Author: nilsolav

Dear Members of Academia Europaea in the Nordic and Baltic Regions,

As we approach the end of the year, I would like to share some reflections on our concerns and activities at the Bergen Hub.

This year has once again been profoundly affected by the ongoing war in Ukraine, which has reshaped the landscape for research and academic life across Europe. The aggression and its broader geopolitical implications have diminished security and limited opportunities for peaceful scientific collaboration and the open exchange of ideas and results. Our Hub’s activities have focused significantly on understanding these challenges.

We now find ourselves in a situation where research funding competes increasingly with military expenditures, raising concerns about the norms of openness in science. The potential for research outcomes to be misused for hostile purposes against our European democracies (the Dual Use dilemma) is a pressing issue.

The ongoing conflicts in the Middle East, marked by horrific atrocities against civilians, further complicate this landscape. Additionally, the return of the Trump administration in the USA creates uncertainties for rational, science-based governance in the world’s largest economy, which could have global repercussions for academia.

The current climate for research is undeniably precarious. Europe is lagging in research-based innovation compared to the USA and China, and the long-term outlook appears challenging. However, there are positive developments also. In my role as Vice-President of the ERC, overseeing Physical Sciences and Engineering, I have seen influential reports emerge as we approach the 10th EU Framework Programme for research. The Draghi report on the future of European competitiveness, the Letta report on the European internal market, and the Heitor report on the design of the 10th Framework Program all commend the ERC’s achievements in advancing world-class frontier science. These reports advocate for the extension of the ERC and the restructuring of the European research and innovation landscape, following the ERC’s model of excellence and independent governance. If these recommendations are implemented, they could foster the emergence of more leading research groups in Europe, strengthening our research and innovation base against global competition. This development aligns closely with the strategic goals of Academia Europaea.

In 2024, as in the previous year, our Hub’s activities have focused especially on the Arctic. We successfully hosted a well-attended side event at Arctic Frontiers 2024 conference, titled A New Arctic Energy Mix, featuring leading experts on energy and the green transition. And through our ongoing Rethinking Arctic Collaboration – project we have organised events at key European Arctic conferences, including the Arctic Circle in Berlin in May and at the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavik in October, the latter featuring both a closed roundtable with key stakeholders and an open event; Rethinking Arctic – Scenarios on future Scientific cooperation and diplomacy . We have just finished a workshop at the Dartmouth College’s Institute of Arctic Studies, kicked-off with a public event; Climate Diplomacy on Thin Ice: Navigating Arctic Cooperation & Polar Governance. The outcomes of the workshop will be both a scientific paper and policy briefs on future perspectives of Arctic science cooperation and science diplomacy, pointing towards the upcoming International Polar Year in 2032.

We encourage our members to bring forward suggestions and initiatives for Hub activities, which this year led to our partnership with Professor Jens Braarvig (MAE) in co-organising the Second Biennial Conference of the World Philology Union at Uppsala University from December 4th to 6th, 2024. The central theme will be on historical languages. We look forward to welcoming further membership initiatives in the coming year.

The membership in our regions needs renewal, and I will use this opportunity to encourage all to be active in the ongoing nomination cycle.

I wish all our members a peaceful and relaxing holiday period, in the hope that next year we will see the world coming somewhat back to its senses.

 

Eystein

Climate Diplomacy on Thin Ice: Navigating Arctic Cooperation & Polar Governance

A recording of the panel discussion at Dartmouth College, November 18th 2024,

The geopolitical landscape of the Arctic has shifted dramatically following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which paused over 25 years of traditional Arctic Council-informed and -guided cooperation with Arctic Indigenous Peoples, Arctic Nations, and Observer States. This break in Arctic diplomacy, particularly the cessation of scientific cooperation, raises crucial questions about the future of Arctic collaboration on challenges facing the Arctic and the planet. In light of this, our project seeks to present a series of informed scenarios that may help guide Arctic diplomacy and cooperation as we look toward 2032, a year that will also mark the 5th International Polar Year (IPY-5).

