the problem, and it is serious. What this docent writes may be an exaggeration, but more reports have arrived. It is not just about Uppsala, but reports have arrived from different educational institutions. What reason does Ylva Söderfeldt have to exaggerate? We do not know that, but we should investigate if she does. At such occasions, I think a dialogue with the government must take place.

Freedom also implies responsibility. It concerns state authorities, and I believe we have a responsibility to ensure that people are not afraid and silent at our colleges and universities. It is tax-funded activity.

That is not the case in the USA. They have a completely different model. It is a reason why we are not in favor of the foundation form. They have enormous capital that they receive returns from. I believe I have a figure here. Harvard has a return of 10 percent and receives 53 billion dollars. This will not happen in Sweden.

(Applause)

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

Josefin Malmqvist (M)

Mr. Speaker! Sweden is and shall be a knowledge nation. What has built Sweden strong is not the equalization of resources but the equalization of opportunities. It should not matter where you come from; what matters is where you are headed.

It is also this that has built the engineering nation Sweden. That journey begins already in primary school and continues then through the entire education system up to higher education and research. It is therefore incredibly important that the research bill that we are debating here today lays the foundation for just this.

The proposition has a clear direction: Sweden shall continue to be one of the world's leading research and innovation countries and a leading knowledge nation. We are now laying the foundation for a long-term and strategic development of Swedish research and higher education, where the focus lies on quality, competitiveness, and international relevance. In a global development where knowledge, technology, and innovation play an ever greater role for both economy as well as security and societal development, it is crucial that Sweden not only keeps up but also stays at the forefront.

We are therefore proud that this research bill, which we now have to debate here today, represents the largest increase in research and innovation in modern Swedish history.

The total appropriation concerns 6.5 billion kronor in increased resources until 2028. Already this year, this means that we have increased the appropriation by 1.5 billion. These funds go to universities and colleges, to our state research funders such as Vetenskapsrådet, Vinnova, Formas, Forte and Rymdstyrelsen, and to research institutes such as Rise. It is an offensive investment that provides stability and long-term perspective in a situation where the competition for knowledge is becoming increasingly tougher.

Mr. Speaker! It is not just about providing new resources. It is at least as much about how we use the public funds that we collectively are responsible for and safeguard in the public system. It is about efficient use of resources, as we discussed in a previous exchange of remarks.

It is about using the resources in a wise and strategic way with a clear direction and prioritization, because we cannot give everything to everyone. It is therefore not enough to increase the volume. What builds research progress, innovations, and social benefit is quality and excellence. Then we must also steer towards that.

Sweden has fallen behind internationally for several years in a row. We hold our own when it comes to the number of publications but not as well when it comes to the impact of these publications. This is something we need to address. It creates poorer conditions for groundbreaking research and for laying the foundation for future breakthroughs. Therefore, we are also sharpening the prioritization and direction of the state research funds in this research bill.

Focus is shifted to research environments that hold the highest international class. We strengthen the competitiveness of grants, and we reward those environments that demonstrate quality in results, ability for collaboration, internationalization, and scientific impact.

Sweden needs strong research environments where researchers are given the opportunity to formulate their own questions, test new hypotheses, and conduct long-term knowledge development. Through investments in centers of excellence and free, groundbreaking research, we create space for the new and the unexpected – that which can lead to the great breakthroughs of the future. This strengthens our scientific infrastructures and provides the conditions for Swedish research to regain lost power in international comparisons.

Mr. Speaker! We also see a need to consolidate efforts around certain strategically important areas. Therefore, we are now establishing eight strategic research areas. It concerns life science and AI. It concerns quantum technology, polar research, advanced materials, research on the climate and the green transition, crisis preparedness, total defense, and practical research on everything from crime to what happens in primary school. These are areas where we know that Sweden has special and specific conditions to contribute, while we see that the societal needs are very large. Here there are societal challenges to meet, and the research can have a great impact both scientifically and practically.

But research is not only about technology and natural sciences. We also need insights into societal development in general, human conditions, democratic processes and culture. Therefore, there is a strong emphasis on interdisciplinarity in this bill, which concerns cooperation between fields with societal relevance. We know that knowledge capable of contributing to understanding and solutions to major societal issues requires perspectives from several sides.

Research and higher education must be open to society. Therefore, we make it possible to combine employment at educational institutions with work outside academia. It is an important and long-awaited step that strengthens mobility between academia and the surrounding society. Teachers and researchers shall be able to work part-time in schools, healthcare, and the business sector, and vice versa. It adds knowledge, strengthens the professional anchoring of education, and contributes to increased utilization of research.

The proposed change in the Higher Education Act enters into force this summer and enables this important change.

Free research is a cornerstone in every knowledge society, but freedom also requires a responsibility. Research must maintain high quality, be conducted with good ethics, and be reviewed according to high standards. Therefore, we also strengthen the support for ethics review and research quality.

We have recently received an investigation that has looked specifically at how the Ethical Review Act can be made clearer, more purposeful, and better adapted for different fields of research. The goal is to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy. This is important, but without compromising the individual's privacy and freedom.

At the same time, we strengthen the work with open science and open data. Research funded with public funds shall be made accessible to more people. Published results, data, and methods shall be able to be reviewed, repeated, and developed. This not only increases the quality and credibility of the results and the research but also strengthens good research practice and the validation of knowledge.

We also see in several cases that additional secrecy is needed. It is the other side of this coin. Information that is sensitive for national security needs to be protected. The same applies to sensitive issues concerning innovations. Therefore, we are simultaneously developing research security, including rules for cooperation with actors from countries with different security policy interests. This is something that several educational institutions highlight when we have conversations with them. They simply desire increased support when it comes to security issues. That is what we are now contributing.

