Author: Anders Hagfeldt (Page 1 of 4)

What is happening in Gaza is a humanitarian disaster, causing immense human suffering. What is going on must be stopped. We therefore welcome the Swedish government’s condemnation of Israel’s actions and invite representatives of our government to a conversation with the University’s researchers to find ways for constructive action on Sweden’s part.

In recent days, Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu has publicly announced plans to displace the population of Gaza. These statements have led to widespread condemnation. Experts have almost unanimously concluded that implementing the plans would constitute a “crime against humanity”. (The same type of action was called “ethnic cleansing” during the war in Bosnia and Herzegovina.) The Swedish government has also been clear in its condemnation. The Board of Uppsala University (Konsistoriet) has issued a written call to the government to take forceful action through all available channels.

It has already been established at an earlier point that both Israel and Hamas have committed war crimes, probably including crimes against humanity. Of the tens of thousands of civilians who have fallen victim to the war, the vast majority are Palestinian civilians, women and children affected by Israel’s acts of war. Israel has justified the military action by its determination to free hostages still held by Hamas since 7 October 2023 and to ensure that Hamas can no longer pose a threat to Israel. They attribute the high number of civilian casualties to Hamas’s practice of integrating its bases into civilian infrastructure and staying in close proximity to civilians, as well as Hamas’s use of human shields – which is also a war crime. Israel certainly has the right to defend itself, but this right does not give the Israeli armed forces a green light to commit war crimes or to prevent the delivery of necessary supplies, food and water to the civilian population. On the contrary, Israel has an obligation to act in accordance with the Geneva Convention principles of distinguishing between civilians and soldiers, maintaining proportionality between ends and means, and endeavouring not to cause unnecessary suffering. Based on what is known, we can conclude that Israel is not fulfilling the requirements of the Geneva Convention and that the scale of the killings indicates that a number of violations of international law have been committed. With all this in mind, the Swedish government needs to act decisively in this urgent situation.

Academic staff and students at universities in Sweden – including here at Uppsala University – have demanded a boycott of collaborations with Israeli universities. The University takes a different view. The reason for this is that universities have a key role in a democratic state governed by law – not least as a critical voice. This requires international support for critically thinking academics, not isolation.

For it is not the task of a university, as an organisation, to take a position on foreign policy issues. The mission of universities is to teach, research, transmit knowledge and promote critical thinking. Universities must offer a safe environment for discussion and dialogue, where no one is exposed to discrimination or threats. At our University, everyone must be free to criticise and comment on developments in the world based on their expertise.

In Sweden, this view of academia has become an integral part of our self-image and, in the spirit of Dag Hammarskjöld, many have worked to build trust in Sweden as a role model in the protection of human rights and the prosecution of breaches of international law. We have embraced the path of diplomacy and in Uppsala, through research in public international law, political science, and peace and conflict, and by establishing centres such as the Uppsala Centre for Holocaust and Genocide Studies and the Alva Myrdal Centre for Nuclear Disarmament, to name but a few, we have placed ourselves on the international map among those who believe in the power of diplomacy. Historically, we have also achieved successes here that have strengthened us in our convictions.

We now welcome the Swedish government’s explicit condemnation of Israel’s actions and at the same time invite representatives of our government to a broad-ranging conversation with our researchers to find ways for constructive action on Sweden’s part.

So spring comes around again. Once more, Uppsala has shown itself at its best today as a joyful community. The hill was packed with people at three o’clock, there was a great atmosphere at the running of the falls and at Uppsala Konsert och Kongress (UKK) we enjoyed a good herring lunch in the company of like-minded spring celebrators.

It is a sign of strength that despite yesterday’s tragic events, Uppsala chooses to keep up our tradition of celebrating spring together. While our thoughts go to those affected, as Erik Pelling made clear during his speech at the lunch at UKK, we must choose to come together as a joyful community – this is the best way to maintain our Uppsala. 

Here are some pictures from my day. Look after yourselves. Happy spring! 

The great effort of our own research evaluation Q&R24 (Quality and Renewal 2024) will soon be completed (I trust you have already registered for the conference on 8 May ). The whole University has been involved and we are proud to see how researchers and groups are driving the frontiers of knowledge forward through top-quality research. Having said that, the evaluation is not intended as a chance to pat ourselves on the back and take satisfaction in the current state of affairs. The aim, after all, is to identify potential for improvement, ways to further sharpen our cutting edge. The evaluation and its aims are in line with the declaration in our Mission, Goals and Strategies that the University aspires to strengthen its position as a leading international research university. 

