Annual Report
2016
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Content
410
Executive summary SciLifeLab
3 4
Organization and financing 4 SciLifeLab’s role as a national center 6 Scientific activities 14 Collaboration 18 Drug discovery and development 22 Evaluation and development of the operations 25 Board, operational management, scientific advisory board and steering committees 2016 30 Finances 32 Financial reporting 34 Income statement 36 Balance sheet 39 Notes 40
152 Production: SciLifeLab Design: Zellout Photo: Johan Spinell and Mikael Wallerstedt Print: TMG Tabergs, 2017 2
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Executive summary The report from SciLifeLab for 2016 describes a year with continued very positive development. A large number of projects have been carried out by the SciLifeLab facilities and platforms, which have resulted in publications of high impact and a trend towards increased quality compared to previous years. Moreover, although the biggest part of SciLifeLab facility users come from Uppsala University and Karolinska Institutet, the user base became more widespread across the nation last year. During 2016, SciLifeLab management organized the first systematic international evaluation of all facilities and platforms. This evaluation was based on a comprehensive 700-page report. A site visit was also carried out by a panel of 30 internationally renowned experts. The evaluation resulted in a reorganization of the facilities and a new allocation of funding for a four-year period. SciLifeLab continued its effort to contribute to excellent life science research in Sweden by recruitment of highly competitive SciLifeLab fellows. With a wide range of well-visited SciLifeLab symposia, workshops and courses we aim to further promote research excellence in Sweden. We are proud to present this report and would like to thank all our stakeholders at the four host universities, as well as our national partners, for their support.
“During 2016, SciLifeLab management organized the first systematic international evaluation of all facilities and platforms.”
Olli Kallioniemi
Director Olli Kallioniemi Co-Director Lena Claesson-Welsh Lena Claesson-Welsh
3
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
SciLifeLab SciLifeLab (Science for Life Laboratory) is a national center for life science research in the field of molecular bioscience. Our mission is to o ffer Swedish researchers national access to advanced technical analyses of samples, support for data analysis and specialist expertise in molecular bioscience. The center is primarily located in Stockholm and Uppsala and is operated in collaboration between four host universities: KTH Royal Institute of Technology (KTH), Karolinska Institutet (KI), Stockholm University (SU) and Uppsala University (UU). KTH is the principal and reports on the operations. Since January 2016, SciLifeLab has also strengthened and supplemented its service by funding activities at six Swedish universities outside the host universities (Chalmers University of Technology (Chalmers), University of Gothen-
burg (GU), Linköping University (LIU), Lund University (LU), Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences (SLU) and Umeå University (UMU)). This annual report aims to describe the scientific operation’s qualitative and quantitative development, SciLifeLab’s role as a national center, how projects have been distributed between different universities, and cooperative arrangements with the commercial sector, health care services and other players. The report also comprises the specific effort in the area of drug discovery and development, and clarifies how various sources of funding are used to strengthen the operations as a whole, including the capacity for external financing.
Figure 1. SciLifeLab’s basic financing (SEK million) Figure 1 SciLifeLab’s basic financing consists of funding for national infrastructure, funding for drug discovery and development and strategic research funding. *Strategic research funding is distributed so that 30 percent goes to UU and 70 percent to KTH/KI/SU according to the original strategic research funding allocation.
