Author: Vice-Chancellor’s Blog (Page 12 of 24)

This week we welcome guest bloggers to the Vice-Chancellor’s Blog. Our guests have all participated in Uppsala University’s various events during Almedalen Week on Gotland and share their impressions from the events. You can also follow them o n the web at www.uu.se/almedalen

“Medicine as we know it today completely relies on working antibiotics”, this was one of the introducing statements at the seminar “How do we solve the antibiotic resistance problem in the world?” that Uppsala Antibiotic Center (UAC) arranged yesterday in Almedalen. Moderated by Björn Olsen, a panel of seven experts in areas such as bacteriology, social interaction, medicine, chemistry and veterinary epidemiology engaged in an active debate that aimed at pinpointing what we can do, as academics, politicians, and citizens regarding this current health threat. Resistance to antibiotics by bacteria is something that scientists have been aware of since the very beginning of antibiotics use, but its effects have not gained the global attention they deserve until recently. The lack of discovery of any new antibiotic classes for the past three decades, coupled with the increased use and misuse of available antibiotics has led bacteria to develop resistance to all available drugs and are threatening to bring us into a dystopian future where antibiotics are no longer a treatment option. Is it too late? The conclusion of yesterday’s debate is that it is not, but constant active work, broad collaborations and effective communication are needed to solve the current situation.

The seminar started with, perhaps, the most difficult question of them all – how to get broad, worldwide political change in the use of antibiotics. As a global problem that knows no boundaries, as indicated by Otto Cars, minimising selection and spread of resistant bacteria is something which every country should be working on. However, the economical possibilities differ widely between countries. Today, antibiotic resistance is without a doubt a political matter that requires global team-work and coordination just like global warming. Unfortunately, current collaborations between countries are not successful and more work is needed to achieve overall control.

“But, are there any potential alternative to antibiotics treatment?” was one of the questions that several people from the public repeatedly came back to. It is logical to think that if antibiotics stop working we might be able to treat infections in different ways. Alternative treatments such as phage therapy or prevention strategies like vaccines and probiotics are being investigated, showing potential effectiveness towards specific bacteria and infections. Especially vaccination should be used as much as possible, but nevertheless, should be looked at more as complements than substitutes to antibiotic treatments.

Although there is at the moment a drought in the antibiotic pipeline, current research initiatives between the industry sector and academia are possibly leading to new compounds that could hit the market in the near future. Alternative economical models that decouple antibiotic development from sales are also needed and are being tried. But, as pointed out several times, we must be cautious once we get access to new antibiotics to avoid ending up in the same situation we are in today. Resistance will always develop, and we must have a system in place that works consciously to preserve effectiveness.

After the interesting and intense 90 minutes of questions, answers and debate, the panel wrapped up the session by highlighting briefly their take home messages. “This is not a one-solution problem and just as bacteria will not stop evolving we can never stop working on it,” Linus Sandegren pointed out, a statement that was repeated by other panelists. As a multifactorial problem we need many different scientific disciplines to work together to solve it.

As a centre focusing on antibiotics and antibiotic resistance, UAC is actively working to create knowledge, establish and coordinate collaborations and help the communication of all matters in these topics – three key points to get closer to a solution to this problem. The high attendance and active interaction yesterday show that we are heading, without doubt, in the right direction.

Eva Garmendia
Coordinator at Uppsala Antibiotic Center

This week we welcome guest bloggers to the Vice-Chancellor’s Blog. Our guests have all participated in Uppsala University’s various events during Almedalen Week on Gotland and share their impressions from the events. You can also follow them on the web at www.uu.se/almedalen

I’ve participated in Almedalen Week for the first time. It was fascinating. Just about everything has been analysed and discussed, both lofty and down-to-earth topics, from the right and from the left. What role do universities have, particularly Uppsala University, in society? Universities develop society by seeking new knowledge, applying this knowledge and communicating it. Almedalen is a special opportunity to communicate with others and reach out with new, relevant findings and understanding on different social issues.