Meanwhile, there are other factors the University also has to take into account, for example measurements made by various institutes and organisations that have a major international impact. We are talking about Times Higher Education, the QS world education rankings, the Shanghai rankings and others. These rankings affect us directly and indirectly. For example, they can influence students from certain countries when applying for scholarships and certain funders consider them important. We can be pleased here that we have gained a few places in the international rankings in recent years.

However, there is greater cause for concern if we compare ourselves with other Swedish universities. If we look at scholarly impact through scholarly publications, the picture is less rosy. Publications among the ten per cent most frequently cited show a downward trend (we are currently in seventh place in Sweden).

We need to do something about this. The work we have put into reviewing our research in Q&R24 helps as we seek to move forward. Q&R24 has led to many good suggestions and ways to advance, showing that the University, with the help of critical friends from other institutions, is able to identify structural problems and common needs. A key strength of the Q&R model is that we own the process ourselves. It is our evaluation and we can design it to contribute as effectively as possible to our development. If we dare to be bold, our University can be greatly improved by these proposals. 

Q&R24 is under our own control, but most assessments and rankings are run by others. It still happens that the focus is on the total number of articles, rather than the quality. The systems can also sometimes be manipulated, for example by researchers citing each other and even themselves. 

The ways of assessing and measuring researchers and research are far from perfect. Many people want to create better systems and the discussion has led to various initiatives for improvement. The most recent include the Agreement on Reforming Research Assessment (ARRA) and the Coalition for Advancing Research Assessment (CoARA). This is an initiative that aims to ensure that the assessment of researchers and research is predominantly qualitative, even if quantitative data can provide important input. Among other things, the organisation seeks to ensure that rankings do not affect the assessment of individual researchers, that bibliometric measures are used with care, and that criteria, tools and processes are developed for a fair and comprehensive assessment of researchers and research. 

CoARA is an important initiative in which Uppsala University is participating. Initially, we took a wait-and-see approach, as early proposals for CoARA were too simplistic in some respects. For example, they recommended dispensing completely with the use of ranking and some bibliometric data, an idea that we do not believe is either possible or good. Now CoARA has adopted a more balanced approach. This being so, Uppsala University has chosen to join CoARA, as the organisation has many important members and research funders are adapting to CoARA in their calls. Uppsala University is participating in several working groups of the organisation’s Swedish national chapter and chairs the working group on research funding. Our level of involvement is well considered. For the good of the University, it is important to be aware of what is happening, to be able to influence, to benefit from important knowledge and to be in the room where discussions that directly affect us are held. 

Evaluation and assessment issues are important for Uppsala University, for all higher education institutions in Sweden, Europe and the rest of the world – the assessment of research and researchers must be as fair and reliable as possible. We are hardly likely ever to have a perfect system, but we cannot afford to stand by and complain about shortcomings. Our task must be to work for improvements while trying to navigate wisely in the existing system. At the end of the day, it’s all about developing our University so as to create the best conditions for education and research. A first step is to capitalise on the lessons learned from Q&R.

Uppsala University has now conducted its fourth research evaluation since 2007 – Quality and Renewal 2024 (Q&R24). With the help of external panels– and in some cases benchmarking – the disciplinary domains and faculties have analysed their research environments. We have also scrutinised the joint efforts to establish conditions for well-functioning research infrastructure and multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary research.

When I review the results of Q&R24, I feel proud of our University. We should take genuine pleasure in the confirmation of all that works well and continue to cultivate these things. However, in our quest for renewal and excellence, we also have to keep moving. The next step is to make use of the insights we have gained. Most of this work will be done in our disciplinary domains, faculties, departments and research environments, but those of us in the University Management also have a job to do. 

We want all good ideas and wise reflections to be heard, and for this reason we are going to have a full-day University-wide conference on Q&R24. It will take place on 8 May 2025, from 09:00 to 18:00. The day will include panel discussions and presentations looking at the evaluation results from different perspectives, as well as forward-looking discussions. I look forward to talking about the results and the way forward with you, as well as discussing the organisation and implementation of Q&R24, which differed between the disciplinary domains. I hope to see you there!

