 Okay, I warm welcome everyone to this session on bridging science and policy making within the 2030 agenda. The session is organized by Sweden, the Swedish Development Researchers Network and Ministry for Foreign Affairs and myself, Janet Vahemecki and Måns Fellesen are moderating the session. And we have a very nice audience here and I would very much welcome you to interact with us on this topic and a very prominent panel that we will present later. So why this topic? It's science-based decision making is highlighted as very important in both the 2030 agenda and financing for development agenda, Addis Arbeba Action Agenda. It's argued that science and research are needed for innovation but also for helping us to understand why something succeeds or something does not succeed and what happens in implementation of different policies. Therefore, both in the international agreements as well as in the Swedish policy platform for development it is said that Sweden should build broad engagements with academia, research institutes and education institutes and that these institutions should possess knowledge of complex context that links partly explain the varying causes of poverty and the form it takes. So the commitments both stress the importance of possessing and development knowledge but also increasing partnerships and interaction with academia. For Sweden these questions have been a basis for our work. We are a network trying to connect both researchers in between each other and researchers with policy makers. And we currently have around 800 researchers connected to the network and around 200 registered members. We are led by a steering committee consisting of 12 institutional support members and have a secretariat at SCI. So as a basis for this dialogue and for Sweden we have conducted two studies. One was a study where we did a survey on the development research community a survey that went out to the 578 practitioners of researchers who responded to the survey and another one that went out to the policymaking community on how they perceive research. And both of these studies address similar findings. A finding is that neither the research community nor the policymaking community knows what is like topical within the other. So researchers don't know too much about what's happening in the policy framework and policymakers don't know too much about what's current in research. In the research study researchers place increased interaction with the policymaker community as their priority number one. Whilst the policymakers 89% of them respond that they perceive research as very important 72% say that they don't actually have time to keep up with research and interact with the research community and read research. And majority of them also say that they don't know where to find Swedish research or research and how to interact with the researchers. So both communities say that they engage too little with each other and they wish to be more connected to each other. A topic that also discussed in both of the studies is then that how does actually research innovation happen where and how does it actually take place and arise. And a clear response from both is that co-creation is needed that we need to be very engaged with each other. The researchers need to be engaged in the policymaking process very early and policymakers need to be open about the policy problems that are there and that's how innovation actually happens and also knowledge of each other's communities increases. However both studies both that there are lots of bottlenecks and hinders the current financing rules, procurement rules and incentive systems in both of communities are hindering this type of co-creation. And this is of course something we want to raise here that how can we do more about that and how can we increase the interaction between these two communities. So motivation from MFA side for this seminar. Yes, some motivation. Thank you Janet. I think you have set very much the scene, the frame for the discussion today just from the policy side I would like to emphasize the importance of including research in the work of the 23rd agenda and that is about action agenda as well which is very much the implemented means of implementation agenda. Particularly looking at the last agenda which is the sort of means of implementation. We have a separate action area in that that talks about research and innovation. So it's very much a central component in the work on the 2030 agenda. We know also later this afternoon that will be a separate seminar for the launch of a new research strategy within the research corporation. I guess most of you have been around for a while. You know that research is a very long tradition. Support to research is a very long tradition within development aid. And this is because I believe that the Swedish government believes in research as part of societal development. This is not just about producing research. It's also to try to build research capacity and this is very much the objective of this new strategy also for development countries to be able to identify and carry out research be part of the international research community. This is very much also of course the main argument for the Swedish support to research in Sweden. So it's very much based on the same rationale. We know that we have a lot of research going on at the Swedish universities. A large proportion of this research has direct bearing on the work on the 2030 agenda. So but it's not just about producing research. We also need to to some extent make use of this research. So the interaction between the research side and the policy side is central. This is why and this is the rationale why we are organizing this seminar this panel today to discuss the interaction between research and the work on the 2030 agenda. We will circulate around questions of how is the situation now. What are the main challenges of barriers that we encounter in this interaction but maybe