Response to interpellation 2024/25:673 on the consequences of the USA's research policy
Translated from Swedish by AI; the translation may contain errors. The Swedish text is the original.
Summary AI, written in advance
L argues that the government has acted to secure Swedish research projects through a large research proposition with permanent funds 1. L emphasizes the importance of academic freedom and has appointed an inquiry to strengthen it 1. L wants to investigate the universities' autonomy and welcomes international recruitment of excellence 2. L argues that Sweden should cooperate within the EU and the Nordic region to protect research 3. L argues that Sweden has a high degree of academic freedom and that it is the educational institutions themselves that want more autonomy 3. L emphasizes the importance of openness and international cooperation, but also argues that one must be secure in the work 4. L welcomes S's commitment to be a counterforce to the US administration's policy 4. S proposes that 500 million kronor should be allocated to attract fleeing American researchers to Sweden to strengthen the country's economy 5.
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 Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Linus Sköld has asked me how I intend to act so that we, as a research nation, will emerge unscathed from the current international situation.
The developments in the USA affect research internationally, including in Sweden. I and the government have acted in a number of ways to secure Swedish research projects and reduce uncertainty in the research sector.
The Government has presented a historically large research and innovation bill (2024/25:60). In the bill, long-term and extensive investments of just over 2.2 billion SEK are announced for high-quality free research. These are permanent funds that are calculated, which creates predictability both for the universities and for the researchers who want to come to Sweden.
Consequences of cuts in research funding, self-censorship in research applications, and the decommissioning of important research databases are being discussed both at the Nordic level and within the EU. An acute challenge is the risk that research data becomes inaccessible or manipulated, which directly threatens important research areas such as climate and health but can also have a long-term negative impact on trust in science. In that regard, we are following the developments to obtain a comprehensive picture, which the Swedish Research Council and the National Library of Sweden can contribute to within the framework of their tasks to coordinate and promote the national work on open access to research data and scientific publications respectively.
Sweden must stand up for academic freedom when other countries are dismantling it. In doing so, world-class research and education are created, and an open climate for debate is protected. But the situation for academic freedom is deteriorating around the world, not least in the USA where the situation is alarming. Even in Sweden, the climate for conversation has become harsher and more polarized. It is more important than ever to ensure sufficient protection of the individual academic freedom of researchers and teachers in Sweden. Therefore, the government has appointed an inquiry into strengthened academic freedom.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! Thank you, Johan Pehrson, for the opportunity to debate an important issue here!
The installation of Donald Trump has had major consequences for the entire world order, for European and Swedish security policy, and for our economic conditions. Everyone who has a savings account, an ISK, has noticed.
It has also had major consequences for the academic world. The world's largest research funder is an American research council or research institute called National Institutes of Health. They fear cuts of 40 percent from the American administration. Their social science counterpart fears up to 50 percent. We are therefore talking about major cuts to the world's largest research funder.
The American administration also puts a stop to research in certain areas. This concerns, for example, LGBTQ+ rights, gender, diversity and sexual and reproductive health and, in that regard, microbial research, which is conspiratorially claimed to have been the origin of covid-19.
It is about frozen research grants, meaning that no new applications are currently being granted. It is about censorship and communication blocks. These authorities and universities are not allowed to issue press releases, write things on social media, or publish scientific reports as they wish. Furthermore, there are clear examples of researchers who self-censor or publish, for example, guidelines on how to handle an environment of hate and threats and that type of vulnerability that researchers [face] – but very quietly so that one does not risk being hit by the administration's wrath.
Access to research data is being jeopardized, just as Johan Pehrson says. In this environment, Harvard and the American administration have ended up in what is closest to an open war, at least an open war of words. Trump has stopped all state funding to perhaps the most prestigious educational institution in the country. Thousands of American researchers are in revolt, and 2,000 have signed an open letter stating that the research is under attack.
International collaborations are stopped or at least put on pause. They will likely be part of the defunding that I mentioned at the beginning with cuts of 40–50 percent. This hits research conducted at Swedish educational institutions directly because they have jointly funded projects with the National Institutes of Health. More specifically, it is the Karolinska Institutet, which has 21 projects that are dependent on the American agency, which has now lost its funding. This means that research worth 50 million goes to waste.
I have all respect for the fact that Johan Pehrson cannot influence Trump's research policy, but instead of just watching while 50 million for research in Sweden goes to waste, perhaps it is possible to take action. Therefore, I wonder in what way the government intends to act so that this does not affect Swedish research environments.
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Internationalization is incredibly important. The Swedish research sector and the American research sector have gone hand in hand for well over 80 years. This has served humanity well. It has served both the USA and Sweden well. It has created prosperity and contributed to great research advances. Therefore, it is a bit sad to see what the American administration is doing now. They are proceeding very aggressively, which means a sharp departure from the principle of academic freedom that our government holds in high regard. I know that several other parties in the Riksdag also hold it very highly.