Yesterday, one of Uppsala University’s seminars dealt with children’s health. Ill-health among children and youth is increasing and a quarter of boys and girls in Sweden are overweight. Among these children, some already develop type 2 diabetes in their teenage years. Reasons for this development were a hot topic during the seminar. The panel consisted of Anna Bessö from Sweden’s Public Health Agency, Christine Senter from Barnsam Region Gotland, Lenka Prokopec Karlberg from Generation Pep and the undersigned from Uppsala University. Gustav Melén from Uppsala University Innovation served as the moderator.

It is evident that, in many ways, the environment in Sweden in which we live is not particularly healthy for our children. During the discussion, it was concluded that it is now time to use and translate the knowledge and experience we have accumulated into practical actions to create a society better suited for children to have a healthier upbringing. Uppsala University, together with two municipalities in Sweden, has begun work to influence society to make it easier for children to make healthy choices. We call this work ECHO zones after the WHO’s recently published report Ending Childhood Obesity. In these zones, we will follow children and their families and identify the important factors for understanding why children become overweight. This will make it possible to reverse the trend towards an increasing proportion of overweight children in Sweden. This is a crucial issue for Sweden in safeguarding the health and future of its youngest citizens.

In summary, I am pleased with the seminar. It allowed the others on the panel and I to share what we are doing and raise awareness of the issue. Almedalen is a meeting place that offers excellent opportunities to make new contacts. I look forward to returning for a follow-up seminar in a few years.

Peter Bergsten
Professor of Medical Cell Biology

Over the past two weeks, Uppsala university’s Zennström professor Kevin Anderson has cycled between a number of cities and regions in Sweden to meet with citizens, municipalities, county boards and companies to discuss opportunities and challenges in the face of a changing climate. This two-wheeled journey ran under the banner of “The Swedish Carbon Cycle” and had the goal of raising awareness and catalyse discussions about local action on climate change.

As you can see in this video, public events and meetings with local authorities where organized in the cities and towns of Uppsala, Lund, Malmö, Ängelholm, Halmstad, Göteborg, Gävle, Märsta, Stockholm and with a final seminar in Visby at the start of the Almedalen week. The cycle tour is part of a larger commissioned research project where all Swedish municipalities, counties and regions have been invited to have their carbon budget calculated to scientifically ground and align their climate and energy strategies with the temperature commitments in the Paris Agreement.

A key message to emerge from discussions with municipalities and counties, strongly echoed by those attending civil society events, was that given the necessary powers deep reductions in carbon emissions could be achieved, even in the near-term. The real obstacle to delivering such rapid decarbonisation was that the municipalities and counties had too few powers to enact regional transformations in energy demand and supply. The National Parliament (Riksdagen), rather than facilitating local action, was seen to thwart opportunities through their weak legislative programmes.

Nowhere was this more evident than in Sweden’s house building boom – with the skyline of so many Swedish cities silhouetted with cranes and with new apartment blocks rising above the traditional city landscape. Yet, these new homes are being built for the twentieth century and consequently are inappropriate for meeting the energy and climate challenges of the twenty-first century. Whilst many municipalities and counties wish to impose strict efficiency standards on all new developments, including passive-house standards, the power to do this had been reclaimed by the national parliament. Of course the parliament could have established stringent minimum standards to which all new developments must comply. Instead it chose to set maximum levels, undermining any opportunity for the municipalities and counties to require developers to construct new homes commensurate with Sweden’s Paris commitments.

This preference of the parliament for the lowest common denominator as a prerequisite for their fixation on ever-more economic growth contrasts with the more societal focus of the municipalities, counties and civil society groups. It is this race to the bottom aligned with the rhetoric and empty promises of the parliament in relation to climate change that has failed to deliver any reduction in Sweden’s emissions since 1990 (once emissions from aviation, shipping, imports and exports are considered). So whilst there is a palpable drive and passion for real mitigation at the local and regional level, the parliament presides over airport expansion in Arlanda and Sälen, the development of a high-carbon gas (LNG) terminal in Gothenburg and a new super-highway (Förbifart) in Stockholm. This is not the decarbonisation recipe expected of a progressive nation – but rather a programme of high-carbon lock-in signalling climate denial rather than concern for its current and future citizens. Would the situation be improved if municipalities and active civil society groups held the powers currently misused by parliament?