importantly also discuss with the panel and also in interaction with you the audience on what is the way forward. How can we increase the interaction of research into policy making? What do we need to do? So for this without further ado I think we will enter into the panel discussion and we have prepared the panelists with a few questions. First with the audience, sorry. I'm jumping ahead the program here. So we have a few questions for the audience first. I first want to know who you are here and what you think of these questions by just raising your hands. Just checking who is from who are researchers research community here. Good, quite many majority perhaps and who is representing the policy community here. Anything else? Third option. Yeah, you are in between. Yeah, good. Great. So what do you think? It is important to bridge research and policy making in the implementation of 2030 agenda. Raise your hand if you think it is important. Very good. Almost everyone at least. Good. Next one. Research is well integrated into Swedish development policy. Like two or three hands. Okay, good. There we have some questions to discuss then. Then for the researchers, as the researchers I know how to contribute with my findings to Swedish policy. One. Okay, rest of you don't know. Now it's a very similar finding in our study that the researchers say that they don't actually know who are the policy makers. So it's very good to know that. Okay, as a practitioner then, those who are practitioners, I know how to access relevant research to feed into my work. Two. Okay, good. Three, great. Then we know a bit about how you think of it and I hope we can discuss more. Now to the panel. Sorry for jumping ahead. This was some food for thought and for the panel also to see the response on these questions. But I will start by presenting the panel that we have here today to discuss this topic. We have Thomas M. Christ, chair of CEDA scientific advisory board. Welcome. Ingrid Öhrborn, chair of committee for development research at the Swedish Research Council. Anders Haagfeldt, vice chancellor at the Psalm University. Olle Peter Uttersen, president av Karolinska Institut. And Gabriel Bixram, government national coordinator for agenda 2030. So very welcome to you all. I will start on sort of a question that addresses the situation. And I think I will pass this one to the policy side, which means Gabriel in the first place. But maybe also for the vice chancellors to reflect on this question as well. The question follows, how are you at your institute organization integrating science into policymaking on the 2030 agenda? Could you provide some concrete example of successful project programs? Yes, well, first of all, thank you for having me at this eminent panel. I would say that for me, I am actually formally I'm working as an inquiry, independent from the government office. And in that capacity, me and my team has focused quite a lot on research and how to start a dialogue with the research community but also how could we promote projects that take on the very difficult question on how to speed up the transformation process in society. So I have actually two examples of what we are doing currently. And the first one is that we are working with Stockholm Environment Institute, who has developed a model that they call SDG synergies. I'm sure that many people in here know about this model, but it has primarily been directed towards countries and national governments. Because the aim of the model is to see how few of the SDGs do you need to work with in order to reach as many of the SDGs as possible. But we have seen that this is a demand also for the municipalities in Sweden. They also have this difficulty. And now we have worked with five municipalities and we have linked them to SEI and they have developed this model at a local level with quite a high degree of success. And the other thing that you actually addressed in your introduction is about how do you create policy? And I think that one of the problems is that the government office and the parliament still believes that policy is formed as it is in the theoretical model. You have a problem and then you have all these steps and then you have a proposition and then you change reality. But everyone here probably knows that this is not the case. That you have all these steps and you mix them depending on which problem that you are facing and which one that is addressing the problem. So we are trying to work well realize an idea that has been discussed quite for a long time about policy labs. A policy lab where you could actually put all the actors around the same table and identify problems and identify solutions and then you identify on which political level they should be implemented and addressed. And we are doing this around the very difficult question of promotion and prevention. This is two examples of what we are doing at the moment. I think you addressed as well. Okay let's first say on a very general note that I think this is exactly what we need to do to bring science and policymaking together. These events, this type of event is essential. I think Ruder Kipling said that this is east and west is west and never the twain shall meet. I think he thought about this very question when he wrote this long time back. So this is really key. And I must say on a personal note that the essence, the importance of this issue is very close to my heart. As some of you know I was working as a chair of Lancet commission some years back in time. And what we saw quite clearly is exactly this, the need for a better integration between policy and science. The topic of this Lancet commission was exactly the same as the topic we are discussing today. Inequities, how to deal with inequities in a long term perspective. So congratulations to Global Life for hosting this particular event. It's a very seminal and important event. So how do we proceed from this very overarching principle. Well, at KI we are