Sameining sjóða - áform um breytingar á lögum um opinberan stuðning við vísindarannsóknir

The overall stated aim of the bill seems desirable for reducing administrative complexities and associated financial costs of administering the competitive funds. The merger proposed into the three categories is also desirable as they have clear themes. My main concern is on the category "sérstökum áherslum stjórnvalda". While it is desirable to have a fund aimed at strategically important research, the scope described in the current document seems too narrow. Emphasis seems to have been placed on healthcare, circular economy, etc., which are undoubtedly important. However, strategic research in an environment like in Iceland, must always include nature and hazards associated with it. The current situation in the Reykjanes Peninsula is a good example of the impact of natural processes, not only on the infrastructure and the society directly affected by the volcanic processes, but also on the overall economy of the country and financial burden on all of its citizens. Financial losses associated with such processes can dwarf gains made through commercial innovations, except perhaps in exceptionally innovative projects. Basic and applied research on natural hazards and associated risks should therefore be at the fore-front of strategic research fund allocation by the government. Another aspect that is overlooked in the proposed document is operational costs related to research. Most of the research funds distributed through Rannis today are spent in salary of researchers and travel costs, with an exception of the Infrastructure Fund, which allocates for purchase of equipment. Research in applied sciences, health, and engineering is associated with significant operational costs, such as purchase of laboratory supplies, regular maintenance of laboratory equipment, technical support, etc. In lack of such funds covering these aspects, it can be expected that many equipment purchased through the funding of the Infrastructure Fund become less utilized or even not utilized at all after the project period. It is, therefore, very important to have provisions for operational costs of research infrastructure acquired through public funding, either through direct budgets allocated to the research institutions or through competitive funds.

Since 2023, Geological Hazards caused 17 Billion ISK impact to Iceland's economy. This was mostly due to recent geological faults (sprunger) movement and related damage in Grindavík (yesterday in MBL.is stated that “the damage could amount to 17 Billion ISK”), are having a major impact on the economy of Iceland. Fundamental research on this topic can save lives, and taxpayer's money through understanding these geological systems and reducing the impact of geological hazards. My name is Dr. Gregory De Pascale, I have a PhD in Geology and I am an Associate Professor of Tectonics and Structural Geology in the Faculty of Earth Sciences at the University of Iceland. I am an expert on plate tectonics and fault movement (sprunger) that I lecture and research on at HI. I have active research and involvement (I am on the Infrastructure team) with the recovery of Grindavík related to the tectonic-volcanic-earthquake activity, and fault motions in SW Iceland. I have worked on this topic and how to reduce critical infrastructure damage due to geological hazards as an expert consultant globally. I applied for and won government contestable research funds from the following countries from their respective National Science funding schemes (like Rannis): New Zealand, Chile, USA, UK. I have reviewed technical science proposals, as an expert peer reviewer, for the national science funding agencies in: UK, Canada, New Zealand, USA, Chile, in addition to organisations like the National Geographic Society's Research Grants. I read the proposal Case number S-161/2024 with great interest since I am now based in Iceland. My reading of the document, as a stakeholder in the process and overseas expert that moved to Iceland, is that it aims to streamline the funding schemes by merging them, making Rannis's role more clear, and having strategic aims. While innovation in funding should always be encouraged, here are my three (3) concerns: Section D #1A. Merging Research with Infrastructure funds are two different things and should be kept separate, infrastructure costs alone will not allow basic science to take place. If they are merged, it may be difficult to justify research costs. They are both important, but there is sometimes the tendency to move towards mega projects – big science, big infrastructure, but this reduces innovation instead of encouraging it (through reduction in participation). Other countries are moving away from mixing infrastructure and science as they are two distinct things. They are also moving away from large projects and moving back to micro grants – better distributed that gives researchers annual funds to carry out basic research with important gains in innovation. We need infrastructure to carry out the work and funds to do the work. For those of us working in the natural laboratory of Iceland, like in the field in Grindavík, our infrastructure needs are limited, but we need funds to carry out work and analysis. Infrastructure and Research Funds need to be kept separate. Section D #1B. The research emphasis as written into law cannot exclude geological hazards. As mentioned above 17 Billion ISK impacts in less than a year from Fault ruptures in Grindavík shows us that we need to understand the systems from a geological perspective and work with developing laws to limit a Grindavík situation from occurring in the future. Right now as Reykjavik and surrounding areas grow, without laws or guidelines with “teeth”, development of infrastructure, housing, and commerce is moving into zones with similar hazards to Grindavík in other parts of Iceland, like in Eastern Reykjavik. This can be prevented however and should be included as a priority. Currently it says “the healthcare system, the circular economy or the gaming sector, for example individual geographies or industries.” are priorities. After the Reykjanes Fires that stopped 800 years ago, the thousands of earthquakes, several volcanic eruptions, and geological fault ruptures in Grindavík demonstrate that we need to work on these systems as research priority to reduce the economic impact of them. Please consider adding geological hazards to your priority list for funding. Section G#4. Measures of success should be reflected upon. As currently written: “intellectual property, increased number of start-up companies, increased investment in innovative companies, more graduated doctoral students and more intensive research work together more equal gender participation.” are all fine aims. Of course gender equity should be encouraged, but fundamental science and engineering cannot only be measured by more graduated doctoral students or more registered patents or just number of start up companies. I know this is vogue at MBA schools these days (re: measuring success only with numbers) but there are important differences of quality and quantity and impact. How do we measure quality and impact and how do they relate to the numbers? How do they relate with quantity? Personally I would rather have 2 PhD students that change the way we look at the world and save lives due to better understanding fault systems and associated earthquakes and volcanic eruptions through their PhD research, than have 20 PhD students that just do “enough” to pass to get. In one system, it has a better impact due to more graduated PhD students.We should reflect carefully on this as more numbers is not always better quality or impact. You have my support on the above topics and I remain available to support all members from all parties of the Government to reduce the impact of Geological Hazards on the people, infrastructure and economy of Iceland. Thank you.