After this first day of the Almedalen week, this disjuncture between local and national ambitions and willingness to act on climate change was further confirmed in the various engagements we had with a number of the parliamentary parties’ spokespersons on climate change.

In Almedalen over the next few days, Isak and Kevin are contributing to a number of events focused on issues of climate change mitigation and energy transitions, hosted by organisations such as Naturskyddsföreningen, Klimatriksdagen, Vätgas Sverige och Länsstyrelsen Stockholm, among others. The first of these events, on Monday morning, was a conversation about climate change leadership in Sweden between Kevin, Anders Wijkman and Johanna Sandahl.

For more reflections from Kevin and citizens around Sweden on local climate policy and action, visit the Swedish Carbon Cycle Video Archive.

Kevin Anderson & Isak Stoddard
Centre for Environment and Development Studies and the Climate Change Leadership Research Node, Uppsala University.

The Campus Gotland sign is unveiled at the opening ceremony on 1 July 2013.

Five years ago, Gotland University College became part of Uppsala University and Campus Gotland saw the light of day.

The five year that have passed since then have been full of very intensive, successful and sometimes challenging work. Uppsala University has great ambitions for its education and research activities on Gotland.

The University’s main goal since 2013 has been to increase the number of students and teachers on the Visby campus. Several new Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes have been started and we have increased the number of full-time equivalent students on campus from around 700 to approximately 1,100. This autumn, we will be launching several more new programmes and we expect to reach our target of 1,500 full-time equivalent students on campus by the 2021–2022 academic year. The following figures help fill out the picture of what has happened over the past five years:

• The percentage of teaching staff with doctorates has increased from 55% to 75%
• The number of Bachelor’s and Master’s programmes has increased from 16 to 30
• The number of international students has increased from about 50 to 200.
• Direct government funding for research has doubled.

Needless to say, we are very happy and proud that our progress has been so successful. University departments and faculties with activities in Visby have been very serious and ambitious in their development efforts. Among other achievements, the University’s first international Bachelor’s programmes have started at Campus Gotland – four of them in all.

The development of Campus Gotland has been driven by staff in Uppsala as well as on Gotland. It has often been hard work, it has often demanded time – but that makes it all the more satisfying to note the excellent results.

But we are not going to rest on our laurels.

In September 2017, the University Board adopted a new Programme for Campus Gotland. The programme formulates goals that call for a continued increase in the number of students, as well as a long-term drive to strengthen research. In addition, the programme describes the particularly favourable conditions for assembling activities with a sustainable development focus, and sets out a vision of a Campus Gotland characterised by multi- and interdisciplinarity, regional collaboration and increased internationalisation.

The Planning Council – an advisory body supporting the Vice-Chancellor and faculties in issues relating to the development of Campus Gotland – has been working over the past year to identify a number of research areas considered capable of strengthening the research environment at Campus Gotland. Some of the areas under discussion are digital innovation, energy transition, sustainable tourism and hospitality, children’s health and cultural heritage.

The Planning Council has also given a working group the task of drafting a proposal for the establishment of a thematic doctoral environment.

The Swedish International Centre of Education for Sustainable Development (SWEDESD) has been given the special task of developing an ESD Learning Lab, which is intended to initiate and facilitate activities for students, teachers and researchers focusing on sustainable development issues.

Zohal Kazemi – graduating student in the Business Studies Programme – presents her Bachelor’s project during Campus Gotland PoP.

The spring semester ended with a new event: Campus Gotland PoP. During the two-day event, around 100 students gave popular scientific presentations on their degree projects. The general public and the University’s many different partners were invited and the event really showcased the diversity and quality that distinguish our educational programmes.

Mohammed Majid and Viviana Mora – students in the Master’s Programme in Sustainable Management – present their project during Campus Gotland PoP.

