Author: nilsolav

The Arctic Frontiers 2026 Conference in Tromsø marked a milestone this year, drawing more than 1,100 participants and over 120 international journalists—its highest attendance to date. Lise Øvreås, Academic Director of the Academia Europaea Bergen Hub, participated in in several panels at the conference.

Themed “Turn of the Tide,” the event captured global attention as leaders, researchers, and policymakers converged to discuss a rapidly changing Arctic, shaped by shifting geopolitical relations, increased defense considerations, and growing interest in the region’s strategic resources.

Recordings are available of both panels, organized by University of Bergen, where our Academic Director contributed:

Nature and Culture in the Anthropocene:

The panel addresses something fundamental in the way we think in the Anthropocene, formulated around the distinction between nature and culture. Is it possible to imagine knowledge that is no longer divided into social sciences, humanities and natural sciences?

Academia in Times of Geopolitical Change:

These are times of geopolitical change and uncertainty, including for the Arctic. How do academia and research institutions change, or not, with this? This side event addresses this challenge from several perspectives. On the one side there is the academic freedom and institutional autonomy which, when maintained, offer education and science-based knowledge beyond the urgency of the present. On the other hand, either by context, funding, or societal mandate, academia is constantly in flux, and thus also impacted by current geopolitical change.

In between there is the transition from academia and research institutes’ science-based advice to decision makers, rooted in the institutions’ independent research, to decision makers’ setting the research priorities and what to be advised on.

How do academic leaders manoeuvre this complicated terrain?

Academia Europaea Bergen Hub is welcoming Lise Øvreås as the new Academic Director from January 2026. She was president of The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters from 2021 to 2024. She is also the newly elected President of EASAC (the European Academies Science Advisory Council). Her positions in EASAC and in AE-Bergen Hub will run parallel to her continued scientific research as an accomplished microbiologist.

– What roles do you see for Science Academies in academia and in society today?

I think that Science Academies play an utterly important role under the challenging global times we are experiencing today. Science Academies play a crucial role as trusted knowledge brokers. They provide independent, evidence-based advice to policymakers and society, ensuring that decisions are informed by the best available science at any time. Academies also foster international collaboration, connecting researchers across disciplines and borders to address global challenges such as climate change, biodiversity loss and public health issues. In addition, the global science communities are experiencing a mistrust in science, and we also see that there are ongoing threats to academic freedom. Science Academies can therefore also play a role beyond academia, and serve as guardians of scientific integrity, promoting transparency and trust in an era where misinformation can easily spread.

– How do authoritarian tendencies and anti-scientific sentiments that we see today influence the role of science academies?

These tendencies increase the importance of securing science independence and supporting democratic values, which are the responsibilities of Science Academies. When evidence-based approaches are questioned or sidelined, academies must act as strong advocates for open dialogue and critical thinking. They also have a role in science diplomacy—providing neutral and independent platforms for collaboration even in politically polarized environments. We therefore need to strengthen the public engagement and thus communication is essential to counter disinformation and emphasise the value of science in society.

– What challenges do you see in working both as an active researcher and scientist and in prominent positions in Science Academies?

Balancing these roles is demanding but also rewarding. Time management becomes critical when combining research and teaching with leadership responsibilities. There is also the challenge of maintaining scientific focus while contributing to policy and advisory work. In my own research I must zoom in and focus on detailed basic research questions, when we are discovering new organisms and functioning in rapid changing ecosystems due to climate change. When working towards science diplomacy I must zoom out and get a more holistic picture.  However, I feel these roles complement each other: active research provides firsthand insights into emerging scientific issues, which enriches the advisory work of academies. Conversely, academy leadership offers a broader perspective on how science can shape societal progress.

– What are your thoughts on the way forward for the hub?

The AE-Bergen Hub has a strong foundation, and I see great potential for growth through interdisciplinary collaboration. We should continue to position Bergen as a center for excellence in areas of global relevance, such as sustainability and Arctic research.

We should also continue to engage research and scholarship with policymaking in Europe with a specific focus on the Nordic and Baltic Regions, and work in close collaboration with national academies of the region. Increasing visibility through events, publications, and outreach will be key. I also believe in strengthening partnerships—both within Norway and internationally—to ensure that the hub remains a vibrant contributor to Academia Europaea’s mission.

–Can we expect a continuation of the hub’s engagement in Arctic issues?

Absolutely, personally I have dedicated much of my scientific research to various ecosystems in the Arctic. The Arctic is a region of immense scientific and societal importance, and its current changes have global implications. The hub will continue to promote excellent research from and about the Nordic and Baltic Region, its surrounding seas and the Arctic. We will continue to engage in Arctic research and policy discussions, leveraging Bergen’s strong expertise in marine and polar sciences. Our goal is to connect scientific knowledge with decision-making processes to support sustainable development in the Arctic, through scholarly workshops and public events.

– Science Academies are sometimes accused of lack of diversity. What’s your take on that?

It is true that diversity has historically been a challenge for many academies. However, diversity –whether in gender, geography, discipline, or perspective—is essential for robust science, productive dialogs and effective policy advice. Academia Europaea and its hubs are actively working to improve representation and inclusivity. This is not only a matter of fairness but also of quality: diverse voices are important to strengthen scientific dialogue and lead to better solutions for complex problems.

When evidence-based approaches are questioned or sidelined, academies must act as strong advocates for open dialogue and critical thinking. They also have a role in science diplomacy—providing neutral and independent platforms for collaboration even in politically polarized environments.