trying our best but we have to be a bit humble. It's an uphill struggle. And one thing that really represents a challenge is the difference when it comes to timelines. We are talking about the difficulties of having time zones in science because we have to deal with scientists in all the parts of the world. But this is nothing compared with the different timelines that we have to get attentive to when it comes to science and politics. I mean we as scientists we have the privilege to be long termists that's a new word to adhere to long termism. I mean we have the possibility of working with a very long time horizon. But in every encounter with politics of course you realize that this is a privilege that is not shared by the politicians that have to work on the shorter timeline. I think this is one of the major obstacles for getting science into politics and but at KI one of the things we are trying to implement is a new mode I would say a cooperation with other countries and not in this case South Sahara and Africa. We have as many of you perhaps know we have established a new center the center of excellence for sustainable health where the term sustainable health is doing exactly this pointing to the long termism the need to have a long time horizon for everything we do and in this particular project involving not least Uganda and Macarete University we are trying to look beyond the first publication to see how can we go one step further don't leave the research project when the first publication is out but to see how the results can finally be implemented in new policies. So one term that I would like to see being in place but I don't see that so many respond positively to this but well repetition is an arch implementation red in this level that when we engage in a research project we should from the very beginning ponder what will it take to implement these results into new policies and of course implementation research is key in this particular issue when it comes to this particular issue I have some concrete projects that I would like to mention but now I spend too much of your time and perhaps my time so I leave it for the next intervention. Thanks and it's a very important question of course and I think about it it's at different levels one level is what do we do as much specific concrete as possible one sort of low hanging fruit in a way is to work on our with ourself our campuses, our buildings and there I do see a lot of things happening with the collaboration with the academic schools for example how do we think about energy production or energy savings in the buildings and there is a lot of actions going on there biodiversity on our campuses and also to think about production and consuming how do we buy things and so on so that's very concrete I would say with our administration in a sense and the planning building division and then I think about what are we doing in a more research educational aspect and I do here when I go and meet research centers or departments that this is our research and I remember for example the pharmaceutical department developing new drugs and so on and they immediately when I say this is our sort of goals and targets and this how we link it to this SDGs and so on so that's very interesting to see and I see that quite often actually on more futuristic and then we have education and long term sustainable platform run by students for many many years called CMOS I think that's a very interesting platform in terms of more coming up things we are at the moment planning for let's say a strong initiative on bringing together sustainable development questions of course you realize when you become Vice Chancellor that it's a lot of things going on but can we coordinate this and make it powerful can we make it stronger and that's what we are looking into and I would like to see quite powerful support from Uppsala University I have when I sort of put the groups together to work with it I had a very loose let's say Direktiv as we say in Swedish make something different just is probably what I said something like that what could be a bit unique with Uppsala in working with these issues and I think one thing which we discuss here is the conflicts of goals you have different goals and then you have to how do you meet them I think that almost requires research in itself how do you work with complex issues where you have so many conflicting goals and how do you sort of create something from there I think that's interesting another support we are looking into is to work with Africa as a continent we have also there several initiatives I see back over from international science programs who have done this for 60 years and others also work with that and can we coordinate this effort a bit and create something interesting in Uppsala on Africa as a continent to collaborate with and so on I see this is very exciting to come up I think also when we discuss co-create, working with policy and politicians industry we are a little bit stuck in our boxes in a way we discuss it over lunch we talk from the university a lot of our autonomy we should not let anyone tell us what to do the politicians are things the same we should do this and sort of I think we have to lose a little bit and also be humbled that we also have to engage and include others when we discuss we can't just do research for five years I think now we know everything now we can tell the politicians what they should decide and the politician has maybe two days to discuss this so we have to be part of this together also when we build up what we are doing and implement it's not only to create but also to implement and I think we need long term aspects this takes time to develop trust, collaboration not the least when we are collaborating with other countries and our institute so I would think that that one thing we need to ask for when we ask for funding and so on is that think about this this takes time it's not only three years project from