Mr. Speaker! The government's research and innovation policy is not an isolated initiative alongside everything else, but it is a central part of Sweden's research and future strategy.

Research and innovation are crucial for building a strong defense and an effective welfare state. It is about a competitive business sector and a sustainable societal development. A strengthened research and innovation policy contributes to strengthening Swedish growth and competitiveness. It is therefore also logical that research funds are now more clearly directed towards strategic societal challenges in order to build knowledge environments that are capable of contributing to the solution.

We have a research policy that prioritizes courage, innovation and responsibility. We believe in free and strong research environments. We believe in collaboration with the surrounding society. We believe that Sweden can become the best in the world if we dare to invest and dare to choose quality over volume. This bill takes important steps in just that direction.

In conclusion, I would like to express my gratitude to researchers, heads of educational institutions, teachers, students, and actors in higher education who have contributed in various ways to the important work of developing this bill. It is a collective responsibility that ensures Sweden now stands strong in the knowledge economy of the future. I am as a Moderate proud of a government that presents this bill, which places research, education, and innovation at the forefront.

With this, Mr. Speaker, I move for approval of the committee's proposal, with the exception of reservation 92, which I move for approval.

(Applause)

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! Earlier today, the government's proposal to ruin generations of Swedish citizens through nuclear power financing was debated. The government's Minister for Financial Markets, Niklas Wykman, was present. That was good. In larger debates, it is customary for the responsible minister to be present to give the government's view on a bill and defend the same. But the Minister for Education is not in the chamber today to debate the mandate period's research and innovation bill.

The Minister for Education is not present. That has been the case throughout the entire parliamentary term. Education Minister Pehrson – regardless of whether it was Mats Persson or Johan Pehrson – has constantly been marked by his absence. It is a pattern. I cannot interpret it as anything other than a lack of interest. At the same time, we know that research and innovation policy paves the way for Swedish competitiveness and democratic development.

Mr. Speaker! The debate on the research and innovation bill must necessarily be about academic freedom, not least in light of what is happening in Trump's USA but also in light of what is happening in Swedish politics. The Center Party is the only party in the Riksdag that fully stands up for academic freedom and which has proposals that unequivocally go in that direction. Other parties stumble into the ditch in one way or another by wanting to steer, judge, and dampen the academy's own inherent power through politics. A brief summary is that the government parties want to direct directly through funding, while the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats want to direct directly through organization.

Mr. Speaker! We have built in mechanisms that make research unfree – so we write in our 31-page follow-up motion. Yes, that is actually the case. It is alarming if we want to see stronger research in Sweden, increased competitiveness, and a democratic development of society.

Sweden has long been considered an academic top nation – innovative and with outstanding research. We have been able to attract highly competent labor here. It has strengthened entrepreneurship and created growth, but now we are in a situation where we are losing more and more ground.

The government's response in the research and innovation bill has been more money for the same system – the same system that does not deliver what is needed. It is an absence of reforms. I wonder rhetorically: What does money help when the very structure is defective?

Sweden has almost only one way to grow economically. It is about high knowledge in our companies and in the public sector. Our future welfare is at risk now that we, as a research nation, have fallen behind. It is a serious development that in the long run risks damaging Sweden's situation. The quality of Swedish research determines the quality of our innovations, our startup companies, our scaleup companies, and our established companies. It is a welfare chain where no link may be weak.

Even though investments in research still constitute a large share of our GDP, Sweden has not kept pace with international developments in terms of quality. We also see a significant passivity from the government when it comes to attracting American and international researchers to Sweden from a crumbling American academy.

We in the Center Party have highlighted four proposals to increase the attractiveness in both the short and long term.

Firstly, we propose a national strategy for cutting-edge competence. We believe that a national strategy is needed whose purpose is to create better conditions for Swedish companies and universities to attract, recruit, and retain cutting-edge competence.

Secondly, we believe that a dedicated initiative for top researchers was needed here and now. The universities should utilize their internal capital, and the state can match it with new grants. The universities' counter-performance should be that the researchers who are employed maintain an extraordinary quality. We believe that the Swedish Research Council should be able to handle such an evaluation.

Thirdly, we want to introduce a one-stop shop. Many labor migrants and researchers choose to opt out of Sweden because it is difficult to move here for practical reasons. It can be about difficulties in finding a home but also about finding a school for accompanying children. It should be easy for the whole family to come here. Therefore, a so-called one-stop shop for labor migrants is needed.

For the fourth, we need to strengthen academic freedom at home.

Mr. Speaker! The Center Party's starting point is that it is not primarily a lack of money that is the problem, but how we have rigged the entire sector. It is about what our financing system looks like, how the sector is organized, and how politicized we have allowed it to become.

From our side, we want to see two deep reforms, partly a new organization of the sector, and partly a new and long-term stable financing of the sector.

We welcome the government's initiative to investigate forms of association. In Sweden, almost all educational institutions are government agencies. This leads both to a conformity and to an all-too-close relationship with the state power which holds back creativity and richness of ideas. University managements must devote more time to agency tasks, administration, and political whims than to being academic leaders. One can say that the power of politics is total.

We in the Center Party want to see freer educational institutions and actually a pluralism of forms of association. We therefore share the government's assessment that an inquiry into the matter must be appointed.

So this is what the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats are against.

Let me, in this context, Mr. Speaker, quote Hans Ellegren, who is permanent secretary of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. He writes in today's Altinget as follows:

"In a time when populism, resistance to facts, and disinformation are spreading, autonomous educational institutions are a necessity for independent knowledge to be developed and conveyed within society. It is a cornerstone of a functioning democracy. It should be in all political parties' interest to work for such a development."

We in the Center Party naturally stand completely behind such a comment.

