Top Headlines

Feeds

Minister Aasland Pushes Politically Guided Research Agenda While Institutes Call for System Review

Updated (3 articles)

Government Emphasizes State‑Set Research Priorities Minister Kristin Aasland told Dagsnytt 18 that breakthroughs such as mRNA vaccines stem from clearly defined problems, skilled teams, and allocated time, not isolated genius, and that publicly funded research should reflect societal expectations [1]. She recalled the post‑World‑War II split between basic institutes (FFI, IFE, SINTEF) and university science, then noted the 1994 reform that merged funding criteria under the Research Council, evaluating excellence, impact, and implementation [1]. Current incentive structures, she said, pit universities seeking industry contracts against applied institutes chasing academic prestige, creating research that may miss business relevance [1].

Dam Foundation Shifts Funding to Pre‑Registered Study Designs The Dam Foundation’s board approved a dedicated Registered Reports program on 9 February, allocating new funds only to projects whose methods are peer‑reviewed before data collection [2]. The article argues that massive waste arises from poorly designed studies that never publish or cannot be replicated, and that traditional peer review and journal prestige fail to guarantee credibility [2]. By moving evaluation from results to design, the foundation adopts a “show me” principle, aligning with the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment’s push to replace journal‑based metrics with transparent quality indicators [2].

NINA Director Highlights Fragmented Funding Landscape Norunn S. Myklebust, director of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, warned that the current institute system is chaotic, forcing NINA to chase project grants because less than 10 % of its budget comes from statutory core funding [3]. She described an uneven playing field where state‑run institutes receive direct assignments while private institutes must secure all funding on the open market, undermining collaboration on cross‑sector challenges like climate and biodiversity [3]. Myklebust called for joint institute‑university calls from the Research Council and an independent ministry‑commissioned review of the division of labour between public and private bodies [3].

Policy Proposals Diverge on Need for Systemic Review Aasland’s ministry rejected the call for a “system report” to clarify the roles of universities and applied institutes, arguing none is needed [1]. In contrast, Myklebust explicitly demanded an independent analysis of the competitive landscape and a restructuring of funding mechanisms [3]. Both articles agree that the existing framework creates tension between basic and applied research, but they differ on whether a formal review should be initiated to resolve the conflict.

Sources

Timeline

Post‑World War II (late 1940s) – Norway separates basic and applied research, creating institutes such as FFI, IFE and SINTEF to focus on applied work while universities pursue fundamental science [1].

1994 – Reforms merge funding criteria for basic and applied institutes; the Research Council (Forskningsrådet) assumes core funding and evaluates institutes on excellence, impact and implementation rather than direct applicability [1].

Feb 9, 2026 – The Dam Foundation’s board adopts a dedicated program to fund only projects using the registered‑report format, shifting evaluation to study design and methodological quality before data collection [2].

Feb 18, 2026 – NINA Director Norunn S. Myklebust warns that the current institute policy “has turned into a hard‑fought competition,” fragmenting ministries and directorates and undermining collaboration on climate and biodiversity challenges [3].

Feb 18, 2026 – Myklebust notes that less than 10 % of NINA’s core budget comes from statutory allocation, forcing the institute to chase project grants and driving hourly costs up to levels comparable to a dental practice [3].

Feb 18, 2026 – The Norwegian Polar Institute becomes a full member of the European Polar Board, giving it a standalone voice in Europe’s key polar‑research coordination body [3].

Feb 18, 2026 – NTNU launches the Secure Anti‑Fraud Excellence Center (SAFE) with NOK 50 million in five‑year funding, establishing a national hub for research on digital financial fraud and biometric security [3].

Feb 23, 2026 – Minister Aasland, in a Dagsnytt 18 interview, rejects the “lone‑genius” myth, stating that breakthroughs such as mRNA vaccines result from defined problems, skilled researchers and allocated time, not isolated brilliance [1].

Feb 23, 2026 – Aasland argues that society‑funded research should be steered by public expectations, saying the state that pays for research is entitled to “look at the cards” and set research agendas, emphasizing trust [1].

Feb 23, 2026 – Current incentives create tension between academia and industry, as universities chase external industry funding while applied institutes pursue academic prestige, leading to research that may be less relevant to business needs [1].

Feb 23, 2026 – The ministry declines to commission a “system report” to clarify the roles of universities and applied institutes, leaving unresolved how basic and applied goals should be balanced [1].

2026 (ongoing) – The Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA) pushes broader reform to replace journal‑based metrics with better assessment practices, aligning with the Dam Foundation’s “show me, not trust me” funding principle [2].

Future (planned) – Myklebust calls for the Research Council to issue joint institute‑university calls and for the Ministry of Knowledge to commission an independent analysis of the division of labour and competition between public and private research bodies [3].

External resources (7 links)