The summary of activities presented in the previous section shows that the recommendations in the report “Enhancing Nordic Research Infrastructure Cooperation” have led to considerable advancement in Nordic RI collaborations. This has been made possible due to initiatives taken by NordForsk and its committees, research funders, RI managers, and user communities. As more than ten years have passed since these recommendations were formulated, it is time to discuss and formulate new goals and set the agenda for future Nordic initiatives. The aim of this report is to help NORDHORCS and the NordForsk board to set the framework for future priorities and activities. The recommendations presented here can hopefully create Nordic added value and at the same time strengthen the national research and research infrastructure agendas.
5.1 Strengths and values
During the preparation of this report, I have met many examples of a positive attitude towards Nordic collaboration among researchers and RI managers. The most common explanations for why Nordic co-operation works so well are that it is easy to communicate and understand each other, that we live and work closely together, and that there is a long history of co-operation that is passed on to the next generation of researchers. The strategy for both research and research infrastructure collaborations should be to take advantage of these Nordic strengths. Our countries also share values such as academic freedom and trust. Nordic collaboration should therefore, to a large extent, be based on ideas and initiatives from the researchers. It is therefore important, also in the context of RI-collaborations, that funders can capture relevant research questions and provide the research community relevant support on the way forward.
5.2 Activities led by NORDHORCS
NORDHORCS is a committee consisting of the directors of the national research funding agencies in the Nordic countries with the aim to “further develop Nordic research and research policy through cooperation and knowledge exchange”. It should be noted that NORDHORCS has no formal role in relation to NordForsk and is not a decision-making body in its own right.[8] Decisions regarding, for instance, co-financing of calls made by NordForsk have to be taken by each individual national funding agency. However, given that it gathers the directors of the national funders, NORDHORCS is an essential in the way it can influence and stimulate Nordic collaboration. In this capacity, and in the context of this report, it is important that NORDHORCS and NordForsk have a similar vision concerning issues related to RI and agree on the role of the national funders with respect to activities managed by NordForsk. The following recommendations (see also section 5.3 below) are aimed at….
- NRICC: In general, it is important to have a strong link between program committees (or similar bodies) within NordForsk and the national funding organisations. If NordForsk gives NRICC the status of a program committee (see recommendation below regarding the role of NordForsk with respect to NRICC), NORDHORCS is recommended to give the members of NRICC a complementary mandate to enable them to act on behalf of their respective organizations. NORDHORCS should nominate, to the NordForsk board, the members of the NRICC. The Nordic funding organizations are also recommended to allocate a budget for co-financing of NordForsk RI-calls, calls that should be manages by NRICC and aimed at strengthening Nordic collaboration.
NORDHORCS meetings: NORDHORCS is recommended to have an annual agenda item in which each country presents its plans for national investment and membership in international RI. This item should also include discussions on the possibility of joint commitments and other issues of mutual interest related to RI. NRICC should take part in these discussions.
International RI: As discussed above the costs for participation in international RIs is high and there is a common interest among the Nordic countries to ensure maximum return of investments and operational costs. NORDHORCS can encourage the national nodes of distributed RIs as well as national representatives of single sited RIs to continue with existing dialogues aimed at strengthening the influence of each Nordic country by forming Nordic alliances. NRICC can identify international RIs for which such a Nordic dialogue could be improved and assist in the process to create the necessary Nordic networks. - Joint Nordic assessment of participation in international RIs is strongly encouraged. It has potential to save administrative costs and can, potentially, have a much stronger impact if the assessment signals that changes are necessary. Such a joint assessment can be carried out with varying degrees of cooperation. Experiences from previous collaborations should be used to design the assessment to make it as useful as possible for the national funders. If necessary, the assessment should be followed primarily by national, but also Nordic follow-up actions.
Future investments in RI: The processes for inventory of the national RI needs and strategies to fulfil these needs will most likely remain national. However, in order not to duplicate large national investments, NORDHORCS is recommended to discuss different degrees of coordination of the process that results in national RI roadmaps. Possible actions in relation to memberships in existing international RIs should be discussed based on joint assessments and coordination new initiatives such as the European Brain Research Infrastructures, EBRAINS, and the Generations and Gender Programme, GGP.
Common Nordic RI ownership or partnership: The different examples of joint Nordic ownership of RIs presented above are all interesting and it is recommended that NORDHORCS take the initiative to find out which are their strengths and weaknesses. This could potentially lead to discussion of future RI candidates for joint ownership and/or partnership.
5.3 Activities led by NordForsk and NRICC:
Nordforsk has limited funding resources and should therefore not support investment- and operational costs related to RI. Instead, funding should be allocated to calls aimed at stimulating networking and collaboration. It is important to note that such funding also stimulates Nordic research collaboration, often in a very direct way since the RIs in many cased are operated by researchers. The need for RI should be kept in mind when NordForsk initiates research calls and possibly allow for costs related to (cross border) RI-usage. The three NOS-organizations should also have RI on their agendas and, when motivated, initiate contacts with NRICC (see below) to discuss matter related to RI.
- NRICC: The board of NordForsk is recommended to strengthen the role of NRICC in the form of a permanent committee within the NordForsk organization. In addition to the role of NRICC given by NordForsk it should also act based on the mandate given by NORDHORCS (see above). Important tasks for NRICC would be to manage funding of Nordic RI collaboration with a budget co-financed by NordForsk and the Nordic funding agencies and to exchange information regarding the development of RI in the Nordic countries and to discuss possible ways forward for joint actions. NRICC should also arrange a biannual “Nordic RI managers meeting”.
Nordic RI visibility: The RIs listed in Appendix 1-5 presents the nationally funded RIs in the Nordic countries. In the future, it would be desirable that each Nordic country has easily accessible and updated lists of existing RIs with information regarding the facility and contact information including a link to the RI website. Iceland is presently testing an open source software which might be useful in the context of increased visibility of the RIs. In order to extend the visibility of national RIs to cross-border visibility, NordForsk is recommended to include links to these national lists and information regarding Nordic RI collaborations on their website.
Nordic RI-funding: The Nordic RI Hub funding instrument is recommended to continue and NRICC should be responsible for managing the call. It is evident from my investigations that there are many good candidates, i.e., Nordic RI networks, that could benefit greatly from such support. My recommendation is therefore to increase the support efforts but at the same time limit the funding to networking activities and support to joint Nordic user communities. The annual budget of each funded RI network can in this way be slightly reduced compared to the present support level. Since RIs exist over extended time periods it is also appropriate to extend the funding period, a five-year period is recommended. My recommendation is to increase the total budget of the program to fund about 20 such RI networks.
Use of national RIs across-borders: In order to stimulate and increase cross-border RI usage between the Nordic countries there are several measures that can be taken. As discussed above, partnerships and/or co-ownership, RI networks and support to joint Nordic user communities, and efforts to make information about the facility and contact details easily accessible are all important in this context. Large and unique single sited national RIs deserve, however, special attention in this case since the operating costs of these RIs are usually higher than those of distributed RIs. To avoid payment of these costs by each user NRICC and NordHORCS are recommended to discuss this issue and to use MAX IV as an example of such an RI.
[8] In the following text I try to distinguish between NordHORCS and the Nordic funding agencies. In some cases, when I refer only to NordHORCS, it means that the Directors have agreed that the organisations they represent will take certain actions.