4
2016
2015
2014
2013
206
154
153
150
52
41
41
40
Strategic research funding*
152
150
149
146
Total
410
345
343
336
National infrastructure Drug discovery and development
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Organization and financing The National Board is SciLifeLab’s decision-making body and its mission is regulated in a special ordinance (2013:118). The Board decides on issues that concern SciLifeLab as a national center, which includes the allocation of funding for national infrastructure and drug discovery and development. The Board reports to the Board of KTH. Four of the Board members come from the host universities and three come from other Swedish universities. The chairman and one member from industry are appointed by the government. In 2016, three new members were appointed to the Board. Besides the Board, there is an operational Management Group, an International Advisory Board, and steering committees for the Stockholm and Uppsala nodes and the technical platforms that constitute the center’s research infrastructure. As a result of proposals from external and self-initiated evaluations during the year, the Management Group conducted extensive efforts together with the host universities to achieve changes in the management and support functions. This work has led to a clearer division of responsibilities, greater national coordination and an integrated management and collaboration with the host universities. These changes will be implemented in 2017, but a new Director with responsibility for research infrastructure was already appointed to the operational Management Group in 2016. The support functions in Uppsala and Stockholm have also been integrated and are now led by a Head of Operations and a Vice Head of Operations. Both of them are respon-
sible for central activities, support functions and administration for SciLifeLab as a whole. The changes taking place also comprised platforms and facilities, which are presented in the section Development and evaluation of operations. SciLifeLab’s basic financing consists of funding for national infrastructure, funding for drug discovery and development and funding for strategic research areas (SRA). A summary of SciLifeLab’s financing is presented in Figure 1. In addition to this basic funding, there is other funding that originates from the research groups in the SciLifeLab community, which constitutes the majority of the collective funding in SciLifeLab. This other funding is presented for 160 group leaders, which in 2016 define SciLifeLab’s research community according to the decisions of operational Management Group.
“This work has led to a clearer division of responsibilities, greater national coordination and an integrated management and collaboration with the host universities.” 5
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
SciLifeLab’s role as a national center During the year, SciLifeLab conducted activities to enable Sweden’s researchers to receive the technology, expertise and training the center offers. SciLifeLab has also worked to establish networks of researchers in the life sciences for collaboration and knowledge exchange. Research infrastructure SciLifeLab’s mission is to provide advanced technology, equipment and expertise that is not readily available to the research community in general due to high costs or a need for specialized technical expertise. In 2016, this research infrastructure was divided into ten platforms (Figure 2), which will be reorganized in 2017 (see more under Evaluation and development of the operations). A new platform, the Metabolomics platform, was established in 2016 and is the first platform that has its operations at SLU in Umeå. A total of 451 people, half of which are men and half are women, worked in the platforms, the Management Group and the central support functions in 2016. However, the number of full-time equivalents (FTE) is lower (just over 350 FTEs) as several people also conduct research part time. This is also apparent in the educational level where 64 percent of the employees have completed doctoral studies. The platforms are in turn divided between 41 facilities that provide technology and expertise in a specific area. Of them, seven facilities are located at Swedish universities outside the host universities (at Chalmers, GU, LIU, LU, SLU and UMU). In addition to the aforementioned facilities, there are eight regional facilities of national interest that offer a broad range of technology
6
Figure 2. Organization of SciLifeLab’s platforms in 2016 Technology Platforms
Research Programs Health
Environment
Affinity Proteomics Bioimaging Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden Drug Discovery & Development Functional Genomics Metabolomics National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden National Genomics Infrastructure Next-Generation Diagnostics Structural Biology
Regional facilities of national interest
and expertise, including mass spectrometry, bioimaging, zebra fish models, genotyping and testing of biomaterials. The regional facilities are not financed by national funding, but have some national users. After the international evaluation of the research infrastructure conducted during the year, it was decided that SciLifeLab would no longer include regional facilities as a part of its infrastructure as of 2017. However, these operations will in most cases continue to be tied to the
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
7
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
SciLifeLab community. The majority of the platforms apply a direct queue system for users after the project’s feasibility has been checked. Some platforms handle complex projects that require significant investments in resources and a stricter prioritization is applied. The cost that rests with the user is based on the cost of reagents with a few exceptions. Fixed costs, including personnel, equipment and service agreements, are financed by SciLifeLab and/or another financier of the infrastructure. In order to obtain long-term stable financing of the operations, it was decided in 2016 that the facilities would review the application of user fees. Non-academic actors can also use the service of the platforms against full cost. The users themselves own all results and intellectual property rights. Every platform normally has a national steering committee that monitors the operations and decides on procedures for project prioritizations, and gives advice in strategic issues. The steering committees have representation by experts in relevant fields and users of the infrastructure. For some platforms, the steering committees are the same as those appointed by the Swedish Research Council (VR) in the work on the national infrastructure. This way, SciLifeLab can strengthen on-going efforts by VR in a mutual effort to create well-functioning research infrastructures. SciLifeLab continuously monitors operations and global technical development to identify new technology that may be of interest. As a part of improving infrastructure for future needs, a number of pilot projects were started in 2016 with the goal of being reviewed as national facilities at the next international evaluation (see more under Evaluation and development of the operations). During the development phase, the projects are financed by the respective university’s funding.