Sweden ranks at the top when it comes to academic freedom, but there are things we can improve to ensure that academic freedom continues to be a strong attraction for internationalization coming to Sweden. That is why we have commissioned the inquiry on academic freedom. Furthermore, we have indicated in a government bill that we would like to see a renewed autonomy inquiry. Some of the educational providers that Linus Sköld mentioned here, for example KI, are very critical of the fact that Swedish universities and colleges – formally speaking – do not have a higher degree of autonomy. Therefore, we believe it is time to investigate this again. I have seen that the Social Democrats do not think so, and I regret that. We need many of us to fight for academic freedom and autonomy for our universities, especially considering what is happening elsewhere in the world.
The Swedish universities and colleges are working intensively with these issues and have various initiatives. Karolinska Institutet has, for example, established a cross-functional resource group that works broadly to ensure that as much as possible of the activities they conduct can be secured and continue in new ways. The Government naturally has an open dialogue with all universities and colleges, but quite many questions and many challenges still remain before we can see exactly where this lands.
I have nothing against some universities or institutes, for example Karolinska Institutet, looking into whether one should allow American universities to open branches in Sweden. It is up to them to find the best cooperation on an international level in this difficult situation.
Fundamentally, the Swedish Research Council has the primary responsibility to do what can be done to gather and support everyone who wants internationalization and who wants researchers to come to their university or college in Sweden to engage in research. This is partly about the support we have given to research, and partly about the support to the Swedish Research Council so that they can work with this strategic recruitment. We welcome everyone with excellence – this does not only concern Americans, or people who are currently active in America, for whom the door has been closed.
We are carrying out this work with great force, and there are resources. I do not rule out that we need to take further measures, not least to secure various forms of research infrastructure.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! I welcome the appointment of an inquiry that examines how the academic freedom of researchers and teachers can be strengthened. It is a welcome announcement, Johan Pehrson!
Since Johan Pehrson raised our opposition to the inquiry on autonomy, I feel compelled to comment on this. What Johan Pehrson has spoken about in the media concerns making more educational institutions foundations. We already have some foundation universities in Sweden. They are completely dependent on state funding because they are not allowed to charge tuition fees. As long as one is not prepared to build a system with tuition fees, a reshaping of the association form will not increase institutional autonomy or the degree of academic freedom at the institutional level. I assume that Johan Pehrson does not want to see such a system – a privatized market failure – in the higher education sector. I hope that Johan Pehrson is not looking for that.
If one wants to avoid unjustified interference in academic freedom, it is a responsibility that we as politicians have. Researchers, teachers, and institutional representatives say, in fact, that political governance is the greatest threat to their academic freedom. In that case, Johan Pehrson and his party need to refrain from disparaging comments about the content of individual courses and, for that matter, from making up excuses to shorten the terms of the boards. Johan Pehrson also needs to think about which parties he cooperates with. The Sweden Democrats have, after all, targeted individual universities for the establishment of an equality center. They have also targeted individual research areas. Just like Trump, they want to ban gender research.
We politicians have a responsibility if we want to safeguard academic freedom. The only way we can do that is by ourselves respecting that universities need to have strong autonomy without political micro-management.
I understand, as I said, that Johan Pehrson cannot influence Trump's research policy. Instead of just looking on or letting the universities handle that by perhaps bringing in branches of American universities, we Social Democrats have presented a sharp budget proposal to perhaps, so to speak, make lemonade out of the lemons.
Since Johan Pehrson is attentive to our policy, I assume he is familiar with our proposal regarding the establishment of a Sweden Fund. It would involve half a billion from politics, and hopefully additional funds from the business sector, to build attractive environments for leading American researchers who want to flee the academic unfreedom that currently arises in the USA and come to what even Johan Pehrson describes as one of the world's leading countries when it comes to academic freedom. It is also one of the world's best societies to live in, with extensive social insurance, a relatively high degree of security, and good quality of life.
If one can build strong research environments, there are good reasons for researchers who want to leave the USA to come to Sweden. We have set aside money for that in our budget. Is Johan Pehrson prepared to stand behind such an initiative? Is he prepared to stand behind the creation of a Sweden Fund that can attract leading researchers in areas that are strategically important for Sweden?
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! First and foremost, I am incredibly grateful that there is an awareness that a Swedish Minister for Education alone cannot really influence the American administration. On the other hand, within the Nordic and European cooperation, we can do a lot together with allies who stand up for academic freedom and safeguard that which is so important and which has created prosperity and served humanity for at least a century. This work shall, of course, continue.
