Response to interpellation 2023/24:794 on influence campaigns against research and higher education
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L believes that the universities' independent pursuit of knowledge must be protected and that the government is working to shield research from disinformation and hate 1. L argues that researchers are exposed to threats and that the government is strengthening the criminal protection for teachers and professors 2. L emphasizes that it is a leadership issue at the educational institutions to protect academic freedom 3. L argues that it is the Social Democrats' responsibility that the protection is not in place earlier 4. L believes that it is important to stand up for the researcher's right to research freely and collaborate with whomever they wish 4. L believes that requirements not to collaborate with colleagues in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem involve far-reaching restrictions on academic freedom 4. L believes it is unfortunate that researchers are forced to cancel ongoing projects 4 and that it is alarming when forces want to control the free academy 4. S believes that social media facilitates the spread of propaganda and that more concrete action is required against systematic influence campaigns 5 6 7.
Written by AI in advance and may contain errors. The numbers lead to the speech a statement builds on; check against the text below.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Sofia Amloh has asked me how I work to protect free research from misleading information as well as hate and threats.
I would like to thank the Member of Parliament, who raises a very important issue. Universities and colleges have a special role in our society. Their independent pursuit of new knowledge is a principle that must be protected and promoted. Free and open access to research and fact-based information is important for a democratic and strong society.
Unfortunately, we see an increase in disinformation and influence campaigns. The tendencies towards knowledge resistance and science denial are increasing. Certain parts of society do not accept fact-based knowledge and scientific results. This applies even when there is broad consensus among researchers. This risks affecting the public's trust in the scientific process and, in the long run, the impact and usefulness of research in society.
During the Swedish presidency of the EU in 2023, the undersigned therefore invited my European ministerial colleagues to a discussion on how we can manage knowledge resistance and science denial. Among other things, the importance of continuing to work on increasing knowledge and awareness of the risks of science denial was discussed, and on providing citizens with support to be able to distinguish between disinformation and evidence-based knowledge.
One of the tasks of Swedish universities and colleges is to cooperate with the surrounding society and work to ensure that their research benefits society. This is achieved, among other things, by researchers participating in the public debate. But the public debate climate has become harsher and more polarized. People who participate in the public conversation and who engage in social issues are particularly vulnerable to hate, threats, and harassment. This applies in particular to researchers. This is not acceptable. Researchers and teachers must have the opportunity to perform their work without having to worry about, for example, receiving hate messages or having their office vandalized. This includes being able to ask questions that may be perceived as controversial and presenting results that may be unexpected or unwanted. A society where researchers do not dare to research important areas or avoid communicating their research is a society that does not develop.
The protection of national interests, knowledge, and technology is a priority for the government. The government has, among other things, initiated work to develop a new national information and cybersecurity strategy to raise the level of information and cybersecurity at the national level. Educational institutions also have an important responsibility for information security within their operations. The state educational institutions have therefore been tasked to report back on their work with information security, including in matters regarding the protection of research data and what is being done to increase awareness and competence within the field of information security.
Security issues have been raised with all educational institutions during the annual dialogues that have taken place this spring. The Ministry of Education has recently had a meeting with all principals to, among other things, discuss current security issues that the institutions need to handle. The protection for, among others, teachers at universities and colleges has also been strengthened through legislative changes which entail an expanded criminal liability for violence or threats against certain professional groups.
The independent pursuit of knowledge and truths, even uncomfortable ones, is a principle that we all have a responsibility to safeguard and promote. The work of countering influence campaigns, disinformation, as well as hate and threats against researchers is a very important issue that the government is following closely.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank the Minister for the interpellation answer and the opportunity for debate. There are several things in the answer that I appreciate. It is emphasized how important this is. Independent seeking is important for research to be able to be open and fact-based. This is the entire foundation for a democratic and strong society.
Unreliable information and political propaganda have increased in recent years. It has contributed to a weakening of democratic institutions in many countries. The development has, for example, become very clear on the other side of the Atlantic and has already had consequences even on our continent.
