Funding Competition Has Turned Into a Battlefield Norunn S. Myklebust, director of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA) since 2007, says the current institute policy has become a “hard‑fought” and uneven competition that hampers needed collaboration among research institutes[1]. She describes the environment as a battlefield where institutes vie for scarce project contracts rather than cooperate on long‑term scientific goals. The director warns that this antagonistic climate threatens the quality and relevance of Norway’s public research output[1].

Core State Funding Shrinks to About Ten Percent The statutory core grant to NINA has fallen to roughly 10 % of its budget, forcing the institute to rely heavily on external project contracts to sustain operations[1]. This drastic reduction undermines NINA’s long‑term competence‑building mission and limits its capacity to undertake foundational research. Myklebust stresses that without a stable core, the institute cannot guarantee continuity in expertise development[1].

Fragmented Policy Across Ministries Undermines Coordination Multiple ministries and directorates each operate with their own institute policies, creating a “messy” environment that impedes coordinated research efforts[1]. The lack of a unified framework leads to contradictory procurement rules, where genuine research tasks are mislabeled as consultancy contracts, restricting dialogue between buyers and researchers[1]. This policy fragmentation contributes to inefficiencies and discourages cross‑institutional partnerships[1].

SFI Programme Prioritizes Invention Over Market‑Ready Innovation recent analysis of Norway’s Strategic Research Programme for Innovation (SFI) argues that the system is rigged for invensjon—technical solutions—rather than innovasjon, which requires economic value creation and market adaptation[2]. The authors identify the transition from research to commercialization as the primary bottleneck, noting that value only materialises when solutions are adopted, scaled, and become profitable[2]. Consequently, many SFI projects stall at the pilot stage without delivering measurable productivity gains[2].

NTNU and Sintef Dominate SFI Centres While AI Funding Stays Invention‑Focused Review of SFI I–V grants shows that NTNU and Sintef host roughly 40 % of centres and partner in about half of the remaining projects, reflecting a concentration of research capacity[2]. Large AI initiatives under SFI primarily target idea generation, leaving commercialization under‑invested and preventing new knowledge from “selling itself”[2]. This concentration raises concerns about equitable distribution of resources and the breadth of innovation across Norway’s research landscape[2].

Proposed Reforms Call for Collaborative Calls and Independent Review Myklebust urges the Ministry of Education and Research to commission an independent sector analysis and to issue funding calls that explicitly require cooperation between institutes and universities[1]. Parallelly, SFI authors propose a three‑point reform: separate invention and innovation tracks, evaluate innovation by scaling metrics such as export markets, and require partners to commit resources for real implementation[2]. Both sets of recommendations aim to shift Norway’s research ecosystem from isolated competition toward coordinated, market‑oriented outcomes[1][2].