Mr. Speaker! Academic freedom does not stop at the forms of association for the educational institutions. In the research bill, we see that both institutional autonomy and individual freedom are further weakened by how the funding system is fed with money. In principle, all new additions of funds shall be distributed by the research councils. The universities and colleges are increasingly reduced to administrative units in the state's care. And the researchers are transformed from proactive researchers to reactive ones. It becomes de facto an increasingly locked-in system for research, and it is unfortunately not a system that delivers when lack of freedom becomes dogma. Education Minister Pehrson cements the country's "just enough" and perhaps even makes things worse than they are. The investments are, as before, temporary and weighted by administration.

For our two deep reforms, a sequence was needed. It begins with a freer organization and continues with a freer financing. The freedom given in organization must be met by an academic responsibility. Therefore, the organization must occur first and the financing reform afterwards, but they are connected.

Mr. Speaker! Let us be careful to say that freedom comes with an equally large portion of responsibility. High academic freedom entails high academic responsibility. University managements and university boards have a great responsibility to develop their environments. It is the necessary consequence of freedom – responsibility. This is something the university sector must speak much more about to reach the ears of politics broadly. What is sad is that the spinal reflex of politics is to increase political micro-management instead of developing academic responsibility. Therein also lies the great difference between the Center Party's approaches and those of the other parties.

Mr. Speaker! We in the Center Party have very many reservations in this report, specifically 32 of them. Our policy is broad and extensive, and we present a wealth of proposals alongside academic freedom for a better future for Swedish research and innovation.

I want to briefly highlight four areas.

Firstly, we see that equality must increase in academia. There are many women who pursue higher education, but in terms of proportion, fewer and fewer women progress through the entire career path to professor. We miss out on a lot of competence with the unequal system we have today. Young women are those who are most disadvantaged. We therefore consider that the research policy sub-goal that equality must increase must remain.

Secondly, a clearer system for quality follow-up of Swedish research and innovation is needed. There is therefore a need to introduce a system for a consolidated and independent analysis of what results and effects state investments in research, development, and innovation have. This is something that actually exists in most comparable countries. We believe that an inquiry should be appointed to submit proposals on how such a system can be established.

For the third, we consider that the number of research funders needs to decrease. Fewer funders and fewer overlapping calls mean that the researchers' workload regarding writing project applications is reduced. It would also contribute to a more purposeful and efficient research funding. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, it is not uncommon that mediocre project proposals that are rejected by the first, second, and third research funder instead get a yes from the fourth or fifth. It is not a quality-driving system.

For the fourth, it is important that the initiatives made within innovation contribute to strengthening Sweden's competitiveness and reducing vulnerability. The state's role in innovation initiatives should be designed as a catalyst, so that conditions are created for emerging and groundbreaking technologies and so that the initiatives occur from the bottom up. Sweden does not have the possibility to be a world leader in all technologies, but the state's initiatives must take their starting point in Sweden's unique industrial tradition, expertise, and opportunities.

Mr. Speaker! Of all our 32 reservations, I choose to move for approval of reservations 12 and 86.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! Johan Pehrson is at Harpsund for government consultations. That is why he is not here.

I cannot help but ask a question. There was talk about a new system for evaluation. We introduced a new system for evaluation during the 2014–2018 mandate period to meet the EU's requirements. Now it is the EU that governs the entire process. Then one must either be for or against the EU's requirements for evaluation. I think that the EU goes far too far and governs too much. There, one can talk about governance and no freedom.

But that was not the matter I intended to ask Anders Ådahl about. I intended to keep it brief so that we might perhaps make it to the Nationalmuseum later this evening.

(ANDERS ÅDAHL (C): Absolutely!)

Anders Ådahl and Niels Paarup-Petersen have been to the USA and run a campaign to attract top researchers from American universities. It is probably out of the question to speak of a decaying academy, but it is therefore about attracting researchers here. We are happy to be part of that. It is good. You have used a lot of energy for this. Niels Paarup-Petersen has been around putting up posters at American universities, I saw in some article. It is admirable energy.

How does it work when American researchers are allowed to take part in what is happening at Uppsala University? Here, persecution, threats, and outright attacks against researchers occur. It is evident here that it is pure antisemitism – poorly disguised – and pure glorification of Hamas. How do the top researchers react to that, Anders Ådahl?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Robert Stenkvist for the questions.

We can start by commenting that a new system for follow-up needs to be introduced. In Sweden, it is somewhat unfortunate that it is the Swedish Research Council that both grants the grants and then has responsibility for the follow-up. We think that is problematic because there is then an obvious risk that one protects their own decisions. Therefore, we believe that it needs to be reviewed and a new order established. Perhaps some other agency should take that responsibility. We simply think that it should be investigated.

It is true that we have conducted a campaign during the spring which we have called Come to Sweden. For the observant, it is perhaps a response to the Sweden Democrats' campaign in – I believe – Turkey: Do not come to Sweden. We think instead that Sweden should be an attractive country to come to. We have so much to offer in our country. If the American system falls apart – or whatever word we want to use – there is every reason to stretch out the hand and seize the opportunity.

The whole EU and other countries in the world have noted that there is an opportunity here to attract the best researchers from the USA. Robert Stenkvist wonders how they are to be attracted here when irregularities occur at Uppsala University.

We actually had four points, and the fourth point was to strengthen academic freedom. We do not want irregularities to occur at the universities. We want the university managements to have greater freedom, greater powers, and greater responsibility to keep their environments completely scientific. We in politics should stay away from deciding one thing or the other.

The answer is that it must be about skilled researchers who want to work in a free environment with good research conditions, and they must have access to a research infrastructure without politicians running around and saying what is right and wrong.

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

Robert Stenkvist (SD)

Mr. Speaker! I can agree with a lot of what Anders Ådahl says. But there is one thing I do not agree with. I consider that the problems at Uppsala University and also other universities for once are not the politicians' fault. On the contrary. Here it appears that the university management is giving in. The university management has changed the name of a building that happened to have a Jewish name – for a reason.