Panelists

Ole Øvretveit, Manager & Researcher of Arctic Science Diplomacy Project, University of Bergen & Academia Europaea Bergen, Norway

Volker Rachold, Head of the German Arctic Office, Alfred Wegener Institute (AWI), Helmholtz Centre for Polar and Marine Research, Germany

Heather Exner-Poirot, Director of Energy, Natural Resources and Environment at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute; Special Advisor to the Business Council of Canada; Research Advisor to the Indigenous Resource Network, Canada

Matthias Kaiser, Professor Emeritus at the Center for the Study of the Sciences and Humanities (SVT) at the University of Bergen; International Science Council Fellow, Norway

Jenny Baeseman, Arctic and polar consultant; former Executive Director of the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research (SCAR); former Director of the Climate and the Cryosphere Project (CliC), USA

Moderated by Melody Brown Burkins, Director, Institute of Arctic Studies, Dickey Center, Dartmouth

The future of Arctic collaboration is at a crossroads. As we look toward 2032 and beyond, it is essential to engage in forward-thinking discussions that go beyond immediate challenges and envision what Arctic diplomacy could become. This was the backdrop for a panel discussion at the Arctic Circle Assembly in Reykjavík, October 2024, available as a recording above.

The event was Co-organized by Academia Europaea Bergen, and moderated by Ole Øvretveit, Manager & Researcher of the Arctic Science Diplomacy Project, University of Bergen & Academia Europaea Bergen. In the panel were Melody Brown Burkins of the Institute of Arctic Studies, Dartmouth College, Lise Øvreås, president of The Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters, Volker Rachold of the German Arctic Office, Alfred Wegener-Institute (AWI), Gunn-Britt Retter, Arctic & Environmental Unit, Saami Council and Henry Burgess, Head of the NERC Arctic Office, British Antarctic Survey; President, International Arctic Science Committee (IASC).

In her introduction, Melody Brown Burkins described how the Arctic Science Diplomacy Project is a group with very diverse perspective, with several group members part of the Arctic Circle Assembly panel. Furthermore, she emphasized how this group will focus less on the immediate future of Arctic Science Diplomacy, but rather look ahead to possible scenarios in the build-up to the 5^th International Polar Year 2032-2033.

In the following conversation, a range of topics relating to the future om Arctic Science Diplomacy are discussed.

Eystein Jansen, Academic Director of Academia Europaea Bergen and ERC Vice-President, delivered a keynote address at the annual conference of Nordic University Rectors in Brussels on September 23, 2024.

The last few weeks have been positive for the ERC and its mission, especially if the signals we’ve received translate into policies and funding decisions. I am particularly thinking of Mario Draghi’s comprehensive report on European competitiveness and the mandate given by Commission President von der Leyen to the newly appointed Commissioner for Research, Ekaterina Zaharieva. I also see encouraging signs from the work of the Heitor Group, which is shaping the next Framework Programme, FP10, set to be released on October 16. These developments offer a strong foundation to reinvigorate our efforts for excellence in research and to enhance the European Research Area.

Eystein Jansen, Academic Director of Academia Europaea Bergen and ERC Vice-President, delivered a keynote address at the annual conference of Nordic University Rectors in Brussels on September 23, 2024.

The last few weeks have been positive for the ERC and its mission, especially if the signals we’ve received translate into policies and funding decisions. I am particularly thinking of Mario Draghi’s comprehensive report on European competitiveness and the mandate given by Commission President von der Leyen to the newly appointed Commissioner for Research, Ekaterina Zaharieva. I also see encouraging signs from the work of the Heitor Group, which is shaping the next Framework Programme, FP10, set to be released on October 16. These developments offer a strong foundation to reinvigorate our efforts for excellence in research and to enhance the European Research Area.