Social media plays a major role, as posts spread quickly there, faster than in traditional media. The information does not adhere to any kind of journalistic system, and the possibility for dissemination is largely unlimited. The algorithms reward a high tone and confrontation. This is, of course, exploited by populist and extreme movements that use just anonymous accounts to spread their agenda and undermine democratic processes.
Mr. Speaker! In May, Kalla fakta on TV4 revealed that the Sweden Democrats use secret accounts on social media for the purpose of specifically discredit those they dislike and influence public opinion in Sweden. The methods used are disinformation, increasing mistrust, and targeted propaganda. Everything happens with the aim of influencing trust in society's institutions. These are methods we recognize from other powers, such as Russia or China.
TV4 shows that the Sweden Democrats' secret accounts on various social media had 260,000 followers, and during the first three months of the year, around 1,000 posts were published. This generated more than 27 million views.
I think it is obvious, despite the Minister's answer, that many questions and doubts remain regarding the government's ability to effectively protect free research from misleading information and hate. I want to ask my question to the Minister again: What does the work look like going forward to protect free research from misleading information, hate, and threats?
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for your interpellation! I believe we share the commitment to free research and the opportunity to research what one wants and, as an academic, to disseminate knowledge about what one knows.
We see a number of different areas - I will take a few examples - where it is very difficult to be an academic and a free researcher. It was people within academia who were affected during covid-19 when they researched vaccines. Individuals who did not want to listen to what the experts said became aggressive and attacked and threatened researchers. In some cases, it had very far-reaching consequences where people chose to change their research.
It can also be about the climate area, where experts and academics are affected by people becoming threatening or acting against them in different ways. And in the recent past, we have seen how researchers who research the Israel-Palestine conflict have had their office destroyed by what we must assume are Palestine activists. They had entered an educational institution and graffitied and destroyed a workspace.
In area after area, we see how people from different ideological starting points come together to threaten and harass academics and researchers. All of these are equally serious, but my point is that it comes from very different sides.
From the government's side, we think this is very important, and we are now moving forward with new legislation which means that the criminal protection for lecturers and professors who are subjected to threats is strengthened. It will therefore carry much greater weight in the legislation, which means that the penalties will be higher for those who issue threats.
It is also important that we stand up for the free academy. That is the signal the government sends. By taking these types of issues seriously, we send a signal to the academy that it shall be free and be able to manage its free dissemination of knowledge as it wishes. In these situations, we stand on the side of the individual researcher and not on the side of the activist or the science denier.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! This is something I am truly committed to, because it concerns what the democratic conversation rests upon. As the Minister also points out, we all have a great responsibility in that conversation, not least we in this chamber.
We see that more and more hate and threats are being spread in order to silence conversations, to silence opinions, or to stop research that one does not like. We see how self-censorship can creep in. I think we should all think about that. I reflect on it quite a bit myself: Do I self-censor when there is something I choose not to say?
From the Minister, we heard about increased penalties regarding this type of crime. That is very good. But I would like to hear more about what is being done for preventive purposes, that is, so that the crimes are not actually committed in the first place?
It is positive that researchers are encouraged to participate in the public debate, but I still think there is a deficiency and that the support is not sufficient given that researchers are exposed to threats and hate, which deters many from participating in the important debate. It becomes easier to abstain. What more concrete support mechanisms or resources for the researchers on the ground does the Minister believe are needed given that this situation is still ongoing? I am talking about support for them to engage in the debate and be involved, which is what is being encouraged here. I build on that question.
We believe that more needs to be done when it comes to specific measures to reduce the influence of actors who affect the public discourse and the research climate. With a revelation like the one that came from Kalla fakta, I believe that the measures should be in proportion to what has come to light there.
I wonder: What does the Minister think about the revelation? It is still something that we have not seen before. We have not seen anything similar being scrutinized in that way before. We see how organized, systematic and strategic this has been from Sweden's second largest party. Then measures that are in proportion to that are required to counteract it. I have not heard anything about this in the response from the Minister. The Minister is welcome to come back on this.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Mr. Speaker! Regarding the final question, how anonymous accounts should be handled, the government has no official position. But I can still say here in the speaker's chair that my own party, Liberalerna, is of the opinion that we should work for legislation that prohibits anonymous accounts, and we have also submitted such proposals to an ongoing investigation. I hope that as many parties as possible want to support this, including the Socialdemokraterna. But I am saying this, therefore, based on what different parties think.