Not least, the developments in the EU are central. We unfortunately see that some countries, for various reasons, are scaling back on research, while we in Sweden can invest. I note that the Social Democrats in opposition naturally want to invest even more, and I welcome this.
I think it is the right attitude of the Social Democrats to stand up for an internationalization where we manage the risks but do not exclude the outside world, even if it happens to involve Americans or persons who have been active or intended to be active at American universities.
The government has already allocated funds for strategic recruitment which, when fully expanded, amounts to half a billion per year – in addition to the other initiatives that are crucial. When one looks out over University and College Sweden, one cannot help but feel proud when seeing how, at the academic ceremonies that are usually held annually, enormous presentations are made regarding major advancements at respective institutions. Prominent researchers in AI, robotics, life science and so on come to Sweden to show that Sweden is a country to be reckoned with, and one becomes very proud of that.
Resources do exist. The Science Council has a mandate to ensure that we support the individual universities, which naturally – as they should – have a high degree of autonomy regarding how this is to be advertised. However, we are also working on the migration law issues to, for example, facilitate processing times for researchers.
Within the Work in Sweden project, work is being done to take care of entire families and to ensure that it becomes attractive to come to Sweden.
Linus Sköld listed a number of reasons why researchers should choose Sweden, Madam Speaker. Sometimes some look at the marginal taxes and think they are a bit high. Therefore, Linus Sköld should also be informed that it might not be so smart to raise them further if one thinks it is important to attract top-tier expertise.
Business Sweden has an ongoing and reinforced project to work on marketing Sweden as a talent destination.
That is what is ongoing, but we are following this closely. I rule nothing out – not even Social Democrats in opposition who want to put even more money into research. It is fundamentally very good.
Back to the issue of autonomy: I think Linus Sköld describes this in a fairly good way, that is to say that it is other things that play a role.
We have a very high degree of academic freedom in Sweden, but it is the higher education institutions themselves that drive this issue. When I meet them – and I know that Linus Sköld also does – they say that this should be strengthened. They think it is very specific when they are in international contexts and have to explain that they are formally – but absolutely not practically – subordinate to a government which, regardless of political color, is always forced to make priorities when it allocates funds and reforms educations, which is completely necessary.
That will continue for a long time, but it is primarily the educational institutions that want autonomy.
Linus Sköld (S)
Madam Speaker! A brief summary of this debate is therefore that Trump is carrying out major cuts to research funding. He stops certain research on LGBTQ+ issues, gender issues, and diversity issues. He stops research in sexual and reproductive health as well as microbial research. He censors communication from educational institutions and research funders and stops the publication of scientific reports and press releases. He jeopardizes access to high-quality research data and stops international collaborations.
In this environment, American researchers – those who dare – have staged extensive protests. I imagine that we have a researcher exodus due to the American administration's policy. We Social Democrats have a proposal to attract these fleeing researchers so that they land in Sweden and can help us with the research and innovation that our country's economy is completely dependent on.
We want to allocate 500 million. Together with the business sector, we could reach nearly 1 billion in funds to build attractive research environments for incoming researchers from the USA within strategic areas. I think it is worth emphasizing that this is my message in this debate.
Now I have half a minute of speaking time left. Johan Pehrson and I have spent many hours together in these speaking chairs, and I believe I know that this will be our last debate together. Thank you for all the times we have talked trash, Johan Pehrson! Thank you for all the times your brain has taken me on crazy adventures, and thank you for all the good debates and good answers. Good luck, Johan Pehrson!
Utbildningsministern Johan Pehrson (L)
Madam Speaker! Thank you for the kind words, Linus Sköld! I must put up a large mirror as a response – one of those space mirrors that reflects the sun. Goodness, how important debate is! How important it is that we clash ideas against each other to see that something even better can come out of it! The most dangerous thing that exists is, in fact, to believe that one's own party has always been right, is right, and will always be right. It hasn't even been the Liberals, I want to say.
I welcome the Social Democrats' commitment to ensuring that within the Nordic and European cooperation, we do everything we can to be a counterforce against what we see from the American administration today. They are biting their own tail, they are biting humanity's tail, and they are exposing important research areas to very large risks. This concerns, for example, life science, which means that the risk of pandemics can increase. All alarm bells are ringing. It is very serious.
From the government's side, we are working to try to have a constructive dialogue with the American government to explain that they lose on this. Openness is central. International cooperation is important. It does not mean that one should be naive regarding different forms of threats that exist; it can be about countries that do not want Sweden, the USA, or other EU countries well, but rather want us ill. It is clear that we should be as open as possible but also as secure as necessary in that work.
Thank you for many good debates, Linus Sköld! I am quite sure that we will see each other again.
Source: The Swedish Parliament. The speeches come from the open data of the Riksdag, translated into English by AI, which may contain errors.