This problem could not have been resolved by Uppsala University being a foundation – but perhaps other problems could. There are both advantages and disadvantages. But this problem would have been worse. Now we have at least a chance to have a sensible discussion. This is serious, and actually, one should investigate the issue more.

I have been sitting and reflecting on my chamber. I have perceived that many of the top American researchers are of Jewish descent. I do not know why that is, but it seems that they are somewhat overrepresented when it comes to intellectual activities. They have an overrepresentation as researchers. How should they react? Uppsala University would become one of the elite universities that attract foreign researchers. They might not go to Luleå University of Technology. Yes, they can do that too. There is good activity in certain areas there.

I had envisioned Lund and Uppsala as our flagship research universities. Then the researchers will hear this. It is stated here that the information has spread out into the world. It is only in this chamber that it has not spread.

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! When the Office of the Chancellor of the University was given a mandate by the government to investigate what the greatest threats to academic freedom are, that which Robert Stenkvist is on about – woke – ended up far down on the lists. If I remember correctly, it was 3 percent who raised it as a problem.

Yes, there is a problem with woke, but there is a significantly larger problem with politicians' direct management and the lack of freedom that researchers feel. If we are to attract American researchers here, we should rather look at the top universities in the USA. What is it that makes them have wanted to be there from the beginning? Harvard, which Stenkvist is not entirely fond of, has a significant freedom. They have stood up to Trump's whims, and they have their own large endowment. There is a lot of money endowed that they can live on, and they are therefore not directly dependent on political funding.

If we are to attract American researchers here, we need to consider which salary levels might be relevant and how we can meet them, other circumstances regarding family and so on.

I do not see the problem with woke that Stenkvist highlights as the first problem to address. I am not familiar with the example in Uppsala, so I cannot comment on it specifically. I will have to pass on that.

Overall, it is the conditions for conducting top-level research that attract top researchers. It is largely about the environment in which one operates. If we manage to increase the freedom at our universities, I assume that the university managements will be extremely interested in creating the environments that attract the best – even in Luleå.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I thank Member Anders Ådahl for his speech.

It is very good things that Member Ådahl brings up. We Christian Democrats and the government stand behind many of them. This includes, for example, that more money does not increase the academy's freedom, but also that the state has a responsibility to direct research funds to where Sweden is best, including within the industry.

We need to review the organization because political micro-management does not liberate the profession. Then there is Come to Sweden, which the Centerpartiet has launched. The government really wants to attract researchers, especially if there are some from the USA who want to come here. Time has been short, so we have to take one thing at a time and ensure that there is a long-term perspective.

Mr. Speaker! That was not what I was going to ask Anders Ådahl specifically about, but I want to highlight the teacher exemption.

We face great opportunities to strengthen Sweden's innovative power. In order for us to succeed with that, good conditions for cooperation between academia and the business sector are needed. It is also about the commercialization of research and the development of new solutions.

Part of this ecosystem is the so-called teacher exception, which means that researchers at universities and colleges own the rights to their research results. It is a model that has benefited research freedom, entrepreneurship, and academia but has also raised questions from the business sector.

Companies that collaborate with the educational institutions raise this. I would therefore like to direct the question to the Center Party. I have, in fact, heard that the Center Party and Ådahl, just like the Christian Democrats and several other parties, speak warmly about the importance of innovation and cooperation between academia and the business sector.

How do Ådahl and the Center Party view the teacher exemption?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I must first say a few words about the campaign Come to Sweden. I received a question from Stenkvist about whether my colleague Paarup-Petersen has been in the USA and put up posters. No, he actually hasn't. The Center Party is part of an international conglomerate with branches all over the world and has stooges who put up posters wherever we wish. So that is how it went.

The teacher exemption, which Lili André highlights, is a Swedish opportunity. That is how the Center Party views it. We spoke earlier about being able to attract international and perhaps American researchers to Sweden. The Center Party believes that is a unique selling point for Sweden. It creates an attractiveness that other countries in Europe cannot match.

It is, just as the member pointed out, about the possibility that if one has an idea that can be patented, the ownership of the idea remains with the researcher, not with the educational institution. The Centre Party is unequivocally for retaining the teacher exemption. Not least in light of the concern prevailing in the academic world, Sweden's attractiveness could actually increase for international researchers.

It also creates opportunities for our researchers to not stay in the lab but also go out and become entrepreneurs and commercialize their ideas. It is actually a unique situation.

My former employer Chalmers works intensively on matching researchers with those who have better knowledge of starting and leading companies. For our part, it is a success factor.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you for the answer, Member Ådahl!

I want to continue talking a bit about the teacher exemption. At most international educational institutions, for example in the United Kingdom, the institution owns the research results, which Ådahl also pointed out. A portion of the proceeds goes to the researcher.

But there are researchers who still need to be out in the business sector even more. There are some challenges regarding that in Sweden. It is about increasing the cooperation with the business sector. Not all researchers want to become entrepreneurs, but the responsibility for how their ideas can be transformed lies with them. The researcher themselves must drive that process and may turn to innovation offices to get support and help.

What incentives do you see for us to be able to increase this among the researchers, Anders Ådahl? Could they be out in the business sector even more, so that the business sector can truly take advantage of their innovations and their research?

The Chairman highlighted Chalmers, which is a foundation and perhaps has slightly increased freedoms, regarding the will that both the Center Party and the Christian Democrats have when it comes to reviewing the form of association. That is good.

The teacher exemption, as said, promotes freedom and control for the researcher but at the same time hinders collaboration and utilization. Is there any incentive or anything else we can do to increase this?

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

Anders Ådahl (C)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to thank Member Lili André for highlighting an issue we rarely talk about but which is very important for Swedish competitiveness.