8
Expanded operations with projects nationwide The total number of projects delivered from the platforms is largely unchanged compared with 2015 (Fig ure 3). Of the total 3,073 projects carried out at the national platforms, 83 percent were service projects, which means that the platforms supply data without being involved in the actual publication, the rest were collaboration projects. There were 1,174 individual research group leaders who used SciLifeLab’s infrastructure, of whom just over 500 used more than one facility. A large proportion of the projects have been carried out at the National Genomics Infrastructure and National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden (Figure 4). At several of the other platforms, the number of projects is continuing to increase in that the operations have become more established. The number of projects that take place on behalf of researchers outside the host universities is largely unchanged and constituted 35 percent in 2016, which is on a par with the total distribution of funding for medical research in Sweden. Besides the host universities, projects are distributed over the Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Lund University, Umeå University, University of Gothenburg, Linköping University, Chalmers University of Technology, Linnaeus University, Södertörn University, Örebro University and the University of Skövde (Figure 5). More than 70 percent of the platform for Next Generation Diagnostics’ projects are from outside the host universities. This is mainly due to their close ties to healthcare. The link to users at other universities is of major importance in the strive to expand the network of researchers nationally. Data Office SciLifeLab’s national platforms produce very large amounts of data for Swedish research projects. The SciLifeLab Board has decided to establish a Data Office as a new unit to assist the platforms and their users in issued concerning
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Figure 3. Number of projects and national distribution of the infrastructure 2014–2016 2016
2015
2014
Total number of projects (national platforms and regional facilities)
3,751
3,848
2,235
Total number of projects (national platforms)
3,073
3,077
1,887
Number of service projects (national platforms)
2,538
2,501
1,615
Projects commissioned by researchers outside the host universities (national platforms and regional facilities)
35 %
34 %
30 %
Figure 4. Total number of projects allocated per platform 2014–2016 Platform
2016
2015
2014
219
298
167
23
29
20
1,258
1,203
782
171
154
43
84
115
26
971
1,038
728
34
72
37
134
114
29
54
0
0
125
54
55
3,073
3,077
1,887
Affinity Proteomics Bioimaging National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden Next-Generation Diagnostics Functional Genomics National Genomics Infrastructure Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden Drug Discovery and Development Metabolomics Structural Biology Total
data management. This concerns, for example, security, access, data sharing, archiving, reuse and publication of data and research results. The Data Office will also work to help Swedish researchers to follow principles for open science, which are increasingly required in international collaborations, and by journals and funding bodies.
National effort in human whole genome sequencing and biodiversity Since 2014, a major effort has been made to enable new and innovative projects with the goal of establishing a knowledge base for large-scale Swedish genomics research. SciLifeLab’s infrastructure in genomics enables large-scale analysis of the human genome and provides
9
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
“SciLifeLab has been an organizer and co-organizer of 65 scientific conferences and symposia.”
