Shaping Denmark’s Research & Innovation Ecosystem

A Conversation with Thomas Trøst Hansen

March 11, 2025

This interview is the first in a series, exploring questions of research and innovation, in Denmark, and abroad. The series is linked with my ongoing effort of mapping two emerging fields, Decentralized Science (DeSci) and Metascience. While Metascience as a field is not new, there is a new variant, explicitly engaged in not only analysing existing systems, but importantly developing new organizational forms, funding models and more. Both fields, are attempting to reform and reinvent how we organize, fund and disseminate research and innovation, and I believe there is a lot to learn from these emerging efforts. The interview series will feature people directly involved with those efforts, as well as other actors across the research and innovation landscape. Given I am based in Copenhagen, Denmark, there will be an element of exchanging ideas and projects from DeSci and Metascience, into a Danish context and vice versa.

In this edition, I sat down with Thomas Trøst Hansen, who leads the secretariat of the Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy (DFIR)—an independent advisory body that provides expert recommendations on research, technological development, and innovation policy in Denmark. DFIR plays a critical role in analyzing and shaping the Danish research ecosystem, offering insights on funding structures, evaluation metrics, and international collaboration. While Thomas and his colleagues don’t work directly with Metascience or DeSci, their work on reforming research frameworks and improving innovation policy aligns with many of the conversations happening in these communities. In this interview, we explore DFIR’s mission, its impact on Denmark’s research landscape, and Thomas’ perspective on emerging models of scientific funding, collaboration, and governance. We also discuss the potential intersections between traditional science policy and decentralized or alternative research models.

Bio: Thomas Trøst Hansen is the Head of Secretariat of the Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy (DFIR). A position he has held since 2022. He holds a PhD from Aalborg University and master's degrees from the University of Copenhagen and the University of Essex, reflecting his strong academic foundation in public policy and international relations. Before his current role at DFIR, Thomas served as a civil servant in the Ministry of Higher Education, a senior adviser at the Danish National Research Foundation, and as the Danish science attaché to China, where he promoted collaboration between Danish and Chinese research communities.

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this interview are those of Thomas Trøst Hansen and should not be considered as the official stance or position of the Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy (DFIR). These opinions represent his personal perspectives based on his experience and expertise within the field.

Introduction

David Hilmer Rex

Thomas, could you start by introducing yourself and your role at the Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy (DFIR)?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

My name is Thomas Trøst Hansen, and I'm the Head of the Secretariat at The Danish Council for Research and Innovation Policy (DFIR). I have been working in the Danish Ministry of Higher Education and Science, and in institutions around the Danish ministry for about 15 years. I have an educational background in political science, an industrial PhD in Sociology of Knowledge and I have done research on the role of academic conferences in the scientific ecosystem.

DFIR is an advisory body to the Danish government and parliament. We provide an analytically based foundation for research and innovation policy. Central to that is analysis of potentials or pitfalls for the Danish ecosystem, and advice on how to mitigate the pitfalls and reap the benefits of the potentials. And to do so, not from the perspective of one particular stakeholder, but at a systemic level.

David Hilmer Rex

How does DFIR interact with policymakers, universities, industry, and other stakeholders in shaping research policy?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

If we keep the political part aside for a bit, the rest of the ecosystem is within the council. We have nine members from universities, industry and foundations. When we start a new project, we will discuss and develop the project with them. The other part is that we speak to our colleagues here in the Ministry of Higher Education and Science. The civil servants have a deep understanding of the problem field they are working with, and we play an important role in bringing in their perspectives to our analysis.

In terms of the political aspect; firstly, we are sharing offices with the policy office of the minister. Our colleagues, who we have lunch with, are developing the science and innovation policy for the government. So, there is a lot of informal contact and development. At lunch, you'll be discussing a problem you're facing and how to solve it. We also serve as an archive of sorts or an internal expert, where colleagues will come to us and ask: “Do you have any ideas on how to solve this?”.

Then every two weeks, I have a meeting with the director of policy in the ministry, who is responsible for research and innovation policy. We'll be discussing current issues that are developing. I will bring in our back catalogue of analysis and say "we've touched upon something similar two years ago. Maybe we could look in this report for part of the answer”. In terms of politicians, we meet with them when we have finished a report and present it in parliament. This happens every three months approximately.