VR or from SIDA or what we think we have to build up things in long time thank you, stop there thank you so much anyone from the panel that would like to supplement or add something to the discussion from SIDA or I think I heard some very interesting ideas coming up here and just some reflections from I'm representing the research community and the SIDA scientific advisory board so the word co-creation came up and I think it's really a key concept when talking about bridging science and policy but I think three very important parts of co-creation one is the co-design where you together identify what is the problem and how are you going to solve that then you have the process of co-production where you together interpret results and produce the knowledge needed but the third part I think is crucially important and has been overlooked and that is the co-implementation implementation has been mentioned but I think we still lack very much clear incentives for research community to engage in implementation processes, particularly long term even though we know they are so important it's a very important learning part of what succeeded what failed and so I think that's where we have a mutual interest among policy maker practitioners and if we have the incentives for the research community to engage I think a very fruitful process so when we talk about co-creation and importance I think we should reflect on these three dimensions and the last one still we need to push much harder for and develop incentive structures for Ja, and I can add a little bit to this with some of the experiences and work we are doing in the Swedish Research Council just now so looking at it from the researchers perspective I think to start I mean projects of three years but I mean your career scientists are usually many more years to keep learning and sort of adding on from one project to another and build groups and so on so what we have been doing now I mean is to work further on the relevance if you have applied for money from the research council you know that you need to say if this is relevant for development for poverty elevation eradication and sustainable development but we have taken it much further to be much more concrete so think when you plan your project how will this contribute and even think about so what will be the pathways to impact for this project so this is the first year I mean now when we asked scientists to do that in their applications and we are looking forward to see I mean some of you might have read the applications I have not so how did they manage because if we think about this from the beginning and it's graded with as many grades and all other criteria science quality out of the evaluation so I think that will really lead to a learning among the scientists to start to think another way which we haven't managed because it requires more funding but which I have experience from other bigger projects is to actually bring on board both the communication people and policy institutions in the research team from the beginning I mean in the beginning they might have a low profile or high in the design it depends a little bit on but very soon when they see we work for example with EGAD in the Horn of Africa in the first year they were only like say something about sites but then after a year and a half when we met again and they said okay you are actually doing something concrete examples and now they approach us so we easily or our research partners in Kenya, Uganda very early before any publications but just see things on the ground so I think if we manage to get at least some calls big enough to actually bring in policy actors and communications people from the beginning because we are not always that good in communicating so without them maybe EGAD wouldn't have understood how they could benefit from the researchers after one year so that just some examples how to work Thank you very much just if you can very short reflect upon what you think are the main barriers for the intro, you have been touching on this but if you can just put some words on each of you what are the main barriers now or challenges that are now hindering the interaction between science and policymaking specifically in relation to the agenda Maybe you can start Yes, so one thing I think scientists were not really trained at thinking about sort of the learned term effects because we have become so tactical and strategic in getting new research grants and new PhD students in so we need to have incentives for different behavior I think and of course the leaders of the universities can sort of help to see how to develop that I also think it is to to be able to have a bigger funding for the different projects and also bring in components of communications and other things from the beginning so I think the short term thinking even if you talk about long term and what did you call it scientists are living in a three year cycle word and I think that is hindering Shall I continue I agree with what you said I think overall barriers are linked to incentive structures or lack of incentives both in the academic community and policy community so for example you would need much more engagement from policy and practice in the academic part in sort of reviewing papers in sort of the academic publication process but there are no incentives for someone in policy and practice too of a day of reviewing a paper and you get no reward so there is a need for rethinking how we could reward people from policy and practice in sort of increasing the quality of the academic part and therefore in the academic community we need a new incentives as I said before for participating in the implementation process particularly in the long term I think that is very crucial and we need to think hard Ja, I also agree on the long term as we discussed and I think a little bit more on the sort of different boxes we are using I think the government in a way says well we say that here is the amount