Here in the speaker's chair I stand as Minister, and in that role I shall answer the other questions.
The question of what to do to counter threats against individual academics is ultimately a question of leadership at the universities. From the government's side, we are engaged in an ongoing dialogue regarding the importance of standing up for the academic freedom of individual researchers. This applies to both external threats, which are what the member is raising, and also internal threats to academic freedom.
To increase the level of knowledge regarding these types of issues, the government commissioned an inquiry into academic freedom which was presented in the middle of May. It points out that there are problems both with external threats and with internal alignment, i.e., that certain questions are not allowed to be asked in the scientific seminar or that certain perspectives are not accepted because there is a social pressure within the group at the department.
Both the external threats and the internal threats need to be managed and resolved in different ways. But ultimately, this is a question of leadership. From the government's side, we have been clear that it is important for academic leaders to stand up for academic freedom, both when it comes to external threats and when it comes to internal threats.
The government is also looking at the issue of increasing the possibility of expelling students who threaten and harass teachers. Today, it is extremely limited to what extent one can do so. The government has therefore appointed an inquiry to look at that question – whether one could expel pupils or students who threaten on more grounds than one can today. It would also increase academic freedom and increase the safety for individual researchers.
The government is therefore working on several levels to increase safety and stand up for academic freedom.
Sofia Amloh (S)
Mr. Speaker! I thank you for the opportunity for this debate. It is about trying to sort out a part of what is being done and what can be done more. Several answers have nevertheless been given. The conversations are important. It is important to talk about risks and to raise awareness, but more action is required when it comes to actually making the big difference. It is very good that conversations are held, that one demonstrates and highlights this and puts it on the agenda. But it must also generate something, and that is what I lack here.
It is clear that the government absolutely recognizes the problems. But we need to see something more concrete, that there will also be action with clear goals or that there will be measures. It is only then we can ensure that our researchers can work freely and safely without fear of hate or threats or that disinformation occurs.
Madam Speaker! This is clear. I really want to emphasize exactly what we are talking about. It is about action in proportion to what we have received on the table through the review that Kalla fakta and TV4 have conducted. One sees that it is systematic. It is organized and strategic. It is financed with tax money. I hear that the Liberals want to do something about this by submitting proposals to ban anonymous accounts - good. But by continuing to uphold the Tidö Agreement every day, one legitimizes the Sweden Democrats and their methods, and I think that is deeply unfortunate.
Utbildningsministern Mats Persson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Sofia Amloh, for the debate! I welcome a debate on academic freedom. I believe it is important that we stand up for academics' right to act freely, express opinions, and conduct research freely. It is also why the government is now taking a number of different measures which, if we are to be honest, should have been in place earlier. Naturally, a heavy responsibility rests on the Social Democrats for the fact that we do not already have an increased criminal law protection for teachers, principals, and professors, and for the fact that it is difficult to shut down students who act in a threatening manner.
Now the government is taking on those issues, but it is clear that it would have been desirable for the Social Democrats to have taken their responsibility and taken measures and already implemented this during their long eight years in power.
Madam Speaker! I would like to take this opportunity to say that it is very important to stand up for the individual researcher's right to conduct research freely and to collaborate with whomever they wish. Now we have a number of activists and demonstrators all over Sweden who demand that individual researchers should not be allowed to have research collaborations with a colleague in Tel Aviv or a colleague in Jerusalem. I think these are extremely far-reaching demands, which imply far-reaching restrictions on academic freedom.
I have noted that Vänsterpartiet, which the Social Democrats have a cooperation with, also thinks that individual researchers should be forced to terminate their ongoing research projects with colleagues in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. I think that is very unfortunate. It is a very large restriction of academic freedom. On both the left wing and the right wing—but in this case the left wing—there are forces that want to control the free academy and free research. It is very worrying.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.