Swedish research has lost competitiveness, but the proposal to transfer funds from the research councils to the universities basanslag expressed both in the article and in the control and resursutredningen (Strut) learning does not improve the situation. There is no evidence to suggest that Swedish universities and colleges themselves would allocate the resources in a way that leads to better research, especially if they are expected to achieve the policy objectives as proposed in the Strut.
Council well-prepared routines with regard to impartiality and conflict of interest forms the basis for transparent evaluations of research projects and funding of the most promising projects and the best researchers, regardless of institution, gender, or research.
This kind of non-meritokratiska and non-transparent allocation system will not benefit the quality of research. There is instead a real danger that this leads to politically motivated bets as well as nepotism.
In the current investigation and the article is proposed to rådsmedel instead transferred to the universities without specifying how research quality should be evaluated, and thus influence the researchers or the projects funded. This type of non-meritokratiska and non-transparent allocation system will not benefit the quality of research. There is instead a real danger that this leads to politically motivated bets as well as nepotism.
however, It is unclear on what grounds you argue this. Forskningsprojektens innovative potential is a key assessment criterion for the Swedish research council and the European research council (ERC), which funds the most groundbreaking and risk-taking research in Europe.
the Strut is proposing that the amount of research funding will increasingly be based on how many students a university training. Handing out research funding as a sort of reward for education is sending all the wrong signals, such as to the quality of research is of secondary importance, to the quality of research is not influenced by how research funding is allocated, or that education can not have another value for the university professors than as a way to get research money.
One can equally well interpret the result as to the current funding system works well because the universities receive allocations in proportion to how much they publish.
the Argument that it does not matter how research money is allocated is based in part on the report of Hwang, who also relied on DN Debate. The report demonstrates that there is a strong correlation between a university's available funds, and number of research publications. From this drag Hwang to the unjustified conclusion that, in principle, only the amount of money that affect how well research it becomes and indirect that it doesn't matter how the distribution of research funds. Correlations say nothing about causation. One can equally well interpret the result as to the current funding system works well because the universities receive allocations in proportion to how much they publish.
State-funded research must therefore be allocated in open competition, and transparent evaluation system that, above all, gives priority to research quality.