of money we send it to let's say the research council to distribute it or make calls and the funding agency says when we make a call and then researchers apply and then we don't talk with each other and we shouldn't talk with each other and there also is I think we need to rethink that a little bit and we say sometimes when we do that we call it lobbying and that's a negative word but it doesn't need to be that if we say co-creation is a positive word and I've seen also European networks which has much more lobbying in a positive way and I think we can learn from that also in Sweden actually so to be a little bit more open and humble to say that we can actually learn from each other and create something together and be on the same journey in a sense and I don't know kind of new hardip soon in a way could be interesting in politics and science for example I would like to underline something that Thomas said or the point you we are making incentives especially in politics nowadays where science is not on the very top of the political agenda to say the least but also in the research community I would think that this is quite hard to make a career of getting involved in policy and getting involved in policy requires you to make compromises and making compromises with your own research I could imagine not that easy so co-creation you and many other point too I think that is really the way forward and trying to find organized ways of scientists to be employed in municipalities in government and so on and politicians too I think that is really harder to get out the way around to get the scientists in government and in municipalities and regions is the easy part I think it was a very interesting thing to hear that we as scientists we have a shorter term in our thinking and planning than the funding bodies it's an interesting discussion the thing is no scientist is an island that's the essence it's true of course that an individual scientist might have a short term ambition for his her own career development but the point is that every scientist is part of a research community and the essence is that this research community in this case for example of a center for sustainable health if this scientific community has a long term vision this will be reflected in the research carried out by the individual scientist so there is a huge difference between what is the time perspective of an individual scientist and what should be the time perspective the time horizon for the community of which this scientist is a part so I think that the scientific community has an obligation duty I think to ensure that scientist is part of a community with this long term vision that in fact ends hopefully in the implementation of research into better policies as you know there have been people saying that you can stop all research and just focus on implementation and that will be good enough for afrika for example for 5, 10 years to come I mean there is a tremendous lag when it comes to the implementation of new results for example one thing that came up just a few days ago is the lag when it comes to the implementation of knowledge on schistosomiasis in South Saharan Africa that's just one example and there are many many others one obstacle that I see very well is in fact and we have touched upon this is that we should this is something we should be self critical of we as a scientific community should be even more willing than we are today to get out of our comfort zones and to work on an interdisciplinary level I mean there are some very good examples that came up in an earlier panel today for example I mean the Ebola epidemic in afrika is just one example I mean how can you deal with such a disease without knowing the tradition of the community in which Ebola arises that's just one example there are many other examples which certainly require not only that we respond to the local needs but that we understand the local possibilities when it comes to implementation so there is a need also in Sweden I think to increase substantially the interdisciplinary interdisciplinary effort today I was alluding to the possibility of increasing over ambitions to form a sort of parallel to Davos to really have a global forum for discussing interdisciplinary when it comes to these very tricky and difficult questions and I don't think I'm naive I think there is a way to really increase over ambitions when it comes to this but one final thing an obstacle we should not only think across disciplines I mean we have to think along the entire sort of value chain when it comes to the way from education to research to implementation we have to ensure that we can engage the global players what happened now in South Africa they came up with production facilities for vaccines and they saw that the market mechanisms were not in place to sustain the production of new vaccines in South Africa that means that we have to engage the world bank or whatever the global players that need to be in place so that we have the entire value chain intact we are far from doing this and that means that many projects even driven from Sweden they fail because we don't engage the entire sets of actors that need to be in place to see research being implemented thank you thank you so much very interesting reflections there seem to be a consensus in the panel around the problem of shell at the barriers and so on we know also at least when talking from the policy side that we have a lot of different policy processes not least within development aid all the country strategies and so on that we are producing regularly we know that we are talking very much about the need to engage with the research community and to have so called science based knowledge into the process we also know that the scientific community is pretty absent in these different processes when we have start up meetings the last question is very much going to more hands on the situation we know the relevance we know also the barriers