David Hilmer Rex

How do you decide on the thematics or questions you produce reports and analysis on? Do policymakers have a say in that?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

Indirectly, yes, in the sense that the council follows the political debate closely. If there is a topic that reoccurs in the political debate, and we sense that something is missing, overlooked or has potential that hasn't been unfolded, then that is really the spot we want to be in. So, something which is topical, important, that has political attention, and where a perspective is overlooked because it might be presented by very strong lobbyists who will not look at it from all sides. But more importantly, our council members have a sense of what is an important topic. They are part of the ecosystem, and they will be bringing ideas into the council as well. So, it's a bit of a mix in how we choose the topics, but in the end, it is the council members who decide what we pursue.

The Danish Research and Innovation Ecosystem

David Hilmer Rex

From your perspective, what are the biggest strengths and weaknesses of the Danish research and innovation ecosystem today?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

One of the major strengths of our system is the fact that we have a very diverse funding system. We have a wide variety of public and private foundations and funding bodies. This increases the chances that good research ideas will be funded at some point. This proliferation of funding possibilities, is a chance for more ideas to be accepted, because, if they don't fit in one framing or funding context, they might fit into another.

From a systemic point of view, we have a weakness in the fact that our system is very disorganized. There is no strategy. There's not a forum for a strategic dialogue on where should we be moving our system and with the advance of the very big private foundations, it is obvious that while the state might be an important gardener, it is not the only one in the Danish science garden. There's a lot of players around, and this requires a different kind of dialogue at the systemic level. And the state needs to take on a different role, not as the one setting the direction, but facilitating a dialogue between partners.

Another weakness is that we have developed a system, which caters only for private innovation. We have built a lot of instruments that try to support the transition from university research to private enterprises. We don't really have a system that underpins public innovation. And I think it is a major potential, if we could support the public sector in innovating in a more structured way. This is something we haven't succeeded with. This would include the municipalities, the regions as well as the state level.

David Hilmer Rex

You noted that the system is very disorganized, and there is no articulate strategy. But how is direction then decided upon currently? Is it by way of certain historical strength positions such as pharma and life science or wind technology?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

The private foundations are very important in influencing the direction of the system, especially in terms of deciding what future positions of strengths that need to be funded. It's done in collaboration with the government, but the foundations play an important role. Of course, the state and universities also play an important role.

What you see is a lot of different interests popping up and moving the system in a specific direction for a number of years, and then we might see a new change or correction in the direction. I think we would benefit as a system, from picking different indicators, that we would like to move in a certain direction. For example, the number of privately employed researchers; are we succeeding with getting our PhDs into private companies? There are definitely issues there. This is not the task of one foundation, the government or one university. This is really a systemic task. It would be great if we could have shared goals, and I can't see why it shouldn't be possible? Another example is the number of women in professorships. Where do we want to move in five years. What is a reasonable target that we want to go for, and how could different organizations contribute to that target? Another example is the share between basic funding for research and competitive funding, what should the right ratio be between these two? We need a discussion on what the target should be and how different actors can move towards it. That's what I mean when speaking of a forum for strategic discussion of the direction of our system.

David Hilmer Rex

So that is less about betting on specific technologies or themes you want to direct the system in, and more in terms of the quality and health of the system, as measured by certain indicators and targets?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

The discussion on the themes is very complicated. That has to be a lobbying effort, right? I mean, you, I don't think you can make that sort of scoreboard that says, “AI is 7% better investment than quantum technologies”. I mean, how, how are you going to set up an advisory system that is going to come with that kind of output? That is basically a political decision, and probably our best bet there is setting up a system, where we delegate decision power to the most competent and we make sure to keep multiple funding streams open.

David Hilmer Rex

An example of funds directed at specific themes or problem areas, is the Innomissions program under Innovation Fund Denmark.

Thomas Trøst Hansen

My argument is not that we shouldn't have strategic or directed funding models. My point is just that it's a strength of the system, that it is very diverse, and we don't want to see a system which becomes very monolithic. We want the diversity.