Conference programme: https://www.uu.se/en/events/2025/2025-05-08-qr24-conference

Registration link to the conference: https://registration.invajo.com/200a13aa-332d-470d-827a-4a82d65a40c6

The deadline for registration is 21 April

The University Management has just returned from a week-long visit to the United States. This was a long-planned trip aimed at strengthening ties with some of the top research universities in the US. A trip like this is a major investment, in terms of both time and money. We have a clear agenda when we travel and the common aim in all trips of this kind is that the meetings and events will strengthen the University’s international standing. At the research level, our University’s scientists and scholars have had many successful collaborations in the US over a long period of time, but we have not had any formalised exchanges at the organisational level. The aim this time was therefore to open the doors to new collaborations in a few selected areas: AI, life sciences, quantum technologies, sustainable development. In cooperation with the Swedish Embassy in Washington, a meeting was organised where, together with seven other Swedish universities, we took up common international issues relating to research openness and security. Through the embassy, meetings were also arranged with the EU Science Counsellor, the Department of Energy and the Association of American Universities, among others. In addition, we made study visits to the University of Maryland, the New York Academy of Science, Harvard University and the Broad Institute. Everywhere we went, our initiatives in the new UUniFI interdisciplinary research institutes attracted a lot of interest and curiosity, with good discussions about possible future collaborations. While in the country, we also took the opportunity to meet the Consul-General of Sweden in New York, Erik Ullenhag, and the Honorary Consul of Sweden in Boston, Ann-Kristin Lund – all according to plan. 

But despite careful planning, the trip did not turn out quite as we thought it would when we started talking about it almost a year ago. As everyone knows, a lot has happened in the United States of America recently. The arrival of the new President has brought about a completely new situation that made the trip and our conversations important in a way we could not have foreseen. With us on the trip was Professor Dag Blanck, and I have asked him to write about his experiences and reflections. Here is his text.

---

A tour of US academic institutions today is a stunning and unsettling experience. Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought major and rapid changes to many areas of American society, including research and education. The new administration has issued a whole host of Executive Orders affecting higher education and research, and has also started a process to abolish the federal Department of Education. Columbia University has come under fire, and international students taking part in political protests risk losing their visas and being deported. 

Virtually everyone we met was deeply concerned about what was going on. While we know that private donations and philanthropy play a major role in the United States, the federal government provides significant research funding, through the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, among others. These and other agencies have seen their funding reduced and funding for various projects has been withdrawn. The issue of indirect costs has become central. They have been significantly reduced, which means that research projects have to be cut back considerably or cannot be carried out at all. The uncertainty has led many universities to impose hiring freezes and/or lay off staff. Admission to doctoral programmes has been reduced or frozen. This is true even at private, resource-rich universities like Harvard or Johns Hopkins.

The pace of change is rapid, making it difficult to keep track of what is happening. The administration has targeted what it perceives as politicised (‘woke’) research, removing references to issues such as diversity, gender and race, and has ordered, for example, that Columbia’s Department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies (MESAAS) be restructured and placed under academic receivership. If not, Columbia risks losing significant amounts of federal research funding. There is a clear link here to the protests against the Gaza war, and a direct punishment of a single university that has shaken up other universities. 

Academic freedom is under severe pressure. In January, the Association of American Universities, an advocacy organisation for the 71 leading research universities, whose president Barbara Snyder we met, made a very strong statement about the importance of resistance (https://www.aaup.org/report/against-anticipatory-obedience). The AAU warns against what Yale historian Timothy Snyder calls ‘anticipatory obedience’, i.e. adapting even before decisions have been made. The AAU is also involved in the legal proceedings that are underway to prevent the government from cancelling research grant payments that have already been approved. Barbara Snyder’s comment that she never imagined the AAU would sue the federal government, which for more than half a century has played such a major role in consolidating the standing of the United States in research and innovation, is telling. 

What conclusions can be drawn? American academia is under attack, and trust in universities and science is declining in the US. A lead editorial in the New York Times even talks about “The Authoritarian Endgame on Higher Education” (https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/15/opinion/trump-research-cuts.html). 

Many of our interlocutors, anxious as they were, nonetheless advised us to keep calm and wait and see what the consequences will actually be. Perhaps they are being a little sanguine. The position of universities is one element of the Trump administration’s attack on the federal government at large, and is partly dependent on upcoming Supreme Court rulings. 