and the challenges concrete examples of what can we do what can we do to increase the interaction between policy and science but also from the policy side I give the floor to Ingrid to start again if you want yes, of course it's not exactly easy to say what can we do and I also know scientists actually try to engage for example the country programs where they were quite uninterested in research because that was in another strategy so maybe you also need to think about how these different government strategies relate and because people really should know this is our money and this is your money don't try to push research into the agenda for this and that country because it should be paid by another box so I think also people have tried but not so successful a year or so ago but of course we should not give up but I would also like to see it from another direction I mean in the new strategy and it really says that we are going to work on equal terms with our collaborators in the least developed or some middle low and middle income countries and I think that also needs to be the point of departure for the policy because if we just see it from the Swedish perspective and it is about the development policies and so on I don't think we get anywhere so most of the things I've learnt in interdisciplinary work in working like from science to innovation policy and practice it's very much been both in international research organizations and in collaboration with national partners in the least developed or middle income countries so I would like, I think if we take it from there we can bring scientists on board being very engaged in those different national and regional collaborations and like not only think about the Swedish side because I think we are more stuck on the Swedish side than we actually are in the development on the ground Thank you so well I've been thinking a lot about what to actually to do to promote more interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary research and what you could actually do to have more success and I think I come to the conclusion that it's a question about mindset to a large extent and maybe by using what I call framed creativity it could be a way forward and what I mean by framed creativity is actually you define sort of the game plan but then you let actors be very creative within that within that frame and I could give you one example we in the scientific advisor board are discussing as part of perhaps what could be part of to operationalize the new strategy which you will hear more about this afternoon the concept of one health and I think all of you might agree that it's a very exciting concept that would create a mindset for a framed creativity because it sort of emphasize how you link planetary health with human health anything in between so it would include natural science, technology but social science, economy human science and medicine of course but in a new way where you actually emphasize the linkage between planetary health as you understand it and human health and how you're going to go to maintain that health in the long term so I think that's an example how you could create something that will perhaps induce more collaboration among scientists that haven't collaborated and also be very policy relevant Thank you We have in Uppsala a very interesting center called Cedricus and that is dealing with interdisciplinary which we all agree is very important but this is not on a specific topic but how to do interdisciplinary research and support that and I find that very interesting as a topic and it's been very successful and in support to create interdisciplinary center for various things but also looking into research and when I mentioned that to directors of funding agencies or politicians, people get quite excited and interested, what is this so I think there is for example a chance to invite politicians to start to discuss we are handling complex issues, how do we actually do it, well it's a topical interdisciplinary but it's also intersectoral effort we need to do and I think that could be a starting point to also invite politicians to do that there is another discussion going on in the country on the enormous need of competencies in new technologies, for example electric cars I need 10,000 new engineers to handle batteries, the combustion engineers are old and it's a complete transformation of the need of new engineers, how do we support as a country that many engineers and you can go through the pharmaceutical industry and others and sustainable development of course and there is a discussion actually going on between researchers and our ministry for example how do we handle such we can't handle that alone completely and what is nice also not only one university can handle so many students so it has to be a national effort at many levels so there are examples coming up I think there are a couple of things that we can do and first of all we have a tendency to focus at the national level and you equalize policy with national politics, I think that we should start with the local level municipalities we have many small municipalities not only in Sweden but around the world and they lack knowledge and they lack many times resources and for them to have access to the latest research science is tremendously important it could make the difference for them when it comes to how to use the resources wiseful and to in so many areas so focusing on the local level should be key the next thing is that we have many fields disciplinärer where we do a lot of research and then we don't take care of what we have found and you were talking about implementation and this is of course especially true when it comes to promotion prevention in health where we do a lot of research and then we have no national body that will take care of this research and that will see to it that it is updated and so on and we have the same situation in many other fields and this is a waste of money and