Speech Atlanta, USA 17 November 2008
Lars Leijonborg, Minister for Higher Education and Research

Speech at the conference "Internationalization of Research and Graduate Studies and its Implications in the Transatlantic Context"

(Check against delivery)

Dear friends, Mr Ambassador, Ladies and Gentlemen,
We have had an exciting and productive day together and I am convinced that tomorrows work will bring us even further.

A main topic for this conference is research cooperation and I can tell you that between Sweden and United States there is, since many years, a very special cooperation. We hand out the Nobel prizes and the Americans receive them!

The number of American laureates carries a message. United States is the most successful research nation in the world today and has been so for a long time. We Europeans have a lot to learn from the American example and the ability here to create environments for outstanding research, promote talent and support excellence.

But new knowledge grows in many countries. We all represent advanced research nations. We all have reasons to be proud. But at the same time we must be aware of the enormous challenges out there. Climate. Diseases. Poverty. Water shortage. And with new competitors in emerging economies in Asia and Latin America the need to strengthen our competitiveness is constantly growing.

Knowledge is the key factor for solving our problems.

The number of researchers in the US is 1,3 million. Thats an impressive figure. But there are more than five million researchers in the world. That simple fact tells us that we all, even the Americans, have to face and relate to the fact that most of the worlds research is being conducted abroad, outside our own national borders.
That highlights the need for capability to learn from others. Scientific results are almost always achieved in a process of interaction. Science is, in its basic character, international. The people involved must know about and understand findings that are made by others.

Scientists themselves are often excellent at networking and creating international communities. Yesterday, I attended a neuroscience conference in Washington with 35 000 participants!

But we need even more of collaboration. A very important step has been taken in the last few days, when the European commission and NIH, in a common declaration, established reciprocity in the possibilities for researchers to get funding from the other side of the Atlantic.
If the existence of this conference speeded up that agreement it has already been a success, before it even started. But we still have a lot of work to do. There is a lack of funding, there are still legal problems and there are bureaucratic obstacles.

Immigrants built the United States so it is old news here that people from other parts of the world can have an important impact. But I believe that to be especially true when it comes to research. We need foreigners in our labs and research teams. In many cases they make the difference.

But let us be honest. There is also a national dimension of research policy. Here in Atlanta we all talk about promoting researcher mobility. But back home in Europe people often tell me that we need to stop the mass exodus of talented researchers to the United States.

I am convinced that that is the wrong conclusion. We shall not stop anything. But there is cause for alarm if we cannot attract excellent researchers into our own countries.

The correct conclusion is that we must improve our own performance and create such conditions for researchers that they will choose to come to us, come back to us or at least feel hesitant about leaving us in the first place.

As a background to a few recommendations on research policy, I would like to say a few words about Sweden. You may call it bragging, but if you are really committed to new knowledge, you will be interested to learn a little about Swedish achievements in the scientific field. For an American audience I can justify this more nationalistic part of my speech with the fact that Sweden was somewhat slandered in the recent presidential campaign.

That was when Barack Obama said he was in favor of progressive taxes. Some people in the opposite camp called him a socialist and claimed that he wanted to turn the US into a country like Sweden. Obama sent out Joe Biden to assure the American public that he was absolutely not inspired by the Swedish model. After that Obama won the election.

I would like to point out that Sweden does not have a socialist government and we no longer have the highest taxes in the world.

OK, so we have higher taxes than most other countries, but it may be of some interest how we use the tax revenue we collect. For example, we invest heavily in research. Sweden is one of the countries in the world that allocates the most public resources into R&D. And that tradition goes back in time. We have a long scientific history. Let me give you a few examples.

Earlier this year, I attended a ceremony where Mr. Bill Gates received an honorary doctorate from the Karolinska institute in Stockholm. The ceremony took place in a hall called Berzelius Hall. Berzelius was a Swedish scientist in the 18th century. I suppose most of you never have heard the name and most Swedes dont know much about him either. But Berzelius happens to be the man who discovered silicon. Silicon is used in semi-conductors in almost all computers in the world.
Think about this: would there have been a Silicon Valley without Berzelius? And what would Bill Gates have been without computers?
On the other hand, what use would we have for silicon if the semiconductor industry hadnt blossomed in Silicon Valley?
If I may continue this name-dropping I also met Al Gore, the former vice president, when he received his Nobel price last December. He pointed out that a Swede, professor Svante Arrhenius, was the man who first predicted and calculated the Greenhouse effect. He did it in 1896, with pen and paper, without any computer power. To give you the full story, Arrhenius thought that the Greenhouse effect was great news, because it would save us from a new ice age. But that doesnt change the fact that he produced new, important knowledge. And fortunately, these days, we have Al Gore to give us the bad news.
Sweden also has a proud history in the life sciences. This year, 50 years have passed since the first pacemaker was operated into a human being. It happened in Sweden. Sweden is also where the artificial kidney was invented. And AstraZenecas´s blockbuster drug against ulcers, Losec or Prilosec as it is called in the US, is a good example of innovation that took place in collaboration between industry and academia.
This ends the bragging part. The reason why I mentioned these examples is mainly to illustrate how large and sustainable research investments give results, both in terms of better quality of life for a lot of people and a successful industry.

That leads me to my first policy recommendation. Public investment in research and development needs to increase. In times of globalization knowledge is the most important factor of production. Yes, raw material, oil, capital and labor are also important factors but several studies show that knowledge is even more significant.

In my vision for the coming years, the EU has reviewed its budget priorities. Sweden calls for a shift in the budget from the past to the future. And for the future, R&D investment gives more added value than agricultural subsidies.

My second point, which is perhaps even more important, is about how we allocate these funds. Research investment needs to be more focused on research of the very highest quality. This is especially valid in the European context, where resources are sometimes still allocated without peer review or competition.

My third point is that we must promote international research cooperation.
Together with my colleagues from France and the Czech Republic, Valerie Pecresse and Ondrej Liska we have founded a trio of three consecutive EU presidencies dedicated to making European Research Policy a competitive advantage and a real force for the Union. One of our most important goals is to facilitate scientific co-operation and joint research programming.
I think that agenda also applies to the context of transatlantic cooperation. Our ability to strengthen each other through cooperation will be crucial to our competitiveness in the future.

Let me conclude: At this juncture in history, in the midst of a financial crisis, we must remain far-sighted. I look around me and I think the opportunities for cooperation have never been greater. Let all of us who are responsible for national research policy live up to that responsibility to make reality of those opportunities. To mismanage research policy in our time would be a historical mistake. We must rise above nationalism and protectionism in this time of crisis. And if we manage, as we sometimes do, to gather our political resolve in these issues, I am convinced that the future is bright at the horizon.

Thank you, ladies and gentlemen!