The Research Funding Inquiry’s proposal for a new agency structure misses the mark and will not make Swedish research more effective. A more thorough analysis could have led to proposals for targeted actions to improve existing systems instead of throwing everything out and starting again from scratch.

The Research Funding Inquiry has submitted a proposal for a new agency structure for the funding of research in Sweden. The inquiry suggests that three new agencies could take over government funding for research and innovation, and that research funding distributed by other public agencies should be pooled and moved into the new structure. The changes are intended to boost Sweden as a research nation.

Uppsala University is one of the bodies that have been invited to comment on the proposal. We have several points of criticism.

One general problem is the increased political control that the report paves the way for. There is excessive confidence in the ability of politicians to foresee the future and to predict which research will lead to solutions to specific societal challenges. The proposal also has a regrettable bias towards innovation and challenge-driven research, at the expense of investigator-initiated research. Many studies show that it is in fact research teams conducting free and curiosity-driven research that generate the majority of the breakthroughs that result in socially transformative advances and innovations. This insight is missing from the report.

From the very outset, the inquiry is flawed in two ways:

1. One of the points from which the inquiry starts out is the problem statement that the quality of Swedish research shows weak development relative to the resources injected and relative to other countries, i.e. that we get little bang for our buck. This is not true. Government funding for research has increased, but at the same time, payroll costs have risen by virtually the same amount. The University’s own analysis of the quality development of Swedish research shows that it still stands up well to international competition.
2. The inquiry was not instructed to look at current research funding bodies and how they work. This is a deficiency. Now, without any particular analysis, the inquiry has concluded that the current system is ineffective. This is not entirely true. There is a great risk of destroying the parts that currently work well. A thorough analysis could have led the inquiry’s proposal to focus instead on targeted measures to improve and reform the existing system.

Naturally, we do not dispute that the world has changed since the turn of the millennium when the current research funding system was constructed, or that our society is fraught with complex challenges. However, we do not believe that the proposal submitted by the inquiry fulfils the objectives: that Sweden will have more world-class research, better conditions for international cooperation or better management of the infrastructure on which research depends. We do not believe in the alleged savings either. Setting up new government agencies is expensive.

A further point is that the inquiry proposes that responsibility for international cooperation, including all EU programmes, be assigned to the new Agency for Strategic Research. International cooperation is an integral part of research and cannot be managed separately. Internationalisation is a continuous process that must be pursued jointly.

One good component of the proposal addresses the long-term financing of large-scale research infrastructure. We welcome this. However, the proposal does not otherwise contribute to improving access to national infrastructure or to the coordination of digital research infrastructure, as the inquiry was instructed to do.

Uppsala University believes that what Sweden needs is an overall national strategy for research infrastructure that clarifies the division of responsibilities, priorities and long-term funding. This should be developed in consultation between higher education institutions, research funding bodies, local government representatives and industry. We also believe that the government should establish a digital research infrastructure agency. The inquiry should have set the stage for this, but chose to focus on other matters.

To strengthen Swedish research and innovation, we need a funding system that is predictable and long-term and in which the distribution of research funds is governed by high quality. It is government appropriations to higher education institutions, unrestricted project funding and long-term and broad initiatives where funding is distributed in open competition that provide good opportunities to build up internationally strong research environments. The research from these environments results in our being able to understand and explain complex societal challenges – sometimes even before they arise.

The Research Funding Inquiry’s proposal strengthens the influence of politicians and weakens academia. This will lead neither to world-leading research in collaboration with the best, nor to socially transformative innovations.

Anders Hagfeldt

Vice-Chancellor, Uppsala University