the third thing is that if we should focus at the local level and if we will do more inventions at the local level we have a problem that we are quite bad at sharing and spreading good examples around the country and we are in this country at least we are also not that very good at importing good policy solutions from other countries we are more focusing on exporting policy solutions and I think that we really need to do something about it because it won't work in a world that is facing such huge challenges thank you Yes, so the question is what can we do to increase this interaction I must say I was shocked when when you mentioned the result of your survey here if I understand correctly you said that policy makers 72% said that there is no time to keep up with research was that correct think about it what this means this is really serious business and it tells us that we have to improve my suggestion is very simple and that is that this should not be a singular event we should establish in Sweden a multi stakeholder platform where we discuss these issues but there is one stakeholder that is I think missing here and that is a stakeholder that often falls into disresput when we discuss these matters but industry has to be brought along I didn't see a single representative from the industry is that true not a single one but look at what happened during the pandemic there are part of the problem but there must also be part of the solution a multi stakeholder platform it can be established tomorrow but it has to engage of course the local community aspects but also as I said the global aspects so this multi stakeholder platform must invite and challenge for example those that are responsible for establishing functioning markets in law registrar settings we have to invite the world bank we have to invite the global governance system I mean we can do that tomorrow and this could be the beginning there is one thing one additional thing which I think is very very important and this is a touch of self criticism and I think over funding bodies alluded to this issue we as universities scientists and I include myself we are so concerned about our status in society with reference to what we are good at but perhaps we should ask ourselves what are we good for and we can do that without encroaching on academic freedom because it's part of the third task of the universities ask not only what you are good at but what you are good for and then we will see that we can make progress and establish also a prior contacts with policy makers without fearing losing out on academic freedom there is no automatic contrast between the two thank you so thank you very much time is running maybe we should just give the panel round of applause for their contributions thank you hand over to Jant yes, we will continue of course with you and want to know any ideas that have come, we have a couple of minutes any ideas from you or questions to the panel please yes I've heard a lot about getting research into policy and practice but I was really wondering can research questions come out of policy and practice and how let's take a couple more Claes, please kring or the real world and there we need other incentives both for co-creation and for using research for societal development let's take one more hi my name is Kaylin I'm a student here at Upsill University and I was sharing your smile when you said you seemed to have a discrepancy in timelines and opinion on that timeline so I just wanted to ask the question again to the panel is the solution or one of the solutions faster research because there seems again to be a discrepancy in who has the short term goals and who has the long term goals so I just wanted to ask that question back to the panel good thanks and I think one Lisa there as well thank you I'm Lisa Ramon from SIDA I think it's great when policy and research meets like this we need to do that much more collaborate but I would also like to stress that it's very important and the problem for the bureaucracy to be literate research literate to actually understand the body of knowledge out there and of course the research community can help in enlarging that given that the incentives are there from both parties and also very important in countries low income countries actually are the object for this type of research and that there are research literacy there among research decision makers and that's where Swedish universities can also be of assistance in order to build that sort of capacity in these communities as well as important as our internal dialogue and the last one there thank you so much for the discussion but it's a little bit disturbing given the opinions in the plenary earlier this morning about the urgency of the matter we're talking about long term we're talking about three year periods we just heard that we're missing opportunity by the day so how are we going to use the knowledge we have now and what are the new structures where is the transformation in this or the revolution or whatever you would like to call it thank you good thanks a lot and now we have five minutes so I will give you all like 40 seconds each actually to take one of the questions and to have some final words if you have from the panel okay so I will pick the one about the discrepancy in the timeline we can't really do like quick research but you can have a different type of interaction so if we from the beginning in the process sort of engage with both communication and policy and practice there will be things coming out from the research process because it's not so much always about like results after many years but just the design, just the approach the research questions that once engaged so I think if we see it as it's sort of a continuous interaction then it's both feeding in and sort of coming out things from this core learning process in the different steps that Thomas outlined so I think that that would be one way to sort of try to combine the robustness