We must, however, be prepared for major changes to come. The question of whether we have what Lars Strannegård in DN recently called an ‘Einstein moment’, namely a chance to take advantage of the opportunities to recruit well-qualified people from the US to Sweden, also came up for discussion. Here, many people were of the opinion that it is mainly among early career researchers who are willing to move abroad that we might find interested candidates. The other alternative for talented young people may be to change careers and look outside academia. 

Voices from our conversations with Harvard, the Broad Institute, the AAU, the University of Maryland, and the New York Academy of Sciences, among others, were unanimous in speaking of the need to maintain international contacts, including with Europe and Sweden. Over time, research impulses have travelled back and forth across the Atlantic. The Humboldtian university traditions from Germany influenced the emergence of the modern research-intensive American universities at the end of the 19th century. Since the mid-20th century, in a kind of partnership with the federal government, these universities have developed into world-leading and world-dominating institutions, attracting researchers from all over the world. 

The question that arises is whether the current academic continental plates are now in the process of shifting. Is US dominance under threat? Perhaps the tide is turning, with US colleagues now looking to Europe, for example, for support. In these difficult times, cooperation becomes particularly important as a ‘lifeline’, as one person put it. It was striking how well we were received, and how much interest there was in interacting with us. “We need you,” as someone said. An abiding impression is how important the international academic community is, and that it can be a counterforce to the authoritarian and anti-intellectual movements of our time. 

Uppsala University has more than 50,000 students. They have all come to us to acquire education, to learn, to prepare for working life – in academia or elsewhere. 

It can be worth taking a moment to reflect on the great responsibility we bear and how we, together, shape the future by teaching and by creating the programmes and courses that attract our students. 

As Vice-Chancellor I miss teaching. Meeting students reminds me what made me choose to study and to carry on into research. In the classroom, I test my way of looking at things and my explanatory models. This helps me develop and challenges me. It is also in their meetings with others that students learn to change their perspective; it is in discussions that we see that things that seemed obvious can be looked at in another way, that things that were difficult can become easy if we change our way of thinking. 

Like many others, I have found by experience that one important force in the classroom is the composition of the group itself. A group that includes students with different cultural backgrounds, from other countries, with other traditions and experiences, can be tremendously enriching and in a research team, perspectives that come from living in a society that has other priorities than ours can sometimes play a crucial role. 

At the University, this really goes without saying. This is why we have long established collaborations with many other universities and networks. Last autumn I was at a meeting in Venice with a group of students taking the European Master’s Programme in Human Rights and Democratisation. We are more than 40 universities that invite our students to Italy to jointly tackle a topic that is relevant to us all, before the students get to know other countries’ universities during an exchange semester. I understand that the groups are full of dynamics and widely ranging perspectives. Then there is NOHA – a university network to promote professionalism in humanitarian operations. One programme students can choose here is the Joint Master’s Degree in International Humanitarian Action. Further, as a member of ENLIGHT, we are working with other European universities to create better conditions for joint programmes. 

There are many more opportunities for international exchanges, but my point is that we sometimes forget to see the significance of the open and inquiring system of which our University is a part. We have a responsibility to teach at a high standard, maintaining close contact with research and building on a scientific and scholarly foundation. At the same time, we have a responsibility to be part of the international project of raising the level of knowledge in the world. In our collaborations we can contribute our knowledge, in joint enterprises we can learn about others’ advances. Meeting and discussing creates opportunities for exchanging knowledge, but it is above all when our view of the world is challenged and changed that education can lead to a mature, well-rounded, curious and engaged understanding of the world and our place in it.

The new research bill contained increased government funding for research in Sweden. Previously, a higher proportion of government funding went directly to higher education institutions, but now a larger share will be distributed via the central government research funding bodies. The difference is significant and Uppsala University must take it on board. 

Competition will increase. Consequently, we will need to submit more applications and become even more active in formulating research projects. We know from experience that Uppsala University does as well as and sometimes better than other universities out of interdisciplinary applications to Formas, for example, but that our share of applications is lower than that of other Swedish higher education institutions. We need to change this and as many of you are aware, the UUniFI initiative is designed to play a part in this. Another important initiative is that we have a new research support organisation. Since the beginning of the year, there is a new head of division – Johan Kreuger – in charge of what is now the Division for Research and Partnership Support. The division has a major and important mission: together with research support services in the disciplinary domains, it will provide support and advice to researchers in formulating applications that can obtain funding. In this connection, we need to address another challenge. 