Mario Draghi’s wide-ranging report on European competitiveness, issued two weeks ago, paints a critical picture of Europe’s current ability to harness talent, drive innovation, and translate research into breakthrough technologies. According to Draghi, the EU-funded research system is too top-down and bureaucratic. He advocates for more ERC-style frontier research, led by independent scientific bodies, and calls for greater investment in this area.

The Draghi report highlights: “The European Research Council (ERC) has been crucial to the competitiveness of European science, but many promising proposals remain unfunded due to a lack of financial resources.” The report recommends doubling support for fundamental research through the ERC, significantly increasing the number of grant recipients without compromising the quality of funding.

In fact, the ERC could currently fund 40% more outstanding projects without diminishing quality or excellence—if budget allocations were increased. Furthermore, the purchasing power of our grants needs to be restored to 2009 levels, when they were last adjusted, 15 years ago.

On October 16, Manuel Heitor will release his report on the next Framework Programme. From what I have gathered, it will emphasize many of the same concerns raised in the Draghi report, while providing more detailed advice for FP10. It will stress the importance of bottom-up frontier and breakthrough research, led by independent, scientist-driven bodies, with a stronger focus on Marie Curie Actions.

Both reports praise the ERC, underscoring the importance of organizational independence and leadership by prominent scientists for these initiatives to succeed.

Guarantees of a “fifth freedom”

In her mandate to the new Commissioner for Research, Innovation, and Startups, Commission President von der Leyen emphasized:

• “You will create conditions for researchers and innovators to thrive, focusing on groundbreaking fundamental research and disruptive innovation, especially in strategic fields, and on scientific excellence. You will work to expand the European Innovation Council (EIC) and the European Research Council (ERC).”
• “You will propose a European Research Area Act to guarantee a ‘fifth freedom’—the free movement of researchers, scientific knowledge, and technology. The aim is to reduce the fragmentation of research and anchor innovation and research into the single market.”

These are hopeful messages!

We are living through unprecedented times. Even before the terrible events unfolding in the Middle East and Ukraine, people were already describing the global situation as a “polycrisis”—a scenario in which interconnected crises create compounded, more severe impacts than individual crises alone. Universities, as enduring institutions, face a unique challenge in these times.

Excellence remains a guiding principle. It would be regrettable if the EU Framework Programmes abandoned the “principle of excellence.” Some believe universities should focus only on certain areas, but I personally deplore such narrow thinking. The fact that the ERC supports all academic research areas is a strength worth protecting. Universities are not called “universities” because they are monocultures.

The ERC Scientific Council remains convinced that the ERC’s mission is more relevant than ever. Focusing too much on short-term results risks undermining future innovation, and our brightest talents will not settle for merely imitating others. It’s crucial to remember that the ERC supports not only scientific inquiry but also engineering across several of its panels. To lead in new and emerging areas of science, we must allow our best researchers the freedom to exercise their creativity.

The ERC was founded for this very reason.

ERC-funded researchers have received prestigious awards, including 14 Nobel Prizes, and have contributed to EU goals such as the green and digital transitions. They’ve made breakthroughs in critical technologies like artificial intelligence and quantum information, and 40% of ERC projects have resulted in patents, with around 400 ERC-funded researchers founding startups. ERC projects also lead to a higher rate of patents per euro invested than other targeted elements of the Framework Programmes.

We do care deeply about the impact of the research we fund, and granting researchers the freedom to explore is the best way to maximize that impact. ERC researchers have also trained the next generation of scientists, employing over 100,000 researchers, mainly PhD candidates and postdocs, in their teams.

If we look at the most significant scientific publications (the top 1% most-cited), the EU world share is 18% compared to 23% for China and 27% for the US. When we break this down by scientific field we see that the EU leads in only two of twenty of these fields, namely history and biology.

In most fields either the US or China has a clear lead over the EU, including in enabling and strategic technologies, information and communication technologies, biomedical research and earth and environmental sciences.