Another inspiring event that took place on 4–6 June was Gotland Game Conference – GGC. A much-appreciated conference at which students in Game Design have a chance to present all the games they have created in the course of their studies. The conference attracts industry representatives, international visitors from various universities and not least the people of Gotland.  GGC really illustrates the uniqueness and creativity of activities at the Department of Game Design.

Gotland Game Conference

On 1 June, approximately 500 people – students, teachers and family members – gathered for a degree ceremony at Wisby Strand.

The Student Welfare President of Rindi Student Union, Matilda Drejer, presents the Teacher of the Year Award to Gunnar Dahlin of the Department of Engineering Sciences.

The degree ceremony brought the spring semester to an end, and after a few weeks at a slightly more relaxed pace, we are now gearing up for Almedalen Week. Uppsala University is organising numerous seminars during this year’s Almendalen Week. In addition to the University’s own events, many members of staff are participating in other seminars, panels and debates.

On Tuesday 3 July, the University will be holding its annual reception, which will be particularly ambitious and grand this year as we celebrate the fifth anniversary of Campus Gotland.

In conclusion, I would like to thank all the members of staff – in both Uppsala and Visby – who have made Campus Gotland’s successful development possible.

Olle Jansson
Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor on Campus Gotland

Eva Åkesson, Vice-Chancellor
Anders Malmberg, Deputy Vice-Chancellor

After a busy spring semester, a much-needed summer break beckons. For many people at the University, Almedalen Week has become the academic year’s grand finale. This year, Uppsala University is organising some 50 seminars during the week. We will also be participating in debates and trying to draw attention to important issues for the University and for Swedish education and research. On top of this, we will be celebrating Campus Gotland’s fifth anniversary as part of Uppsala University.

The Campus Gotland sign being unveiled for the official opening on 1 July 2013.

For those of us in the University Management, the spring semester, as always, has involved a wide variety of events and duties. We have had many visits (for example, from the President of Iceland and the UN Secretary-General) and made a number of trips (Eva’s visit to South Africa with SASUF [link] and Anders’s trip to Japan for the opening of the Uppsala exhibition “The Art of Natural Science” at Tokyo University Museum [link] were probably the most memorable).

In the international arena, we are active in various networks, right now probably most intensively in the Guild (where Eva is a board member) and the U4 network, which has become more relevant than ever as a possible pilot for the new European Universities initiative planned by the European Commission.

In the national arena, we have been active above all in the discussions on governance and resources, internationalisation, and quality systems – in the context of ongoing government inquiries and current Swedish Higher Education Authority tasks.

Internally at the University, apart from the major spring undertaking of the operational plan and budget for 2019, we have above all continued to focus on issues that emerged clearly as areas for development in the Quality and Renewal 2017 evaluation: strengthening the University’s strategic capacity for renewal, developing the role of head of department, improving our career systems and developing the University as an international environment for work and study. We have also started a project on the long-term development of the University’s physical environment (Development Plan 2050), led by Johan Tysk, and a revision of the University’s Mission and Core Values, which Anders will lead.

These are a few examples of what has kept the University Management busy this spring. We hope it all helps create enabling conditions for the activities that are the point and purpose of the University: the research that generates new and important knowledge, the education that equips people to make valuable contributions to society, and the collaboration that opens doors for tomorrow’s solutions to technical, social, cultural and environmental challenges.

Thank you for the privilege of working at Uppsala University with you.

We wish you all an enjoyable summer. See you in the autumn!

(Original Swedish post published 15 June.)

On Thursday the University Board held its last meeting of the semester. As always, the Vice-Chancellor started proceedings with a report on events since the previous meeting. The focus this time was on the international activities and networks in which the University participates, together with some trendspotting from the Swedish Higher Education Authority’s annual report.

The students on the University Board – three ordinary members and two alternates – are appointed by the students’ unions for one year at a time. We are proud in Uppsala of the organised student influence we have at all levels of the University, from department boards to the University Board, and in all other groupings that work for the good of our University. This year it is 50 years since the students knocked at the door of the University Board in the University Main Building and demanded to be represented on the Board. Vice-Chancellor Torgny Segerstedt (who led the University from 1955 to 1978) was the person who saw to it that the University got the broad student participation we see today. The June meeting marks the changeover in these positions on the Board, so this was the last meeting for the outgoing student members and the first for the incoming lot, who attended to learn the ropes. Thank you, Rozbe, Martin, Megha, Sofie and Felix, for your contributions this past year, and welcome, Carl, Therese, Sanne, Fredrik and Mathias! Fredrik Pettersson and Sanne Rönning were chosen as new members of the Staff Disciplinary Board and the Audit Committee.