Lise Øvreås

Time has flown by, and as 2025 draws to a close, so too does my term as Hub Director.

The geopolitical landscape following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine—and the atrocities that accompanied it—will have profound and lasting implications for academia, particularly regarding academic freedom, international collaboration, and scholarly exchange. Similar consequences are emerging from the devastation of the war in Gaza and other conflicts across the region.

In my message last year, I wrote: “The return of the Trump administration to power in the United States creates significant uncertainty for the role of rational, science-based governance in the world’s largest economy—uncertainty that is likely to reverberate throughout global academia.” This prediction has materialized in ways few of us could have imagined, with authoritarian efforts to undermine and destabilize universities, research institutions, funding bodies, and the very principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. In a remarkably short time, the environment in which science is conducted has changed dramatically. Security considerations in research have moved to the forefront, and discussions about the dual-use potential of research outcomes have become routine.

In this context, Europe’s role as a beacon of democracy, openness, and inclusion is more vital than ever. Safeguarding the values that underpin European research will be critical. Academia Europaea has an essential part to play in this effort. As a community of leading scholars across Europe, we have both the capacity and the responsibility to make a difference—and we must care enough to act.

An essential part of this effort is to support Commission President von der Leyen’s call to “Choose Europe for science” and to engage with the vision for strengthening European competitiveness that underpins the proposed next Framework Programme for Research (FP10) for 2028–2034. European competitiveness depends not only on providing sufficient resources for our leading researchers and innovators—closing the widening gap with other global powers—but also, critically, on preserving the values of freedom and openness that lie at the heart of scientific inquiry. This is a unique opportunity for Europe, and it must be seized at this pivotal moment.

As Vice-President of the ERC and a Board member of our Academy, I have followed the early discussions on FP10 with great interest. The negotiations between the EU Council, Parliament, and Commission over the next one to two years will shape the future of European research. I urge you, as members, to be active in this process: use your networks and political contacts to ensure that fundamental science is recognized as the backbone of competitiveness. It deserves—and requires—more than the proposed doubling of the budget compared to Horizon Europe. This is the time to advocate for bold investment in science as Europe’s strategic advantage.

In 2025, the Hub has continued our engagement in exploring Arctic transformations through the lens of science diplomacy amid rising geopolitical tensions. We have led a cross-Atlantic project on this topic and organized several well-attended events on Arctic issues. I believe these efforts will help lay the groundwork for renewed collaboration and, hopefully, contribute to reducing tensions. We have continued co-hosting lecture series with local partners and maintained our support for the European Young Academy in running their activities.

As the year ends, so does my term as Hub Director. This has been an immensely rewarding experience, and I am more convinced than ever of the vital role of research and scientific inquiry—especially in the turbulent times we face. I am delighted that Professor Lise Øvreås will succeed me. She brings outstanding credentials to the role: an AE member, an accomplished microbiologist with significant Arctic research experience, and, crucially, a leader with broad overview and deep knowledge as past President of the Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters and incoming President of EASAC (the European Academies Science Advisory Council).

I wish you all a joyful festive season and an active year ahead. Please don’t hesitate to bring your ideas and initiatives to the Hub.

Best regards,

Eystein

– How many of you think there is politics in science, moderator Scott Bremer asked the audience at the start of the YAE (Young Academy of Europe) panel event “Public trust in science and navigating political tensions” at Building Bridges Barcelona conference. Most of the audience raised their hands. 

Even as this very informal poll seemed to confirm the presence of politics in science, the rest of the panel focused on some of the more elusive disguises that politics can come in in science, such as barriers, taboos or self-censoring in the face of possible controversies.

The event was organised by the Young Academy of Europe and panellists were Anna Kuppuswamy from University of Leeds (also the new chair of YAE), Emilian Mihailov from University of Bucharest.

The final panellist was Ruth Rodriguez, a professor in the Department of Communication at Pompeu Fabra University. Her main lines of research are media accountability and disinformation.

In her presentation, Ruth Rodríguez spoke about knowledge transfer and the need to rethink its meaning for each discipline. She also mentioned the dimensions of media accountability, self-regulation, citizen participation, and transparency, which can serve as tools to strengthen innovation, democratic engagement, and connecting academia with society.

Unexplored territories can create barriers to science

Anna Kuppuswamy described her own field – neuroscience, and particularly her topic – the illness described as fatigue, as an area where politics can be a barrier to science.

– The illness of fatigue is an unexplored territory. All the uncertainties on what the causes of fatigue are, can create barriers to science, and these barriers can also come from the patients themselves. In my field, we’ve seen guidelines change without the changes being based in science.  

– On the other hand, science takes place in a partnership with the wider society. Sometimes managing conflicts really is about handling misunderstandings. That’s something I see in my field of research on fatigue, Anna Kuppuswamy said.   

Good science needs good politics

The YAE panel on the final day of the Building Bridges conference discussed multiple perspectives on how scientists – as individuals and as a group – navigate social and political polarization on the role and organisation of science in Europe today. The event explored the extent to which scientists work within a politicised context, and what affordances and strategies do they deploy to establish science’s role in society and relate to political trends.

– Good science needs good politics, and good politics will seek to foster freedom of thought. When scientist do their research in an environment where freedom of thought is not present, the possibility for self-censoring and taboos will increase, Emilian Mihailov said at the panel discussion.