Compared with other universities, our share of articles in the top ten per cent most cited is falling. This affects our status as a higher education institution internationally. We need to improve and find strategies to reverse this trend. 

Every year at the University, we have an event we call Grants Day. At the most recent I talked about my own experience of serving on committees processing applications. As I said then, the process is efficient and experienced evaluators often only need a few minutes to determine whether an application is interesting. In my experience, a good application has a clear idea; the applicant gets to the point quickly; a good application shows self-confidence. If you apply without success but still believe in your idea – apply again and learn from the comments you receive. Perhaps you were too long-winded, perhaps you need to change your angle.

Take advantage of your colleagues’ experiences, ask for help, use the support that is available at the University. 

On Grants Day, I summarised my experiences in a list of tips: 

• Find your passion
• Talk about your ideas with people you trust
• Write applications
• Learn from the feedback you get
• Apply again
• And again

• Every ‘no ‘is just a station on the road to a ‘yes’.

I don’t know if my advice is of any use to you, but I do want to emphasise one point: the research bill puts us in a situation where the University’s researchers need to put themselves forward. We will do it well and the University will also develop in the process. My hope is that we will work more in projects that exploit the breadth that is unique to Uppsala University. If we do this, the new model introduced by the research bill will be very much to our advantage. 

Christmas is here and we hope the holidays will bring a well-deserved chance to rest. We would like to thank all our staff for a busy and eventful year. 

Here at our University, there has been much to enjoy and embrace. In this picture, taken last week, we are standing in Uppsala Castle, ready to have lunch in the company of some of this year’s Nobel Laureates – a fine tradition and a great opportunity to meet and be inspired. During the year, we have been delighted with all the students who have come to us for their education, research projects that have broadened the horizons of knowledge, new doctors and professors who will drive research and teaching forward. We have celebrated successes, lamented failures, welcomed consensus, acknowledged disagreement, discussed, debated, argued, researched, taught, assessed, managed, developed, administered and toiled.

Thank you, all of you who contribute to our shared, wonderful Uppsala University.  

See you again in 2025!

A week ago, the leaders of universities and other higher education institutions throughout Sweden gathered here in Uppsala. The occasion was the annual general assembly of the Association of Swedish Higher Education Institutions. It is customary at these meetings for the institution hosting the assembly to choose a topic that will interest and motivate participants. We chose ‘Democracy and Global Engagement in Academia’. 

The day was divided into sessions. The first was entitled Current ideals in democracy and the global engagement of academia, with speakers Linda Wedlin (Uppsala University), Malek Finn Khan (Swedish Defence Research Agency) and Ulrika Björkstén (Public & Science Sweden). The second was Democracy and politics in academia and on campus, with speakers Anne Ramberg (Uppsala University) and Cecilia Uddén (Radio Sweden). These were followed by a panel discussion with student perspectives on the topic. The participants were: Rasmus Lindstedt (Swedish National Union of Students), Isidore Brommare (Uppsala Association of Foreign Affairs), Arvid Rutgersson (Uppsala Peace and Development Students’ Association), Hedda Ottesen (doctoral student in global health), Sara Holmström (doctoral student in public law), Robert Egnell (Swedish Defence University) and Linda Wedlin. The day concluded with a conversation with former minister Leif Pagrotsky.

Many challenging issues were raised and discussed during the various sessions. As is often the case, some formulations stuck in the mind more than others. Linda Wedlin told listeners about her custom of treating students to an impassioned lecture on the nature of academic education, the conditions on which research depends and scientific method. She emphasised that in academia we must encourage encounters between arguments, not opinions, and that what matters is not who says something but whether or not their argument holds. Cecilia Uddén, in turn, commented that while it is often said that the first victim of war is the truth, this saying is no longer particularly pertinent. She observed that in our present polarised world, many people claim to own what they call the truth, and that it is evident instead that the first victim is not truth but doubt. The willingness to question the validity of one’s own point of view is what dies in the first wave of confrontation. 

Since the assembly, I have been reflecting on what they said. 

Scientific method
The scientific method is described differently in different disciplines, but what these descriptions all have in common is that they refer to systems for moving towards greater truth and accuracy than previously obtained. I personally have applied a three-stage model: 

1. Observation/idea/curiosity
2. Hypothesis/model
3. Test

After which the next round begins. Re-search. The result of stage 3 becomes a new starting point for stage 1. So the cycle continues. 