Margaretha Edman Bojeus presented the Swedish National Audit Office’s audit plan. During the next operational year, the National Audit Office will look in particular at the change of financial management system and the introduction of Ladok3. They will also analyse the IT environment and examine in particular the relationship between the University and the holding company.

The University Board was also briefed on the implementation of the new General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) at the University and our personal data processing.

At the University Board’s June meeting, a decision is taken on the University’s operational plan for next year and the planning frameworks for the University’s research, education and other activities over the next three years. Uppsala University will continue to take a proactive and future-oriented approach. The basic appropriations for research are increasing, which enables the University to make new investments in more career development positions, a continuation of the visiting researcher programme and more doctoral students in the humanities and social sciences. The appropriations for education are also increasing. This will enable the University to start several new programmes in autumn 2019 – no less than seven Master’s programmes (Russian, Russian studies, digital humanities, medical imaging, innovative medicine and two programmes in the Faculty of Pharmacy), a new Master’s level engineering programme in industrial economics and a new Bachelor’s level engineering programme in medical technology.

The universities in Sweden cooperate on infrastructure for research, and the costs are rising. In principle, the disciplinary domains are expected to deal with this as far as possible. However, sometimes the projects are so big that the whole university has to contribute, for example to the running of Max IV in Lund, and FREIA, SNIC and SciLifeLab here in Uppsala. The costs of data storage are also increasing. The storage of research data is particularly important for ‘open data’ and to make data available to researchers all over the world. Other new items in the operational plan included long-term planning conditions for Campus Gotland, a rent equalisation model for when the University needs new buildings and consolidated allocations to the University Library. The operational plan will be published in full on uu.se and on the intranet (Medarbetarportalen) following adjustment.

The operational planning process actually carries on year round. It concerns overall priorities and the allocation of tasks and direct government funding to the disciplinary domains. The University continues to prioritise strategic work on quality, internationalisation, infrastructure and skills supply. The three-year perspective gives better and more stable planning conditions for all the University’s departments.

The University Board also received a report from the working group on a revision of the rules of procedure, before Johan Tysk and Annica Sundås Larsson concluded by presenting the project Development Plan 2050.
The meeting concluded with a lunch on the terrace of Carolina Rediviva and a guided tour of some of the treasures hidden away in the University Library. Now the University Board will take a break over the summer and resume its work in the autumn with a first meeting in September.

Guild Presidents call on Horizon Europe and Erasmus to strengthen Europe’s global position in science, education, and innovation

We welcome the European Commission’s proposals for establishing Horizon Europe and Erasmus for 2021–2027. We fully support the Commission’s plans to double the budget for Erasmus to strengthen the mobility, employability and European identity of students and further boost the international competitiveness of universities. We also welcome Horizon Europe’s ambition to stimulate the excellence-based competition of ideas across borders, bring together the best researchers to contribute to Europe’s ability to face global challenges and address its most pressing societal needs.

Research, education and innovation must be at the core of the EU’s future vision. Hence, we welcome Horizon Europe’s new approaches including: aligning the Global Challenges pillar with the Sustainable Development Goals and increasing the budget for ‘sharing’ excellence to overcome the research and innovation divide between different parts of Europe. As research-intensive universities we also welcome the European Innovation Council’s support in bridging the gap between research and innovation.