Research and Innovation, and Geopolitics

David Hilmer Rex

What are some of the key trends or structural changes you have observed in recent years when talking about research and innovation policy and our ecosystem?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

One major trend which we cannot overlook, is how research and innovation has become a geopolitical driver. The U.S.-China conflict, is really a conflict about technology. Taiwan is a conflict about access to semiconductors. Technological independence and developing frontier technologies, has made research and innovation into a central factor in geopolitics. This has increased the expectations on our work on research policy, in that the political level will want clear answers very soon on how we can establish a system that provides a technological edge? This is already ongoing, and we need to develop our science policy quite a lot to be able to give those kinds of answers. It speaks to the fact that having a well performing science system as measured by citations, publications and other bibliometric markers, is not going to make the cut very soon. Because the decisive factor is whether it will provide it a technological edge. I don't think we have science and innovation policy that is ripe for this kind of scrutiny, to be honest.

David Hilmer Rex

What would an answer to that expectation look like? The positions of strength Denmark has in terms of diabetes medicine as an example, was arrived at via many years of basic research, where it wasn't necessarily clear what it would lead to. So how would you answer that question?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

Clearly the answer is not copying the past. You need a science and innovation policy that is fit to the current state of affairs. For China maybe it made sense for 20 years to invest in the later TRL levels (technology readiness level), but is that still going to be the best strategy? Maybe not. We really need to consider the current context. This is why it is a beautiful field to be engaged in. It's really interesting and highly important.

Beyond Bibliometrics

David Hilmer Rex

One of DFIR’s working principles is taking a holistic approach. How does DFIR think about improving the way research is organized, funded, and evaluated?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

We need to move beyond bibliometric indicators. Too much focus on bibliometrics, from a national research point of view, just doesn't make sense. How is it valuable for the state of Denmark to be funding a researcher whose writing is based on US data and gets a lot of citation from the US? One of the most interesting clashes in research policy, is that you have a national system that you're trying to establish and develop, but research is governed by international norms. So how do you balance international norms that people at the institutions are navigating, with national interests? In my view, we could take a stronger voice on this and develop policies that focus less on the international norms. With the introduction of AI, we'll see massive productivity growth, and our publishing system will develop no matter what. We might as well take a very clear stance on this and say that our Danish system should be meriting and showing a different direction, and I think it would be give us an international edge by actually trying to be at the forefront of that development.

David Hilmer Rex

And what could you measure or value alongside bibliometrics?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

One example is where the students you have taught go to. Where are your PhD students now? That is a very simple metric. It is more complicated to measure societal impact. To me it seems unlikely, that it will be possible to develop general indicators for societal impact. Impact at the Faculty of Law looks very different to impact at the photonics department. Nevertheless, we have to invest and continuously explore how we measure societal impact. A lot is going on, at the European level, but for a small and agile country like Denmark, this should be an area where we are part of setting the agenda.

Alternative Approaches

David Hilmer Rex

There is an increase in discussion globally about rethinking research incentives, funding mechanisms, and evaluation metrics. Do you see a need for alternative approaches in Denmark?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

Absolutely, I think we need alternatives, and the way forward is to facilitate experimentation. We need to explore and see if we can find new avenues and directions, and we should – in Denmark - be well equipped with our diverse system. I know there is a lot going on at different institutions and foundations, so maybe a first step should be to collect this information and bring it together in a more general evaluative framework.

David Hilmer Rex

How does DFIR approach discussions around funding high-risk, long-term, or interdisciplinary research that might not fit into traditional academic structures?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

One feeling I have is that we really miss out a great a lot of great things by wanting to or by forcing them into academic structures. One could have a hypothesis that a lot of innovative potential could be unleashed if it wasn't about producing the standard academic products, but actually creating change using the academic toolbox for developing new and valuable impacts. I think that is particularly true when it comes to public innovation. One of the issues with academic thinking is that we highly value novelty and for public innovation, I'm not sure novelty really is the key. We want robustness, stability and efficiency across different sectors. We want the opposite than novelty. We want something that has been well tested and is applicable and implementable. I think the novelty aspect is much better suited on a private market, where you get a benefit from being first.

