The future design of the Research Ethics Act

The plan emphasises independent academies without political control and the election manifesto wants to protect universities' independence. A review decision that in practice can exclude a researcher from funding and collaboration without opportunity for appeal contradicts the plan's requirement that legal certainty be maintained through independent review. The plan also calls for thoughtful discussions about technical choices, which supports a broader grasp of research ethics.

• research independencedecisive»självständiga akademier utan politisk styrning och vill se en« (party programme ↗)“independent academies without political control and wants to see”
• right to appeal»Rättssäkerheten behöver upprätthållas genom rättshjälp, medborgerlig« (party programme ↗)“Legal certainty needs to be maintained through legal aid, civic”
• protect universities' independence»Vänsterpartiet vill värna universitetens oberoende och finansiering och höja studiestödet så att fler kan välja att vidareutbilda sig.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The Left Party wants to protect universities' independence and funding and increase study support so that more people can choose to continue their education.”
• ethical assessment of technical transitions»Eftersom tekniska skiften spelar stor roll för maktrelationerna« (party programme ↗)“Because technical transitions play a major role in power relations”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan requires freedom for academia and research and that rule-of-law principles be upheld. When a critical review decision can in practice determine a researcher's access to grants, publication and collaboration, both commitments speak for the decision to be appealable. The plan's requirement for clear regulation of artificial intelligence also supports a broader approach to research ethics regulation.

• freedom of researchdecisive»Frihet för akademin och forskningen.« (party programme ↗)“Freedom for academia and research.”
• legally sound review»Slå vakt om rättsstatens principer.« (party programme ↗)“Safeguard the principles of the rule of law.”
• free basic research»Främjande av en fri kunskapssökande grundforskning.« (party programme ↗)“Promotion of free knowledge-seeking basic research.”
• regulation of artificial intelligence»Väl fungerande digital inre marknad i EU, med tydlig reglering av artificiell intelligens« (party programme ↗)“Well-functioning digital single market in the EU, with clear regulation of artificial intelligence”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan establishes that academic freedom and independent courts are fundamental to democracy and wants to strengthen higher education institutions' independence with good public oversight. It also requires that AI development occur with respect for fundamental freedoms and rights and that animal testing be phased out, which argues for a comprehensive approach to research ethics regulation. A right to appeal monitoring decisions with real consequences for researchers follows from this. The counter-proposal's demands are supported.

• academic freedomdecisive»Akademisk frihet, oberoende domstolar och konstnärlig frihet är grundläggande för en« (party programme ↗)“Academic freedom, independent courts and artistic freedom are fundamental to a”
• independent higher education with oversight»stärka lärosätenas självständighet, samtidigt som god offentlig insyn säkerställs« (party programme ↗)“strengthen higher education institutions' independence, while good public oversight is ensured”
• ethical frameworks for AI»utvecklingen av AI ska ske med respekt för grundläggande fri- och rättigheter« (party programme ↗)“development of AI should occur with respect for fundamental freedoms and rights”
• animal testing should be phased out»då djurförsök är föråldrat och ineffektivt« (party programme ↗)“as animal testing is outdated and ineffective”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan requires a social contract with enforceable rights and that everyone shall be able to have their case examined, regardless of income. A review decision that in practice can close the door to grants, publication and collaboration should therefore be subject to appeal, even if it formally lacks legal effect. The plan furthermore values academic freedom. Therefore, the counter-proposal's requirement is supported.

• right to have one's case examineddecisive»Alla som bor i Sverige ska kunna få sin sak prövad.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Everyone who lives in Sweden shall be able to have their case examined.”
• enforceable rights»Vi vill se en rättighetslagstiftning, ett tydligt samhällskontrakt med utkrävbara rättigheter.« (party programme ↗)“We want to see rights legislation, a clear social contract with enforceable rights.”
• review for all»Möjligheten att processa mot stat eller kommun, då man har goda skäl att få sin sak prövad, ska i en liberal demokrati inte vara en rätt förbehållen de med hög inkomst.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“The possibility to bring legal action against the state or municipality, when one has good grounds to have one's case examined, shall in a liberal democracy not be a right reserved for those with high income.”
• academic freedom»Den akademiska och konstnärliga friheten liksom den fria kulturen är grundbultar i ett vitalt civilsamhälle.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Academic and artistic freedom, as well as free culture, are cornerstones of a vital civil society.”

The plan makes individual academic freedom a bearing principle and wants to give academic freedom constitutional protection. A review statement that in practice can shut down a researcher's ability to obtain grants and publishing should therefore be able to be tried, in line with that the individual's ability against the authorities shall increase. The counter-proposal's demand for appealability is therefore supported.