The insight is that all we know are approximations. Knowledge and science are a quest for the objective truth – and what that is, we can never be sure. With curiosity in our mind, we search for answers and for defects in our models and arguments. In all that we do, curiosity spurs us and doubt drives us on. This is also what drives me.

That is why Linda Wedlin’s words about her impassioned speech to students and Cecilia Uddén’s words about the loss of doubt in our polarised world were words that made me react. 

Democracy and our role
We have talked a good deal in recent years about threats to democracy, about algorithms leading to us living in bubbles even more than previously, and polarisation reducing dialogue to an exchange of set lines. We see researchers’ data challenged by opinions, as if they had equal value and belonged on the same playing field. Apples are compared with pears, direct encounters between arguments decline and discussion turns into a catalogue of opinions from the parties involved, asserted without being questioned. 

I think we in academia have more to lose from this trend than many others. The University is not an isolated island and when we are drawn into a megaphone culture where the individual’s brand carries more weight than the value of the arguments, we ultimately risk opinionated fundamentalism and an impoverishment of the investigative and exploratory practice on which all academic activities are based. 

It has always seemed to me that conformity is often harmful. I believe it is true that the climate of debate in our country suffers from a lack of openness to re-examining our standpoints and that we need to talk more across generational lines. In academia, I perceive a gap between the alleged desire for an open atmosphere for discourse and dialogue, and the actual practice. We sometimes evince exaggerated consideration in our desire to avoid offending anyone, instead of establishing a climate for conversation where our basic assumptions are that everyone means well, but our views may differ. I also believe it is ultimately dangerous to equate opinions with arguments and I know, with certainty, that we have a duty as an institution of higher education to explain the difference. 

“Without doubt, no one is wise,” said Tage Danielsson. 

Everyone’s talking about AI, at every turn and with differing agendas. The pattern is recognisable from past introductions of new technologies. On the one hand are sky-high expectations, on the other major concerns. Risks and opportunities are debated. And right in the midst of these developments is our University. 

When five years ago the University established a University-wide centre, AI4Research, the discussion surrounding AI had already truly begun to gain pace. Even back then, the technology behind Artificial Intelligence had already been in use in a range of areas at our University for quite some time, and now it was to be applied in a number of research projects. There was wild speculation in the popular debate, knowledge was shared, a greater understanding emerged and many people aired their fears.

At breakneck speed we have had to learn new software and have discovered new applications – such as the AI robot that assists with archiving. In our day-to-day lives, many of us are using tools like ChatGPT and so on to help us with translations, summarising texts and making presentations, to name just a few areas. (Alert readers of the Vice-Chancellor’s blog will remember that we have written about this subject previously.)

The reason I am raising this subject again now is that, as a decentralised University, we sometimes need to come together and join forces.

Because while these tools and technology harbour major potential to improve aspects of our programmes, support research and create more effective administrative processes, we have a huge responsibility to help steer their application. In a focused manner combined with scepticism, caution and enthusiasm, we must review our own ways of working, take advantage of new AI tools, but also manage fears concerning quality, security, legality, ethics and morals, among other aspects. A good example and a vital issue that we have so far managed successfully thanks to the Deputy Vice-Chancellor and disciplinary board’s actions last winter, is that of cheating. We are learning with each step and sharing our insights. After all, a broad University like ours can contribute expertise from multiple perspectives in a way that is not available to other higher education institutions. 

Internally, a number of voices have called for a statement from the University on its approach that lays out its view. The expectation is that the management should demonstrate the way forward. I am concerned that such a statement would only limit us and rapidly become outdated. But in the spirit of being as clear as possible: 

We at Uppsala University want to create an environment in which new opportunities involving AI are assessed in order to benefit our students, staff and wider society. This means that we want to: 

In connection with all of the above, several new initiatives are now being undetaken.  

AI offers us new opportunities. It will be exciting and fascinating to see how the University, research, teaching and wider society will be affected by new insights and techniques. We have a major task, but it rests on us continuing to do what we are good at; something which is in our very nature as a higher education institution. Using scientific methods and a critical approach, we must assess, reassess, test out, evaluate, discuss and create new knowledge. That is true intelligence.