David Hilmer Rex

Decentralized Science (DeSci) initiatives are experimenting with new models for funding, publishing, and collaboration, using blockchain and network-based governance. And a new breed of Metascience initiatives, are, experimenting with new ways of organizing, funding and disseminating research and technology. While DFIR doesn’t work directly with DeSci or this more entrepreneurial approach to Metascience, do you see value in some of these alternative approaches?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

If you buy into the analysis that our system is in a phase of transition, and I would argue, this is what we are seeing, then, the system as it is, focused on bibliometrics, is going to collapse. Do we want to see it collapse and then build an alternative? Or should we plant seeds in the ground to see alternatives that have at least sprouted or have grown a bit before our old system collapses? In my view, it would be very well timed to look into alternatives. There is an obscene amount of money being made by publishing houses at the expense of the public. It is basically state aid to private corporations. That really doesn't make any sense, and we should be changing this model, no matter what, and now we might need to change it because of technological development. This is really the time to put effort and energy into thinking about alternatives. And I don't have an overview of the alternatives, but decentralized models could be part of that potential. I would like to see arguments on why they are, or why they are not. We need to have a clear-headed analysis of this.

In terms of the metascience approach, of course, that follows from the geopolitical argument that the competitiveness of our research and innovation systems is going to define our geopolitical position. This is why it is core state interest. I used to be the science attache in China. Whenever you look at a speech from President Xi, or you look at the five-year plan, innovation is at the core. I mean, it's chapter two. Chapter one is on the survival of the Chinese state. Chapter two is on innovation. This is so ingrained in the thinking of how to solve societal problems in China, and probably we'll see that in Europe as well. The Draghi Report has at least sort of lifted that argument to some degree.

David Hilmer Rex

And why do you think that isn't prioritized to the same degree in the European context?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

Another way of raising that question is, why is science policy so damn boring? And I think it's very boring, because there's a lot of very technical terms. I mean, if you start discussing it as a politician, you'll soon say words like overhead and bibliometrics. There is a whole vocabulary that you need to understand before you can actually start talking about science policy. And basically, nobody wants to go into that discussion. And, if you enter that discussion, you're sure that somebody will be yelling on you, right? If you don't say, give more money, give the researchers freedom, you will have a whole community that hates you. In a way, it's very difficult to make science policy interesting in a democratic society. We have a giant task in providing a platform for having a science policy debate in society. But I think there are axis' that are deeply political; the axis between competition and vested institutional interest. I mean that is a deeply political question. The axis between openness and security, that's a political choice. Where do you want to be on this axis? There is also a discussion between production of knowledge and the spread of knowledge, which is also a deeply political discussion, where do you want to be on this? Where do you want to invest your resources? Do you want to produce new or do you use what others have produced? We really have a task in making science policy interesting.

David Hilmer Rex

What role can Denmark play in fostering more open, collaborative, and experimental approaches to research and innovation?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

My argument would be quite a bit. It would be interesting to develop a policy platform for or a position on this. I don't think we have a position on these topics that goes beyond what the European Commission is saying, and I could see it as one of the areas where you could actually make policy. Another idea would be, now it's a bit far-fetched, but the global science system, is made up of norms. And as a small state, normally, what you prefer is having global norms because that is comfortable for a small state, right? But now that our norm system is in a transition, is breaking up, as a small state, what you would normally do is engage in diplomatic activities that would stabilize the norm system and try to sort of push it in that direction. But we don't have a Science Ambassador. We don't have anyone going to the big publishing houses trying to push in a certain direction. We don't have a policy on this. If you took science policy seriously, you would project your interests internationally, and we don't do that.

David Hilmer Rex

At all?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

We are part of the European Union, and we try to project it into how we develop policies at the European level. But we are pretty big science nation. We could project it further, and we have some foundations that could help us build a brand and a story of how we should form the global science system.

David Hilmer Rex

But there is a recurring narrative around that Denmark is a role model in terms of how we approach science and innovation globally, and that we are a forerunner nation in terms of advancing new green technologies?

Thomas Trøst Hansen

I think it's a compliment when you look at the numbers. Our system is well performing, and it's performing way above its weight. If you look at top 10% publications, we are number eight in Europe. That is over performing. But my argument of developing and projecting our national interest internationally, that is something I don't think is part of our system and thinking. We don't really consider that to be a possibility.