Sameining sjóða - áform um breytingar á lögum um opinberan stuðning við vísindarannsóknir Álit Hagþenkis, félag höfunda fræðirita og kennslugagna. Gunnar Þór Bjarnason, formaður. Í tillögum háskóla-, iðnaðar- og nýsköpunarráðuneytisins felst að Rannsóknarsjóður, Starslaunasjóður sjálfstætt starfandi fræðimanna (SSSF) og Innviðasjóður verði sameinaðir í einn sjóð sem styrki grunnrannsóknir. Hagþenkir telur það vera mjög misráðið að sameina SSSF og hina sjóðina tvo. Varðandi Rannsóknarsjóð þá er hann allt annars konar sjóður en SSSF og er skilgreindur sem „opinn samkeppnissjóður sem hefur það hlutverk að styrkja vísindarannsóknir og rannsóknartengt framhaldsnám“. Allar umsóknir í Rannsóknarsjóð eiga undantekningarlaust að vera á ensku. Styrkir úr SSSF eru veittir til ritunar „fræðirita og –greina, handbóka, orðabóka og viðamikils upplýsingaefnis á íslensku í ýmsu formi“. Langflestir þeir sem sækja um styrki í Rannsóknarsjóð starfa í háskólum og njóta þar styrks og skjóls til að miðla fræðum sínum. En margt af því mikilvægasta og fróðlegasta sem gefið er út hérlendis er unnið af sjálfstætt starfandi fræðimönnum utan háskólanna. Á sama tíma eru ófáar þeirra fræðibóka sem mestrar hylli hafa notið meðal almennings eftir höfunda sem starfa sjálfstætt og eiga litla sem enga möguleika á styrkjum úr Rannsóknarsjóði. Rétt er að geta þess að þessar sömu bækur rata einnig mjög oft á lista yfir rit sem hafa verið tilnefnd til ýmissa verðlauna, þar á meðal Íslensku bókmenntaverðlaunanna og Viðurkenningar Hagþenkis sem veitt hefur verið árlega allt frá árinu 1987. Auk þess að lúta í raun allt öðrum lögmálum en SSSF er Rannsóknarsjóður margfalt stærri sjóður en SSSF sem þó er langmikilvægasti sjóðurinn sem styrkir sjálfstætt starfandi fræðimenn. Helsta baráttumál Hagþenkis á undanförnum árum hefur verið að stórefla SSSF og hækka umtalsvert framlög í sjóðinn enda er ekki um það deilt að hann er verulega vanfjármagnaður. Fulltrúar félagsins hafa í þessu skyni átt fundi með starfsfólki ráðuneyta og minnt á þetta baráttumál við ýmis tækifæri, til dæmis í umsögn á síðasta ári um nýja bókmenntastefnu menningar- og viðskiptaráðuneytisins. Þá skrifuðu Gunnar Þór Bjarnason, formaður Hagþenkis, og Henry Alexander Henrysson, stjórnarmaður í félaginu, grein á visir.is í nóvember 2023 þar sem vakin var athygli á nauðsyn þess að efla SSSF. Greinin bar yfirskriftina „Þungur róður“ og hana má finna hér: https://www.visir.is/g/20232482786d/thungur-rodur. Hagþenkir telur að með sameiningu sjóðanna þriggja sé veruleg hætta á að hlutur sjálfstætt starfandi fræðimanna, þeirra sem einkum hafa sótt um styrki úr SSSF, verði fyrir borð borinn og varar þess vegna eindregið við því að það verði gert. Friðbjörg Ingimarsdóttir framkvæmdastýra Hagþenkis