Many of us members have spoken about how research is actually the foundation for Swedish competitiveness. Then we absolutely must talk about how we get the research ideas out into the business sector in different ways. For some ideas, this can happen through collaboration. As the member is pointing out, researchers can perhaps collaborate with the large multinational companies, of which Sweden has very many. This is being done very intensively at the universities today. The teacher exemption does not put any spokes in the wheels for that.

The second part is to go from an own idea to perhaps starting a company or selling your idea to someone who starts that company. I would like to say that that opportunity is enormous for Sweden.

Before I became a politician and a member of the Riksdag, I actually worked with these issues at the university of applied sciences Chalmers. They are now structured so that they have the university as an organizational form, which is a limited company under the foundation. They have also started an innovation and development company that they call Next Labs. After that, it goes out to a commercial enterprise.

The idea is that the researcher should be able to be a researcher at the university and be able to take their idea to Next Labs to then perhaps join a venture for a few percent. It also turns out among entrepreneurs that it is not a relay baton. It does not work that a researcher can come up with an idea and then hand over the idea to an entrepreneur. The important thing is that the researcher is involved all the way, but it is enough that the researcher is involved for a few percent to be able to follow the process.

The teacher exemption is therefore excellent for Sweden, and the universities have good opportunities. The foundation form provides extra good opportunities.

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! I would like to begin by moving for approval of reservation 92 on the form of organization.

Sweden has long been a leading research nation and shall continue to be so. In a world where knowledge is our primary competitive advantage and where technological leaps and scientific breakthroughs shape our societies, research and innovation policy is not just important, it is crucial.

Research is not abstract. It is vital, literally. It is research that saves lives in healthcare, that enables new energy solutions, and that strengthens our industry and our climate responsibility. It is research that secures future jobs, and it is research that allows small companies in my home region of Gävleborg, but also from Norrbotten County to Skåne, to grow into world-leading actors.

For me, research policy is not just a political area. It is also something I carry with me through my own experiences. I have worked closely with researchers and seen their everyday lives up close. I have seen their curiosity and perseverance and the power it means to be driven by the will to understand and improve the world. But I have also seen their frustration over complicated systems, heavy administrative burdens, short-term conditions, and unclear career paths.

The research and innovation bill that the government has now presented for the period 2025–2028 contains several important announcements and a historic investment of 6.5 billion kronor. It is a powerful announcement, Mr. Speaker.

But it is not only the size that counts, but also the direction. And the direction is clear. Sweden shall be a country that dares to lead, not just follow.

Mr. Speaker! The Government's bill puts excellence and quality at the center. It is crucial. For Sweden to be able to be a world-class research nation, we must dare to invest in the best ideas and increase the proportion of research funds distributed through competition. Quality must weigh more than quantity. We know that it is not enough to distribute the money evenly – we must also create conditions for excellence.

Excellence requires long-term and sustainable career paths. This applies particularly to researchers who work interdisciplinary or in collaboration with other sectors of society. Today's merit system is not always adapted for that. Therefore, it is good that the government is now reviewing how we can improve merit, career support, and evaluation to encourage creativity, mobility, and renewal. We are also now enabling more joint appointments, so that researchers can more easily move between academia, healthcare, institutes, and the business sector. This strengthens both research and the supply of competence.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden needs to become stronger at taking advantage of research. It is about innovation – about ideas being able to become reality. The Government is now strengthening the support for testbeds, demonstration environments, and incubators. The research institutes, which often are the bridge between academia and the business sector, are given a clearer role.

A particularly important part of the bill is the initiative on intellectual property rights and innovation support. If ideas are to be able to be scaled up and protected, researchers and students must receive support in how to handle patents, copyright, and other intellectual property. Therefore, the innovation centers at universities and colleges will now receive a clearer mandate to assist with precisely these issues.

The Government also emphasizes the importance of safeguarding the teacher exemption, a unique Swedish model that gives researchers the right to their own inventions. At the same time, it is required that researchers receive the right support and knowledge regarding intellectual property rights. It is an important balance.

Mr. Speaker! A world-class research nation cannot isolate itself. Internationalization is crucial. Swedish research becomes better when we collaborate across borders and when we participate in programs such as Horizon Europe and can attract top researchers from all over the world. It strengthens the quality, increases the attractiveness, and makes us better equipped to meet the global challenges, from antibiotic resistance to climate transition.

But if we want to be leading, we must also have educational institutions with the right conditions to conduct research and education of the highest quality. That is why the Christian Democrats, together with the government, want to see a review of the educational institutions' organizational form. Today, the universities are authorities directly subordinate to the government like any other authority. But research is not administration. Academic freedom requires independence.

We mean that it is high time to investigate another form of association that can provide more autonomy. It could strengthen the quality, increase the flexibility, and reduce the political micro-management. The state shall set goals but not steer the content. It is the researchers' judgment, not politics', that should govern free research. That the Social Democrats and the Sweden Democrats oppose this is regrettable and short-sighted. If we are to be globally competitive, we must dare to review the governance and ensure that it holds even in the future.

Mr. Speaker! Research and education are interconnected. All students, regardless of subject, shall encounter current research and be trained in critical thinking and problem-solving. This strengthens not only the academy but the entire society's resilience and capacity for renewal. And we must not forget the value of the breadth in research. Humanities, social sciences, and artistic research are crucial for understanding the human being, culture, and our values. It is an important part of the whole.

Mr. Speaker! This is about more than money. It is about faith in the future, about trust, and about which direction we want Sweden to take. We Christian Democrats believe in a Sweden where knowledge, responsibility, and innovation lead the way, and where researchers are given the freedom and trust to contribute to a better society in their profession.

I move again for the approval of reservation 92.

