The Swedish Research Council is forced to make major savings within national research infrastructure. The most important reason is the poor exchange rate of the Swedish krona, which causes increased costs for international infrastructure. But the cost increase is also because Swedish researchers have been successful, and have been awarded more time at several international facilities.

Every year, the world’s most cited researchers are listed. Being included on this list can be seen as proof that your research is being used, or that you have done a good job. But the phenomenon of listing highly-cited researchers, and the consequences this can have, are also being criticised.

“Academic housekeeping” steals time from research, and does not add merit. Academic housekeeping is the invisible work primarily carried out by women.

What is the position of basic research in Sweden, and what does basic research really mean? Curie has talked to Karin Markides, Mats Ulfendahl and Göran Blomqvist. All three have experience of research funding from leading positions within bodies such as Vinnova, the Swedish Research Council and the Swedish Foundation for Humanities and Social Sciences.

Working with basic research tests your patience – it can take decades to achieve tangible results. This is well-known to the microbiologists Jan Holmgren and Ann-Mari Svennerholm, who have been researching cholera vaccine since the 1970s. Today, the couple have received many accolades for their work spanning many years.

The importance of undirected research for social development and the need to invest more in national infrastructure. These were some of the issues highlighted in the Swedish Research Council’s report Future choices, which shows the way forward for Swedish research.

Basic research is about finding new knowledge, but the concept has several definitions, and the approach differs between different scientific fields. Mats Benner, professor of research policy, explains what basic research is, and why so few researchers stretch their wings these days.

Small research teams produce disruptive research at a greater rate. Large groups tend to develop existing ideas. This is shown in a study published in Nature by US researchers. But the question why small groups are better at disruptive research remains unanswered.