However, Europe’s global position in science and innovation requires a much higher level of ambition in the following areas:

• Europe must invest in proven success. We call for the European Research Council’s (ERC) share to increase to at least 25% of the overall budget of Horizon Europe, and the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions to at least 12%. This will give Europe the necessary boost to sustain its leadership in global science, as no other research council worldwide has higher scientific impact than the ERC. Ambitious investments in frontier-led science will also reinforce the goals of the European Innovation Council as demonstrated by previous Framework Programmes. For instance, in FP7 17% of the budget spent on the ERC led to 29% of all patent applications generated by the programme.
• Fostering world-class scientific excellence must remain both the fundamental goal and the guiding principle of Horizon Europe, especially in the Open Science and Global Challenges pillars. This should also be reflected in the selection of evaluators, scientific panels, and advisory groups.
• Horizon Europe’s Global Challenges pillar must be based on strong support for research collaboration, focusing on low Technology-Readiness Levels (TRL).
• To maximise its impact on citizens’ lives, it is crucial that Horizon Europe fosters collaborative research in all disciplines in the Global Challenges pillar. This requires active steps to ensure and monitor the effective integration of the Social Sciences, Arts and Humanities across the thematic clusters.

Universities are unique in their mission of generating new knowledge, educating the next generation of citizens, and in engaging with businesses, the public sector and civil society. Therefore, we underline the importance of decisionmakers’ support for the realisation of both the European Research Area and the European Education Area. European science, education and innovation must be globally competitive to address our most profound medical, social, or environmental challenges that know no boundaries. We call on the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission to realise the high levels of ambition by substantially increasing the investment in frontier-led research.

Signatories:

Brian Bech Nielsen, Aarhus University

Christian Leumann, University of Bern

Francesco Ubertini,University of Bologna

Rik Van de Walle, Ghent University

Anton Muscatelli, University of Glasgow

Ulrike Beisiegel, University of Göttingen

Sibrand Poppema, University of Groningen

Wojciech Nowak, Jagiellonian University

Ed Byrne, King’s College London

Igor Papič, University of Ljubljana

Vincent Blondel, University of Louvain

Svein Stølen, University of Oslo

Christine Clerici, Paris Diderot University

Daniël Wigboldus, Radboud University

Toomas Asser, University of Tartu

Bernd Engler, University of Tübingen

Eva Åkesson, Uppsala University

Heinz Engl, University of Vienna

Stuart Croft, University of Warwick

About the Guild

Founded in 2016, the Guild comprises nineteen of Europe’s most distinguished research-intensive universities in fourteen countries and is dedicated to enhancing the voice of academic institutions, their researchers and their students. The Guild is committed to the pursuit of excellence, the importance of truth-seeking and trust-building as the foundation of public life, and the creation of new knowledge for the benefit of society, culture, and economic growth.

(Original Swedish post published 6 June 2018.)

On Thursday this week, the European Commission will present its proposed framework programme for research and innovation for the period 2021–2027, currently designated ‘Horizon Europe’. So it was very timely that the Guild held its General Assembly at the beginning of this week, 4–5 June, and that it had invited the Commission’s new Director-General for Research and Innovation, Jean-Eric Paquet, to attend. Together with the other members of the Guild, Uppsala University has argued for a doubling of the EU’s budget for research and education, and many other universities and networks support this demand.

The EU framework programmes are important for European universities. They are intended as a strategic tool complementing and reinforcing national actions in the areas of research, education and innovation. When Horizon Europe is presented on Thursday, the process of negotiations will start. We think it is important that education and research are placed to the fore and that the budget is increased. A new member was elected to the Board of Directors of the Guild, Svein Stölen from the University of Oslo. Vincent Blondel, University of Louvain, chairs the Board and I will be vice-chair for another two-year period.

Vincent Blondel, Chair

Vanessa Debiais-Sainton, from the Directorate-General for Education, Youth, Sport and Culture, was also invited to the Guild meeting. She told us that President Macron’s ideas about European Universities are beginning to take more and more definite shape. Another network to which Uppsala University belongs, U4, has plans to put together an application for the pilot phase of this initiative, together with the University of Tartu. We know that a proposal has been made to double the budget for the Erasmus programmes from the present level and that there are plans pointing towards a reorganisation in Europe that will bring research, education and collaboration into closer contact, which we would welcome.