(Applause)

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

Camilla Hansén (MP)

Mr. Speaker! This is one of the heaviest debates during the entire mandate period when it comes to research. I will speak a little about the Green Party's research policy priorities and about economy, academic freedom, and equality.

Our contemporary era is characterized by a number of major global megatrends that affect how our system for education and research needs to be organized to strengthen our society. Sometimes it is referred to as global megatrends. Climate change, loss of biodiversity, globalization, digitalization, technological development, urbanization, and demographic changes are mentioned. Several areas are described in the government's research bill. Research and higher education face an intensive period of change and development to meet the needs that the global megatrends create in all societies across the entire planet now and in the future.

The societal transformation required to slow down and manage the consequences of climate change constitutes a partially overwhelming challenge. Higher education and research have a key role to play in enabling the transition to a sustainable society. In both the constitution and the Higher Education Act, there is a mandate to actively work to promote sustainable development, and through multidisciplinary approaches, society gains a broad picture of the causes, development, and consequences of climate change.

In addition to research that gives us insights into climate change, research is also needed to understand and find solutions to both reduce emissions and prevent the negative effects of climate change. Here, a breadth of research on both scientific and artistic grounds within many different areas such as natural science, philosophy, economics, technology, and social science is needed, which in cooperation can help society in this fateful issue. That knowledge is the basis for how we reduce emissions and adapt society. Here, the higher education institutions have an enormous potential to clarify what needs to be done through education, research, and cooperation. The collective verdict of science is that what is required now is a rapid and profound transition.

For Miljöpartiet, science and research is a foundation. We take the role of politics very seriously in providing the conditions for the free academy to provide us with the knowledge we need to carry out the transition while maintaining respect for the academy's freedom and independence.

Independent research is important for the development of Sweden and the entire world. It is therefore why we make certain prioritizations when it comes to research policy investments and strategic initiatives. We also do this by allocating more money to research than the government does. There must be sufficient funds for researchers and institutions' entirely own free prioritizations.

Mr. Speaker! The protection of academic freedom needs to be strengthened in the constitution. In our motion to the research proposal, our first motion intended this, and the reason was that this is a fundamental issue for the freedom of research. That motion has unfortunately already been rejected here in the chamber of the Riksdag after deliberation in the Committee on the Constitution. I only see it as that it will take a little longer to get started with the extensive work that a parliamentary constitutional investigation entails.

The Government has in the research proposal announced two inquiries concerning academic freedom, one regarding the organization of higher education institutions and one regarding academic freedom. This is not nearly sufficient; what is required now is a comprehensive constitutional inquiry with a mandate to strengthen the protection of academic freedom in its entirety.

The University Chancellery's report on academic freedom in Sweden has been mentioned previously. What has not been highlighted as much is that the most common reason by far for academic freedom being considered challenged is political influence, including when it comes to how research funding and governance are structured and function. This also occurs in combination through, for example, targeted calls and strategic investments. Miljöpartiet notes that the government, in its account of UKÄ's report in the research proposition, refrains from mentioning precisely the threat from political influence.

In light of this, it is important to have an inquiry that takes a broad approach to academic freedom in the constitution but also in laws, ordinances, and other regulations. Is the government now taking action in this important area? No, it is not. The inquiry on academic freedom has already been commissioned. It does not focus on the academy's freedom and protection from a meddlesome government, regardless of what color it may be, but on the academy's own responsibility. Of course, the academy has its own responsibility for academic freedom. But the inquiry also ignores the students' right to academic freedom and explicitly forbids the investigator from investigating the need for constitutional amendments.

When it comes to the investigation into the associations of educational institutions, which has been mentioned during the debate, there is actually not much to say based on the research proposal.

The government is really not sparing words when describing the investigation. It is described as follows: "The government therefore intends to appoint an investigation to analyze the expediency of the current agency form for state universities and colleges." That is what we know about this investigation.

Mr. Speaker! I must admit that as a member of the Green Party, I have unfortunately been somewhat unclear in the preparation of the decision point. I want to inform that the Green Party intends to join reservation 92 at tomorrow's vote.

Despite the deficient information regarding what the government actually wants with this investigation, I want to give the government the opportunity to produce a basis for how different forms of association, including the state-owned one, can strengthen academic freedom for students, teachers, and researchers regarding organizational form, strengthened protection for funding, a more independent appointment of various individuals, and a stronger protection from the influence of a government. I would like it to be clear in the directives that it is permitted for the investigator to reason about the conditions for strengthened protection in the constitution, so that a parliamentary constitutional investigation can then take that work further.

Mr. Speaker! An important part of a strong and free academy is simply having enough money. The one who finances what you do, you have a dependency on. We need to ensure that free research is protected from dependencies and influence from those who manage the funding.

One way to ensure that the academy has more money is to abolish the productivity deduction. It is something that has been discussed for a very long time. There is a party that actually already has it in its budget.

An entirely unreasonable erosion of the funding of higher education institutions is taking place. It leads to less teaching time and fewer meetings between researchers and students. One is thus expected to learn more and run faster. The Nobel Prize is apparently to be awarded at an ever higher rate with ever fewer conditions for the research.

The overall goal of Swedish research policy can well be considered well-established: ”Sweden shall be one of the world's leading 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.”

In the research policy bill from 2016, the Green Party and the Social Democrats announced the research policy goal. The Government maintains the goal, and that is good.

However, the government is striking out the goal that equality within higher education shall increase. We are critical of this, and we are to some extent surprised that the government is removing it. The equality goal needs to remain to emphasize the value of equality within research and to monitor over time what the recruitment of, for example, professors and senior lecturers looks like.

The Gender Equality Authority's views regarding the government's research and innovation policy were clear. The Authority believes that the government should gender-integrate the design and governance of research and innovation policy so that Sweden can be a leading research nation, which we all want.

