I agree with Filip Johnsson and Henrik Thunman (PU and HT) if to citeringsgrad can not be used as the sole criterion for successful research. Many other aspects are important, in particular when it comes to individual researchers ' efforts. But on a collective level, for the country as a whole, gives above all, the proportion of highly cited articles nevertheless an indication as to the level of the country. This is Denmark well above the world average, and well above Sweden.
The decisive factor is, of course, what the high scientific quality will lead to. Researchers who receive grants from Danmarks grundforskningsfond (DG) is selected on the basis of their ability to innovate. Long-term funding, freedom and flexibility provides researchers with good opportunities to develop their ideas, which in many cases results in scientific breakthroughs.
But they are also clearly over-represented in terms of both patent applications and granted patents as the establishment of new companies, this is despite the fact that the fund will only finance long-term and ambitious research without considering the direct benefit to society.
Our own politicians should consider the establishment of a new research-according to the Danish grundforskningsfonds model. Why not financed with earnings from the Academic house?
And of particular interest is that the Danish Industry, Denmark's largest employers ' and business organisation, recognized that the innovative fundamental research of high scientific quality provide an important base for innovation and, hence, is to the benefit of society. It is for this reason that the organization urge a doubling of appropriations to the fund. There is undeniably a correlation between high scientific quality and benefit.
I agree that we face problems that require urgent solutions and also this, universities can have an important role to fill.
But the balance between basic and applied research is important. The universities ' role should primarily be to provide results in the longer term, not solve the problem as well, or rather can be taken care of by the industry; a narrow focus on applications, can act as a constraint on ideas that lead to unexpected breakthroughs.
today, there is a risk that excessive demands on short-term applications, but it is not always you will find solutions just where it is illuminated with the lamp. It is important to realize that the future of new achievements and innovations, which today we cannot even imagine, do not come from planned operations, the most often derived from the unexpected discoveries that are not possible to plan. Not least, many Nobel prizes are rewards for unexpected, often random, discoveries that led to the benefit of mankind.
today, the professors and the other teachers at some universities seek external funds to finance their own salaries. Such an arrangement creates hardly a favourable environment for innovative research. Some long-term planning and security needed for the imagination to flourish and bold ideas will be tested. Good conditions for creative researchers also often lead to applications with societal benefits.
Our own politicians should consider the establishment of a new research council under the DGs model. Why not financed with earnings from the Academic house?