All in all, it was a rewarding meeting with interesting discussions and there is a good climate of cooperation among the 19 universities that are members of the Guild. And it will be interesting to see what the Commission proposes on Thursday. After a cancelled flight from Brussels and then further delays, it feels good to see Uppsala silhouetted against the beautiful night sky and to know I will soon be home. Tomorrow I will be at the National Day celebrations at Skansen.

Founded in 2016, the Guild comprises nineteen of Europe’s most distinguished research-intensive universities in fourteen countries, and is dedicated to enhancing the voice of academic institutions, their researchers and their students. The Guild is committed to the pursuit of excellence, the importance of truth-seeking and trust-building as the foundation of public life, and the creation of new knowledge for the benefit of society, culture, and economic growth.

(Original Swedish post published 24 May.)

Over the past three days, Uppsala University has hosted concluding sessions for the three Erasmus Mundus projects we have coordinated (INSPIRE, LOTUS+ AND PEACE). As the entire Erasmus Mundus Programme concludes on 14 July this year, participants from four continents have met to sum up the projects and discuss possibilities for future cooperation.

Erasmus Mundus Action 2 (EMA2) is an EU-funded scholarship programme that has enabled students and researchers from low- and middle-income countries outside Europe to do an exchange or a whole programme at a university in Europe. Uppsala University has been one of the most active European participants in the programme and has hosted no less than 530 scholarship holders from 56 non-European countries between 2009 and 2018. The most common countries of origin have been China, India, South Africa and Brazil, but under the programme, Uppsala University has collaborated with more than 200 higher education institutions in numerous countries, primarily in Asia, Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.

The University has distributed scholarship funds from the programme totalling more than SEK 50 million. The majority of the 530 scholarship holders have done exchanges at Bachelor’s, Master’s or doctoral level, but many have come to take a Master’s degree or a PhD or as postdocs or visiting lecturers. Sincere thanks to all the researchers, teachers and department staff at Uppsala University who have helped to make the programme such a great success!

(Original Swedish post published 21 May.)

The Vice-Chancellor has appointed six Advisers to the Vice-Chancellor to work with the University Management on a number of university-wide issues. These are Campus Gotland (Olle Jansson), internationalisation (Anders Backlund), equal opportunities (Cecilia Wejryd), research infrastructure (Kristina Edström), sustainability (Anna Rutgersson) and good research practice (Stefan Eriksson).

During the spring, they are appearing as guest bloggers here in the Vice-Chancellor’s Blog to write about developments in the areas for which they are responsible. This week’s guest blogger is Stefan Eriksson, Senior Lecturer at the Centre for Research Ethics and Bioethics (CRB) and Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor on Good Research Practice.

Good practice in research

Stefan Eriksson

Today (Monday), Swedish Radio’s investigative journalism programme Kaliber examines the systems in Sweden for investigation of misconduct in research and tells what by now is a rather well-known story about microplastics and perch that took place at our University. The programme identifies several important issues. One of them is the means available to report, investigate and rectify such problems in research. At Uppsala University, the Board for Investigation of Misconduct in Research is responsible for investigating whether research has complied with good practice. The question is how long the Board will continue to exist in its present form: in all probability, we will soon have a new system for such investigations (in Swedish).

Another important issue is how to expose questionable research. What sometimes happens is that a colleague becomes suspicious and blows the whistle, as in the case described in Kaliber. At other times, technical aids can be used to reveal irregularities. One example of this was when the Australian cancer researcher Jennifer Byrne became doubtful about a number of articles concerning a gene associated with breast cancer and childhood leukemia. The articles proved to be profoundly problematic, as they described the functioning of the gene incorrectly and in addition reinforced one another so that other research faced a distorted picture of the state of knowledge. Shocked by the number of articles affected by the problem she had identified, she decided to do something about it: she is now developing software that takes a DNA sequence described in an article, runs it against a database and determines whether it actually behaves in the way the article claims.

This story points to another important question: how are we to prevent misconduct, deviations from good practice and questionable research? It also indicates that the problems and the responses to them may not always appear as we would expect. My remit as Adviser to the Vice-Chancellor is to think strategically about the issue of preventive measures. A key question then is why exactly researchers violate good practice or go wrong. The answer may take many forms. Without claiming to give an exhaustive account, let me present a few typical cases – four, to be precise. I will start with the most unusual type and end with the type that I perceive to be most common.