Mr. Speaker! I move for approval of reservation 23, which concerns increased base amounts, reservation 27 on the abolition of the productivity deduction, and reservation 87 on the freedom of academia and research, in this mandate period's most important matter regarding Swedish research.

In this speech, Jan Riise (MP) agreed

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! It is not common to see me in the Education Committee's debates. I am a member of the Business Committee. I suppose I shall be the one to speak about the business sector's competitiveness in today's debate.

Mr. Speaker! Very little has been said about the business sector's competitiveness in the debate. It is somewhat regrettable given that there are members present in the chamber right now who also sit on the Committee on Industry.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden has a strong competitiveness in many respects. It has been driven forward by a welfare state that is world-class. We have good conditions with strong industries that have had and still have a high capacity for innovation.

Not long ago, we were the world's leading innovation nation. We were the best in the world at innovation. But we are no longer, even though we remain strong on the world market.

Mr. Speaker! At the beginning of this parliamentary term, the Tidö government chose to significantly reduce the funding for innovation. Vinnova estimated that it was a cut that de facto had entailed reductions of 1 billion kronor.

This led to Vinnova having to significantly reprioritize its programs. It affected the small and medium-sized enterprises. It is they who account for most of the groundbreaking innovation. This was done by a government that claims to prioritize small and medium-sized enterprises, Mr. Speaker.

Now we are in a different situation. The government has chosen to restore the money that was removed after loud criticism from us in the opposition but also from the collective business community in Sweden, the academy, research, and so on.

What is happening with such drastic shifts in the government's innovation policy is that it creates a jerkiness in our innovation systems. The trust in the policy's ability to, together with the business sector, invest in our collective innovation strength has deteriorated significantly. I can only regret that.

This inconsistency has continued during the mandate period when the national incubator program risked having its funds significantly reduced. The government woke up at the last moment and chose not to carry out the cuts. But it again created trust problems for the government from the business community as a whole regarding whether one wants to invest in Swedish innovations in the business sector.

Mr. Speaker! That is why we Social Democrats have submitted a motion for a series of measures to strengthen our innovative power. This shall, among other things, be achieved by developing an innovation strategy in close cooperation with the labor market partners, the business community, academia, and civil society. It is about identifying strategic technology areas together that Sweden should invest in. We also see that we need to become better at how we manage our intangible assets in the best way and include that in the innovation strategy.

We have proposed an investment in the country's scaleup companies, which are in need of the right measures at the stage where they need to intensify the work of commercializing research results. It needs to happen at a much faster pace, Mr. Speaker.

We also see the need for more cooperation programs. That was something that was removed by the Tidö Government. I do not quite understand why it removed them. They were successful. It was among other things there that very many investments were made in the green industries, which many Sweden Democrats like to mock but which the government says it stands behind. They came through the cooperation programs. They are completely gone now in the government's budget, and we regret that.

We want to see more of these in areas of technology that are strategically important for Sweden. It is about creating spaces for collaboration between academia, the business sector, civil society, and the parties in the labor market.

Mr. Speaker! We are a small country, if that has escaped anyone, with ten million inhabitants. This means that if we do not have spaces for cooperation, we are completely finished. We must cooperate to strengthen our competitiveness. It is regrettable that there are no such spaces at the Government Offices today.

Mr. Speaker! This is also not found in the research and innovation bill that we are discussing here today.

We naturally welcome the investments being made in Vinnova. This also applies to the support given to technical infrastructure, not least through increased appropriations to Rise and the investments being made for advanced research infrastructure.

But that is not sufficient, Mr. Speaker. We see how other countries take a much more unified grip on innovation policy precisely to ensure that more research results are commercialized.

In the Draghir Report, which I assume the members in the chamber and the Speaker have heard some about, the challenges that the EU faces linked to our competitiveness are highlighted. According to it, precisely long-term perspective and robustness in our support programs for innovation are crucial.

When the EU and Sweden are challenged by China and the USA, both through tariff chaos created by right-wing populists on the other side of the Atlantic and through improper state aid, a predictable innovation policy is important. But it is something that this government has failed to achieve.

We find ourselves in a situation where investments in innovation are decreasing and our growth is falling. In that case, we must work our way out of the challenges we face. But, Mr. Speaker, that leadership has unfortunately been lacking.

Mr. Speaker! That is exactly why we Social Democrats want to see investments in research that exceed the government's and that once again place Sweden in first place within research and innovation. We want a particular focus on how we can get more research results commercialized, for that is what we have been best at in Sweden. Innovation and quality – that is how we compete with large economies. We do it by being the best. And Sweden is no longer the best. We must get back there.

We Social Democrats propose, as mentioned, a national innovation strategy. We want to see that the support for national incubator programs becomes more long-term and that the commercialization of research results increases.

In addition to this, it can be clearly seen that we Social Democrats have spent and have consistently spent more money on innovation during this mandate period, because we know that the state and private capital need to join forces to manage to invest in the industries of the future.

When the state is involved as an active actor, it attracts private capital which later creates viable companies. One such example, Mr. Speaker, is the life science industry, which according to the government itself is a basic industry in Sweden. But the government usually states that everything is a basic industry, and then they do not put money into it. If it is a basic industry, it must be resourced, but in the latest life science strategy, no sub-goals or additional resource investments were presented to strengthen Sweden's position within the industry.

We therefore want to see a goal for the export of the life science industry and take a collective grip to invest in a decisive branch and industry for Swedish competitiveness and also enable more clinical trials in Sweden.

Mr. Speaker! Sweden faces great challenges, and the Social Democrats' research and innovation policy are central parts for strengthening our competitiveness and creating more jobs in Sweden.

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

Now we shall cheer on Bajen's ladies to a final victory!