in the research but not saying you have to wait for 10 years but we can actually interact from sort of the design of the project and then we can also respond to the question how research question can come out of the policy processes because then that will happen in that process Good, 40 seconds Okay, thank you So I would address the first question on research problems emerging from policy and practice of course and I would view that as a very natural outcome of if you think about this co-design, co-production co-implementation as sort of a cycle that goes on over time of course problems and challenges emerging in practice and policy will then be picked up and scientists engaging in finding solutions and then you test the solutions and so on and I also think the urgency question will relate to that because when you feel that urgency you will naturally speed up the process within that and speed up the learning Ja, a quick response to examples of where I felt that policy can create research sort of questions and input Is this network the guild as I mentioned I think I'm surprised I'm very new to it but I do hear from the guild and we have an excellent director that the European Commission come to ask questions to the guild, we are doing this and there are questions asked and I think it has to do a lot on trust and you have built up that you can, the politician some of them actually understand that they don't understand science and ask the questions to scientists and that is to encourage your course Secondly is my own example 25 years ago when we had money for solar cell research from the energy agency I was a young researcher and to my surprise they opened up the dialogue we were maybe almost the only one in Sweden working with solar cells so it was not so many others to talk to maybe but anyway I felt that very stimulating that they asked we want solar cell research and we want it to happen and we want it to apply it but it's important so we could discuss basic research we could just implementation so it wasn't a dialogue which I find very fruitful so it can happen I just wanted to say something about the result from the inquiry I think that yes, most politicians haven't read an article or a scientific report or an inquiry or a government report and that's the way how ministers and parliamentarians get their information and the latest news from the scientific community I think the real problem isn't that they won't get the answers to different problems the real problem is that they need help policymakers need help the questions that the inquiries will answer and there I think you need a real collaboration between the scientific community and the policymakers thank you I would like to address the question from the student, what is your name again Kelly, yes because I think it's fundamental issue that you're addressing through your question we just had a discussion at KI to allow for slow science slow science has a negative connotation in Sweden but in this discussion there was a student from Harvard slow science is really what is needed that was the mantra from our colleague from Harvard and of course there are instruments in place in many other parts of the world where you can do slow science without being harnessed into the short time frame or projects from VR or other funding bodies but this is in fact a responsibility also of the universities and the university presidents to see to it that when there are interesting projects that we know will take time to mature we should have an instrument in place for slow science unfortunately we don't have that in Sweden but the most important thing is that timeline is not as I said only determined from the point of view of the individual researchers but from the point of view of the research community of which you are a part just one second to Stefan I think what hasn't surfaced in this discussion and that relates to this interaction between science and policy is the issue of secondments internships I don't think Sweden is on the top of the list when it comes to having scientists that's candid to for example WHO EU system the UN system perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think we are at the top of the list perhaps we should improve that and ensure that we get our best scientists for a time being also into the even supranational governing bodies that is an interaction that is needed thank you very good thank you so much everyone and thank you so much to the audience for coming I think one thing at least that we have learned from here this discussion needs to continue that we need to maybe start off the multi platform tomorrow to discuss it further but at least within Sweden we are continuously in this discussion and want to increase the interaction with researchers in different thematic areas demographic areas and policy makers so we are trying to be that link and be a matchmaker so please if you are already not involved in Swedish activities please join our assembly tomorrow for 45 in room 4 I think at least in this building and come and talk to us more or you can also join online or you can join in other ways as well afterwards and to the panel I just want to give you the two studies I was talking about as a small gift with the figures as well and there are some suggested solutions from us on what to do but I think we have heard much more today from the panel so we need to make a third study I think without the ideas but Yes, thank you from me and one still want to say the final words I just want to say that it seems like we have run out of oxygen in this room now, it's very hot it has been a very interesting discussion and I think we all agree that it needs to continue and we need to find especially the interaction points and the for us where we can continue to discuss this also so that we can go from discussion to something also real when it comes to the interaction so thank you very much panelists thank you very much audience for joining this session