• individual academic freedomdecisive»Individuell akademisk frihet ska vara en bärande princip för all offentlig verksamhet inom forskning och högre utbildning.« (party programme ↗)“Individual academic freedom shall be a bearing principle for all public activities in research and higher education.”
• constitutionally protected academic freedom»Den akademiska friheten ska ges skydd i grundlagen.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Academic freedom shall be given protection in the constitution.”
• individuals' rights against authorities»Den enskildes möjligheter att hävda sina rättigheter gentemot myndigheterna måste öka.« (party programme ↗)“The individual's ability to assert their rights against the authorities must increase.”
• institutions' independence»De akademiska lärosätenas oberoende ska värnas« (party programme ↗)“The independence of the academic institutions shall be protected”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The party programme requires strong and independent courts precisely so that the individual stands stronger against state and municipality, and effective judicial review. A review decision that in practice determines a researcher's grants and publication opportunities should therefore be subject to review. The plan's requirement for freedom of thought and for research to be conducted within given ethical frameworks also supports an integrated approach to research ethics regulation.

• the individual's position against the statedecisive»Domstolarnas ställning ska vara stark och självständig. Den enskilda människan får därigenom en starkare ställning i sina mellanhavanden med stat och kommun« (party programme ↗)“The courts' position shall be strong and independent. In this way the individual gains a stronger position in their dealings with state and municipality”
• freedom of research»Tankens frihet är en förutsättning för framgångsrikt kunskapssökande. Universitet och högskolor ska åtnjuta stort mått av självbestämmande i förhållande till staten.« (party programme ↗)“Freedom of thought is a prerequisite for successful knowledge-seeking. Universities and colleges shall enjoy a high degree of self-determination in relation to the state.”
• ethical frameworks for research»Såväl den enskilde forskaren och det vetenskapliga samfundet som samhället i stort har ett ansvar för att verksamheterna inom universitet och högskola bedrivs inom givna etiska ramar, där alla människors absoluta och okränkbara värde är en självklar utgångspunkt.« (party programme ↗)“Both the individual researcher and the scientific community as well as society at large have a responsibility for activities within universities and colleges being conducted within given ethical frameworks, where all humans' absolute and inviolable value is an obvious starting point.”
• effective legal review»Det ska finnas en effektiv lagprövningsrätt.« (party programme ↗)“There shall be effective judicial review.”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The plan requires that the constitution provide practical and effective protection for individuals in relation to a public authority and that it be clarified how responsibility can be required for public decisions. A scrutiny decision that in practice can lower a researcher's chances of grants and publication is such a public authority decision, which argues that it should be appealable. The plan also wants to protect free research from political pressure.

• effective legal protection for individualsdecisive»Vi måste se till att det inte bara är vackra ord, utan att grundlagen också ger ett praktiskt och effektivt skydd för enskilda människor i relation till exempelvis en kommun eller en statlig myndighet.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“We must see to it that it is not just fine words, but that the constitution also provides practical and effective protection for individual people in relation to, for example, a municipality or a state public authority.”
• responsibility for public decisions»Vi ser stora behov av att förstärka domstolarnas oberoende och förtydliga hur ansvar kan utkrävas för offentliga beslut.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“We see major needs to strengthen the independence of the courts and clarify how responsibility can be required for public decisions.”
• free research»Värna den fria forskningen från politiska pekpinnar« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Protect free research from political pressure”
• independent institutions of higher education»Sverige ska ha starka och självständiga lärosäten, fredade« (party programme ↗)“Sweden must have strong and independent institutions of higher education, protected”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.

The election manifesto wants to reduce political control of higher education and increase academic independence, and points out that ideologically-marked values affect research. The possibility to appeal scrutiny decisions that in practice can shut a researcher out of grants and publishing protects precisely that independence, in line with the plan's requirement for strengthened rule of law principles in public administration. The plan does not directly address the ethics review law.

• academic independencedecisive»Den politiska styrningen av högre utbildning ska minska och akademins självständighet öka.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Political control of higher education should decrease and academic independence increase.”
• rule of law principles in public administration»Sverigedemokraterna vill stärka de rättsstatliga principerna i den svenska förvaltningsmodellen genom ökade inslag av maktdelning och ett stärkt oberoende av domstolsväsendet.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Sweden Democrats want to strengthen the rule of law principles in the Swedish administrative model through increased separation of powers and a strengthened independence of the judiciary.”
• criticism of political control of research»Allvarlig kritik har riktats mot att politisk styrning och ideologiskt präglade värdegrunder i hög grad präglar forskning och akademi.« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Serious criticism has been directed at the fact that political control and ideologically-marked values substantially shape research and academia.”
• guard academia's independence»Slå vakt om den högre akademins självständighet« (2022 manifesto ↗)“Guard the independence of higher academia”

The plan takes no explicit position on what the committee actually decided — often because the committee's reason was procedural. The stance is derived and fully cited, but it does not show the party broke a commitment.