(Applause)

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Member Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro called me to the rostrum. There was much that I could comment on here, but I will keep it brief. The debate has been long, but it is good to have long debates as well.

The members of the board are raising the collaboration programs. Collaboration between the business sector and academia is very important. But I would like to speak about why the collaboration programs were removed by the government. We seek quality. We seek programs that provide real benefit and effect from the state funds that are invested.

The Swedish National Audit Office's report from 2020 identified several deficiencies in the cooperation programs. It concerned unclear mandates to agencies, a lack of systematic follow-up and evaluation, and unclear distribution of responsibility between the involved actors. It is symptomatic of many different programs that this government took over when the Social Democrats left the government position.

The opposition points out, for example, that the funds for Vinnova were reduced. That was during a time when this government took over Sweden, with an inflation of 10 percent. We needed to allocate resources to the right things so that Sweden would become strong again and manage what this government also managed to do, namely to lower inflation to 2 percent. It is a powerful effort, and one reason we succeeded with this is that we reduced the funds to Vinnova.

But it is also about Vinnova needing to look at what is the most effective thing one can do, so that one avoids having cooperation programs that turn out to have led to nothing when they are evaluated. There we have a couple of answers.

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lili André, for inviting me to dance in this debate!

First and foremost: Lili André is completely right regarding the fact that the Swedish National Audit Office directed criticism towards the collaboration programs. But the Swedish National Audit Office did not say that the collaboration programs were not productive. The Swedish National Audit Office did not say either that the collaboration programs were unnecessary in any way. It is truly a matter of reading the Swedish National Audit Office's report selectively.

On the contrary, it is the case that the business community, especially small and medium-sized enterprises, time and again have said that it was through cooperation programs that they had the opportunity to collaborate and to get into the Government Offices. Now they are knocking on the door of the Government Offices, but no one is opening.

A perfect example of this is the cuts the government made to Vinnova. Lili André says that they came to the Government Offices, sat down there and said: Oh, oh, inflation is very high! Growth is falling! What shall we do? The Draghi report, all of the EU and the whole world says: We invest in innovation! Then Sweden says: No, no, we are lowering our appropriations to the innovation system!

Was it so wise? It was not. For now, Sweden is no longer the world's leading innovation nation, but far from it. We are falling behind.

I have a follow-up question for Lili André. We have debated these issues a few times. We Social Democrats have, as I clearly pointed out in my speech, proposed a strategic innovation strategy that identifies important technology areas for Sweden to focus on. The Government has still not responded to this, even though the opposition tabled a motion on exactly this. But today, in the intellectual property rights debate, the Moderates gave an announcement: They are working on developing a national innovation strategy.

I would like to get an answer from Lili André: When will a strategic innovation strategy from the Ministry of Climate and Enterprise arrive?

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

Lili André (KD)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Member Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro, for your question!

But now it is I who stand here and demand a reply from you, and I would very much like to ask a few more questions regarding the academy and the conditions for higher education institutions to come closer to the business sector.

Instead of the government producing cooperation programs and other programs and allocating state funds, these actors can find each other in other ways. There is a large gap between the business community and academia today. What are the conditions that academia needs?

You say that the business community is knocking on the door of the Government Offices. I do not want to see the business community knocking there; instead, it is the academy and the business community that should find the conditions. How can the member create those conditions? What does the academy need in order to be able to approach the business community?

The world's leading research nation – that is what Sweden has been and continues to be. But it was not two years ago, when we took over government power, that Sweden lost ground, which I perceive the member is saying. This happened earlier, through all the cooperation programs that have been presented and all the state initiatives that have been taken without engaging the real actors. That is where the Social Democrats and the member have invested both their resources and their efforts.

I am once again posing my question to Member Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro: What does academia need for the gap between academia and the business sector to be narrowed?

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

Daniel Vencu Velasquez Castro (S)

Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Lili André, for the questions!

I can state that I did not receive an answer to my question regarding an innovation strategy, even though the entire business sector is requesting one. IVA has released a preliminary study on exactly this and how important it is to achieve strengthened competitiveness in Sweden. We will simply have to leave that question, Mr. Speaker, as Lili André will not have the opportunity to answer my follow-up question. I will not ask any more questions.

But I think it is strange. We propose cooperation programs, that is, a space where academia and the business sector can meet. Lili André says: What other proposals do you have? We have a concrete proposal that has worked.

I do not like when people spread falsehoods regarding the cooperation programs. I have had debates with Minister Ebba Busch about this. She has never stated that they were bad. You have other priorities, and I have full respect for that. But to say that they were bad and not effective, I think is remarkable, Mr. Speaker, because it is not true.

We saw how the life science industry invested and accelerated, especially here in Stockholm. Even though projects like Hybrit are said by Sverigedemokraterna to be dream and fluff projects, our parties believe in the green transition. It came from the collaboration programs. Is this not important? I think it is important, Mr. Speaker. It is, however, very clear that this area for collaboration is not important for Kristdemokraterna.

The Christian Democrats do not seem to have any answer on how we should invest in our innovative startup and scaleup companies. We want to make a long-term start in the national incubator program. We want an offensive innovation strategy that focuses on strategically important technology areas. We want Sweden to once again be the leading innovation country in the world. Our business sector needs it, Swedish workers need it, and Swedish growth needs it. What we do not need is the Christian Democrats' innovation policy.

Research and innovation for the future, curiosity and utility

(Applause)

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

Kajsa Fredholm (V)

Mr. Speaker! While waiting for the next debate I will be participating in, I have had the honor of moving for the approval of two reservations from Vänsterpartiet.

I move for the approval of reservation 99, which concerns employment conditions. I also move for the approval of reservation 108, which concerns international exchanges and cooperation.

The deliberation was hereby concluded.

(A decision was to be taken on 22 May.)

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