OpenLobby.EU
Explore

Karolinska Institutet

KI

Karolinska Institutet är ett av världens ledande medicinska universitet.

Lobbying Activity

Meeting with Nienke Buisman (Head of Unit Research and Innovation) and Stockholms universitet and Kungliga Tekniska Hoegskolan

2 Dec 2025 · University Alliance - Presidents from the Trio (3 universities mentioned above)

Meeting with Hanna Gedin (Member of the European Parliament)

19 Nov 2025 · Public Procurement

Meeting with Sirpa Pietikäinen (Member of the European Parliament)

18 Nov 2025 · Rare diseases

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

6 Nov 2025

In May 2025 the University Alliance Stockholm Trio contributed to the public consultation EU Funding for Competitiveness. For the current consultations on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF) and in this contribution, we have chosen to highlight a few of the points proposed by the Commission which we particularly welcome in the three proposals and, when appropriate, have included our suggestions for amendments in the three proposals. In the following document, we have focused on a limited number of comments, with concrete amendments to the legal texts. We submit this contribution to all three consultations, and for clarity, we include our input to all three in this one single document. Please find attached our full position paper.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

6 Nov 2025

In May 2025 the University Alliance Stockholm Trio contributed to the public consultation EU Funding for Competitiveness. For the current consultations on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF) and in this contribution, we have chosen to highlight a few of the points proposed by the Commission which we particularly welcome in the three proposals and, when appropriate, have included our suggestions for amendments in the three proposals. In the following document, we have focused on a limited number of comments, with concrete amendments to the legal texts. We submit this contribution to all three consultations, and for clarity, we include our input to all three in this one single document. Please find attached our full position paper.
Read full response

Response to EU’s next long-term budget (MFF) – EU funding for competitiveness

6 Nov 2025

In May 2025 the University Alliance Stockholm Trio contributed to the public consultation EU Funding for Competitiveness. For the current consultations on the EUs next long-term budget (MFF) and in this contribution, we have chosen to highlight a few of the points proposed by the Commission which we particularly welcome in the three proposals and, when appropriate, have included our suggestions for amendments in the three proposals. In the following document, we have focused on a limited number of comments, with concrete amendments to the legal texts. We submit this contribution to all three consultations, and for clarity, we include our input to all three in this one single document. Please find attached our full position paper.
Read full response

Response to European Research Area (ERA) Act

10 Sept 2025

In this contribution, the University Alliance Stockholm Trio comprising Karolinska Institutet, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and Stockholm University share reflections and recommendations to support the continued development of the European Research Area (ERA). We fully support the ambition to strengthen the ERA and realise the Fifth Freedom: enabling the free circulation of researchers, knowledge, and innovation across borders. While legislation can have a role, we believe that prescriptive legal measures are not the most effective or appropriate path forward for developing the ERA. We stress the importance of maintaining a careful balance between EU-level coordination and national autonomy, and of safeguarding academic freedom, research quality, and long-term perspectives. Lasting progress in the ERA will not come through prescriptive regulation, but through co-creation, mutual trust, and a commitment to enabling diverse and excellent research systems to thrive across Europe. While coordinated action at the EU level has value, we are concerned that the proposed ERA Act remains vague and may open the door to broader regulatory ambitions. The EUs legal competence in research is limited to supporting, coordinating, and complementing national efforts not replacing or steering them. Any steps toward legislation must therefore be taken with great caution and full respect for the diversity of national systems. We underline that quality assurance and research direction must remain grounded in the academic community and scientific judgement not in administrative or market logics. There is a particular risk that political priorities, however legitimate, may crowd out bottom-up, curiosity-driven research. For this reason, EU action should be clearly complementary, reinforcing national strengths rather than imposing uniform models. We also propose establishing an independent European-level mechanism, such as an ombudsperson, to help safeguard academic freedom in practice. For the full context and detailed response, please see the attached document.
Read full response

Response to Towards a Circular, Regenerative and Competitive Bioeconomy

23 Jun 2025

The University Alliance Stockholm Trio - Karolinska Institutet, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and Stockholm University - welcomes the European Commissions initiative to develop a new strategy for European bioeconomy and value this opportunity to contribute to the process. Representing researchers and applying a university perspective to our paper, we have also chosen to include comments on and support to synergies with the future EU research programme, FP10. This input paper is complementary to other comments published by Stockholm Trio, including replies to the Commissions consultations on European life sciences and the European Biotech Act, the consultation on the MFF and EU funding for competitiveness, as well as our very first input to FP10. We would like to start off by referring to the 2012 Bioeconomy strategy for Europe. Here, strengthening research and innovation was one of the identified focus areas. Additionally, the previous framework programme for research and innovation, Horizon 2020, was among other things identified as a key instrument in achieving rapid transfer of research results to industry. We would like to call for the remaining of Horizon Europe and the future framework programme for research and innovation, FP10, to play the same role in the coming bioeconomy strategy. Research, from the lowest Technology Readiness Level (TRL) and up the TRL ladder is what lays the foundation and the groundwork for future innovation, solutions and products and services including for the bioeconomy. In order to strengthen European competitiveness, research must be part of the equation. In the attached paper, our full position on the Bioeconomy strategy is outlined.
Read full response