And if we look at new and emerging fields, the US and China have an even bigger lead.

Insufficient to meet the full potential

The ERC’s current budget of €2 billion annually is insufficient to meet its full potential. For the ERC to truly have systemic effects throughout Europe, it was estimated in 2003 that its budget would need to be 5% of national research agencies’ budgets—equivalent to €5 billion today. This remains true.

The final message in our statement on FP10 is that the ERC’s independence is critical to its success. The ERC’s ability to determine how it runs its calls and manages grants must be protected. Unfortunately, this independence is under pressure, as streamlined processes threaten to undermine it. We need to ensure the ERC’s autonomy is preserved in FP10.

The selection process is the heart of the ERC’s excellence, and it must remain of the highest quality. We need over 1,000 high-level scientists annually for our evaluation panels, with an additional 6,000 remote reviewers. Our simple, tailored procedures provide the necessary flexibility, and this should not be hampered by standardized processes across the EU’s entire research framework.

Finally, I urge you—Nordic Rectors and university leaders—to support a joint Nordic initiative at the government level, in alignment with the Draghi and Heitor reports. A strong, united Nordic voice will send a powerful signal and help create momentum in the right direction. Europe needs a concerted effort to strengthen its research base, support excellence, and reduce bureaucracy.

Let’s work together to ensure that Europe’s researchers are supported in a way that allows original talent to thrive.

Many thanks for your attention!

 

The Second Biennial Conference of the World Philology Union will take place at Uppsala University from the 4th to 6th December 2024. The president of the WPU, Professor Jens Braarvig (MAE) sees the mission of the WPU and the Uppsala Conference as nothing less than reviving the discipline of Philology. The conference in December is titled “Philology and the narrative heritage” and will take a close look at ancient texts from all over the globe.

– Today, academics who are experts in Philology, see their discipline being scaled down or disappearing in universities. We have set up the World Philology Union organisation to show the importance of the philological disciplines, says Jens Braarvig, a major driving force behind the WPU.

He sees the study of historical languages as fundamental to other disciplines also, such as the study of History. Furthermore, he sees much of the fantasy fiction of today as allegories over the ancient stories. Braarvig is eager to see the discipline of philology revived so that the modern versions of the ancient stories are not the only curation of the ancient texts available to the public.

– If we don’t have any experts capable of reading the historical languages, you do not have access to the sources, Braarvig says.

– Stories are everywhere. There are stories in the discipline of law, there are stories in politics and also in science. Narratives are part of our heritage. This immaterial heritage is as important as our material heritage, and a major reason why we should study the ancient languages at the universities, he adds.

Still, looking at the programme for the Uppsala conference, the field of philology seems very vibrant with experts spanning a variety of traditions, making sure that the conference programme spans the study of texts from all over the world, from the Old Norse stories to the Vedas.

– Yes, the discipline is still attractive to experts, and they span many traditions, allowing both our conference and the WPU to have a truly global perspective. The problem is that experts in philology don’t have very good working conditions at the universities today.

Narrative heritage

– In the WPU, we see philology as a basic tool to access the narrative heritage, and of course this is a heritage we must curate academically. We seek to define and showcase the vital role that our discipline has played, and continues to play, in relation to the narrative heritage in its original languages, in analysing, interpreting and teaching stories preserved from all regions of the world, Braarvig says.

The World Philology Union (WPU) was founded on the 2nd of December 2021 at the Norwegian Academy of Arts and Sciences in Oslo, as an international association which promotes the philological study of written cultural heritage from all regions of the world. It was established in coordination with the Union académique internationale (UAI), the umbrella organization of all academies of science worldwide, and the UNESCO-related Conseil international de la philosophie et des sciences humaines (CIPSH).

The Uppsala Conference (4th to 6th December 2024) is an open conference with no attendance fees.

Academia Europaea Bergen is a co-organizer of the Uppsala Conference.

Read or download the complete programme for The Uppsala Conference here.