The fraudulent. This is perhaps the figure we most easily imagine, particularly when we read a newspaper article or watch a documentary about research misconduct. This is a person who actually deliberately invents data or exposes research subjects to excessive risks. While such cases may be spectacular and outrageous, these people probably account for an extremely small proportion of those who violate good practice. To combat such fraudulent or dangerous behaviour, the community has traditionally demanded clearer rules and exemplary punishments. Several more stringent measures of this kind are on the way. For example, we will soon have new legislation on ethical review, handling of research data and biobank research, with a clearer division of responsibilities and tougher sanctions for breaches of ethical principles. The current movement towards open science, driven particularly by the EU, is probably even more important.

When research can be thoroughly scrutinised and is accessible for peer review and public inspection, it is much more difficult to escape detection.

The deceived. Some of those who violate good practice do so because they themselves are the victims of fraud. They do not intend to deceive others or to cheat, but fall prey to the lures of those who want to profit from the desire of researchers to publish their research (perhaps for career purposes). One example of this is publication in ‘predatory journals’ – journals that falsely claim to be leading journals in their field and to have peer review, to be indexed and to have an impact factor. These days, any association with such journals is regarded as an unacceptable breach of good practice according to the leading guidelines in the area (pdf). Even if some people no doubt deliberately choose to publish in such a journal, all the cases I have so far encountered in Sweden have occurred without any apparent intention to mislead. To prevent more people from being deceived, we should teach researchers and students about this and similar phenomena, and make it easier for them to find information about which journals they can trust. At present, there is an unofficial list of journals and publishers that should probably be avoided and the University is looking into the possibility of testing a commercial and more reliable service for this.

The ignorant. Considerably more breaches of good practice than those listed so far arise out of ignorance. Many researchers have not understood that they actually have an obligation to submit their projects for ethical review. Many are also uncertain how much processing of others’ texts is needed to avoid plagiarism; this also applies widely to undergraduate students. People often know relatively little about rules and guidelines on saving, copying and archiving research data. In a recent article, Nature reported that they had demonstrated by the largest survey of its kind to date that research team leaders overestimate their knowledge about and ability to check what is going on in their team. Better routines are needed here, more templates, clearer information – and well-considered training in taking this on board. Doing the right thing must be easy – legal assistance should not be required to understand what is expected of you. The University and responsible authorities have a lot more work to do in this area. I regard this as a priority issue.

Follow-my-leader. The most common ethical problems in research, according to several empirical studies, are often perceived to be unproblematic by the people carrying out the research, or are regarded as so prevalent that they cannot be avoided. Examples include listing people as co-authors of articles to which they have not contributed, reusing certain passages from the research team’s past output, and dividing up the reporting of research into as many articles as possible, with the associated risk of fragmentation and perhaps being misleading (pdf). What these types of questionable practices have in common is that they are something people learn from those around them. People quite simply do as others do, or are ‘forced’ to adopt this behaviour just to join in at all. These are practices that exist in research cultures, that one is expected to accept for the sake of a successful research career. Messages to the effect that these practices are not accepted can easily appear naive or unrealistic – and there is no doubt it can be difficult to object to or question them, particularly for a junior researcher. Reducing this problem requires a change in the culture itself and insistent efforts to explain why these practices undermine scholarship and science. Highlighting examples of sound cultures that have an awareness of these matters and yet are successful will help younger researchers to understand that they may have a choice: it is not the case that ‘everyone’ who succeeds in the world of research tries to take shortcuts or shows poor judgement in matters of research ethics. On the contrary, caring about the credibility and honesty of research, and the respect it enjoys, can be considered commendable and lead to success.

In conclusion then, many different circumstances may explain why a person deviates from good practice in research. There is no simple solution for reducing such deviations. Efforts are needed at many different levels and in many different ways. There is obviously a great need for further strategic thinking on these issues.