Response to Biotech Act

11 Jun 2025

The University Alliance Stockholm Trio - Karolinska Institutet, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and Stockholm University - appreciates the European Commissions initiative to strengthen European biotech and value this opportunity to contribute to its impact assessment on the Biotech Act. Our full position is outlined in the attached paper. In its Call for evidence on the Biotech Act the Commission writes that the EU has a relatively strong position globally when it comes to fundamental research in biotech and where the challenge and room for improvement is identified as the need to translate fundamental research into products. From a university perspective, we strongly support this and want to call on the Commission to not fix what is not broken, but make sure to strengthen the continued support to fundamental and basic research, and that we create the necessary support measures and initiatives to support and enhance the translation of this into marketable products and services. In this context we refer to our proposal on Connecting Dots in the MFF consultation. We have already good Dots in the ERC Pathfinder and the EIC Transition. The proposed Technology Infrastructure can also lay the ground for Connecting Dots. This input paper is complementary to other comments published by Stockholm Trio, including position papers on: EU funding for competitiveness, European strategy on research and technology infrastructures, Our first input to FP10, and in particular our input to the consultation on European life sciences. In the attached paper, the rest of our position in relation to the Biotech Act is outlined.
Read full response

Meeting with Isabella Lövin (Member of the European Parliament)

19 May 2025 · Planetary health

Response to EU Life sciences strategy

17 Apr 2025

Please find attached the University Alliance Stockholm Trio's comments and input to A strategy for European life sciences. (Stockholm Trio is a university alliance between Karolinska Institutet, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, and Stockholm University).
Read full response

Meeting with Jessika Roswall (Commissioner) and

14 Apr 2025 · Air pollution, microplastic, PFAS and chemicals

Meeting with Martin Hojsík (Member of the European Parliament) and European Society of Endocrinology

4 Mar 2025 · Chemical policies, endocrine disrupting chemicals

Meeting with Pascal Arimont (Member of the European Parliament) and Eni S.p.A. and Marvel Fusion GmbH

5 Feb 2025 · Hearing on Fusion Energy

Response to Options for support for R&D of dual-use technologies

29 Apr 2024

The University Alliance Stockholm Trio (Karolinska Institutet, KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm University) expresses its appreciation to the European Commission for its call for feedback on its White Paper on dual-use potential. In summary, Stockholm Trio prefers Option 1, i.e., continue with the current set up with civil application in the Framework Programme (FP), and look to build synergies with other programmes. An overall approach the Stockholm Trio would like to call for is to build on what we already have. The dual-use aspect is an additional argument to have more calls on lower Technology Readiness Levels (TRLs) in FP10, as this will generate more possibility for synergies. Civil application has been the norm ever since FP1, which began in 1984. It would be a big principal change to remove this exclusive focus in the programme. A global strength of the EU is its science diplomacy, a soft-power in an ever more geopoliticised world. The FP is unique, globally one of a kind, and supports the EUs science diplomacy. It would be a safeguard for the EUs science diplomacy if the FP continues to exclusively focus on civil application. Option 1 also simplifies for European universities with a civil clause, otherwise risking excluding them. Regarding Option 2, this would be a big step to take and could imply vast practical and administrative changes. After close consideration, the practical difficulties its implementation would mean for universities has made us opt out of removing the exclusive focus on civil application in the FP. We also see the strength of the FPs role in promoting international collaboration and science diplomacy, where the FP is an excellent tool, but a tool that would risk becoming less sharp and less useful internationally if a dual-use component were to be added. Stockholm Trio is calling for more information and analyses to be made before such a big step would be taken. We call for the Commission to adapt a make haste slowly approach when it comes to Option 2. Several practical challenges have been identified with Option 2, which we would further like to highlight to the Commission: - Option 2 would introduce research with military applications to research environments not used to handling the kind of confidentiality associated with defence research. What would the effects on freedom of research be? - Option 2 could be self-defeating: Restricting access to environments acquiring research funding with military purposes would significantly decrease the recruitment base. This, in its turn, would threaten excellence and thus the very reason for universities to be useful to strengthen European security and defence. - With Option 2, research and support offices could be expected to grow and expand in order to provide adequate support to researchers. This would require additional national research funding and a skill set rare at the labour market and needed within the defence industry. - With Option 2, there is a risk the attractiveness of the FP for third countries, and those interested to associate, would be affected, as Option 2 could mean more calls being closed for non-EU members. Option 3 could complicate an already complex EU-funding landscape, and possibly make synergies even more difficult to achieve. The European research and innovation system already has an intricate and complex nature. There are many kinds of programmes, initiatives, and projects to be aware of, often with their own application processes, rules for participation, and ways of working. Therefore, we opt for building on what we already have, and not create yet one more instrument, which also could make synergies even more difficult to achieve. Stockholm Trio would like to urge the Commission to make further analyses and studies in case this option would be applied. Please see attached document for more detailed input from the University Alliance Stockholm Trio.
Read full response

Meeting with Christian Ehler (Member of the European Parliament) and Stockholms universitet

8 Nov 2023 · European research policy

Meeting with Jakop G. Dalunde (Member of the European Parliament) and Stockholms universitet and Stockholm Region Assocation for European Affairs (Stockholm Region EU Office)

6 Feb 2023 · Science & Research