broad opportunities for the in-depth study of biodiversity using DNA analysis. The program provides financial and technical support to the researchers’ own initiatives. In total, 41 projects have been granted support in the program with research group leaders spread throughout the country. The projects extend from primary research to developing new methods to diagnose genetic diseases for healthcare. In 2016, the first Swedish gene map of the whole genome was made available as a result of this effort. The gene map, which comprises 1,000 individuals, provides a unique opportunity for researchers and clinics to know how common genetic variants are in the Swedish population, and thereby more easily understand what variants might be linked to disease. The results have been made available for searching and download, and are currently used by both research teams and clinics. This makes a difference in the form of better diagnostics and increases the possibilities for individualized care. The effort has been made possible with support from the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. Outreach activities In 2016, two roadshows were made to the universities in Gothenburg and Umeå as a part of the SciLifeLab’s regular visits to Sweden’s largest universities. This is done with the aim of making new contacts and providing information on the technology, expertise and training offered. The platforms also devote substantial resources to individual meetings between the facilities’ personnel and researchers to inform and support the individual research teams with expertise and planning of specific projects. In 2016, the facilities held more than 1,200 individual meetings with researchers. These researchers represented mainly Swedish universities, but also industry, authorities, healthcare services and foreign universities. To promote the collaboration with other academic
10
and non-academic actors, SciLifeLab continuously welcomes visitors and also participates in many scientific meetings and visits. SciLifeLab has been an organizer and co-organizer of 65 scientific conferences and symposia with both national and international speakers and participants. Every year, SciLifeLab gathers researchers at a scientific conference, the SciLifeLab Science Summit, in one of SciLifeLab’s areas of strength. This year’s SciLifeLab Science Summit, on the topic of “Single Cell analyses – from microbes to human”, had speakers from several Swedish and international universities. The speakers presented research that in many cases utilized SciLifeLab’s single cell techniques and expertise. In 2016, SciLifeLab was also the co-organizer of the Keystone Symposium, this year under the title “Understanding the Function of Human Genome Variation”. SciLifeLab also holds the seminar series “SciLifeLab The Svedberg seminar series” in Uppsala with seminars every two weeks with invited Swedish and international researchers in the life sciences. Through the “Science and SciLifeLab Prize for Young Scientists”, SciLifeLab recognizes international researchers at the beginning of their career. The award is a collaboration with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the journal Science and is made possible thanks to the support of the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. This year, the number of applications beat the record with a large global spread. The prize is awarded in December and the winners have the opportunity to meet researchers at SciLifeLab in Stockholm and Uppsala, participate in a scientific symposium and meet and inspire high school students during a one-week stay in Sweden. The 2016 prize was awarded to Neir Eshel, Stanford University, USA; David Seekell, UMU; Sam Behjati, Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute, UK and Canan Dagdeviren, MIT, USA.
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Figure 5. Distribution of service projects 2016
Uppsala University
Karolinska institutet
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
Stockholm University
Lund University
University of Gothenburg
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Umeå University
Chalmers University of Technology
Linköping University
Other Swedish universities
Figure 5 Distribution of service projects carried out for the respective university at the national platforms (%). Projects from other Swedish universities come from Linnaeus University, Örebro University, Södertörn University and University of Skövde.
11
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Figure 6. Number of persons admitted to SciLifeLabs’ bioinformatics courses
Total number of persons admitted
Number of persons admitted from host university
Number of persons admitted from other organizations* Percentage of persons admitted from other organizations
2016
Figure 6 Number of persons admitted to bioinformatics courses centrally organized by SciLifeLab in 2014–2016. *Other organizations: Swedish universities, authorities and foreign universities, beyond the host universities.
12
Education and knowledge dissemination In order for researchers to use SciLifeLab’s resources in the best way and to utilize the results provided, the platforms work a great deal with knowledge transfer concerning experimental design and data analysis. In 2016, SciLifeLab organized or contributed to a total of 193 education sessions (courses, workshops and individual lectures) at the Bachelor, Master and PhD level. Of them, 72 were offered in a city other than Stockholm and Uppsala. At the Bachelor and Master level, SciLifeLab’s facilities have organized (on its own or in cooperation with another actor) 25 education sessions in several different subject areas. The corresponding figure for the education sessions at the PhD level is 66. Examples of the subject areas include bioinformatics, genomics, proteomics, microscopy and image analysis. The creation of SciLifeLab constituted the starting point for the establishment of the Master program in Molecular Techniques in Life Science. The program, which leads to a joint degree from KI, KTH and SU, began in 2015 with six students admitted. In the fall semester of 2016, 26 students were admitted out of nearly 200 applicants. The participants come from 13 different countries in Europe and Asia. SciLifeLab already participates in the Master program in Molecular Medicine at UU, which started in 2010. In fall 2016, 22 new students were admitted and 22 presented their Master theses. The majority of students with a degree from the Molecular Medicine program have subsequ-
2015
2014
ently begun doctoral studies in various countries. In total, 21 nationalities are represented in the program. For both of these programs, education is provided in close cooperation with expertise and technology that exists in the scope of SciLifeLab’s research infrastructure. There is a great need for bioinformatics training among Swedish researchers and, since 2013, SciLifeLab has offered a centrally organized course package in the area. These courses are open to researchers from all of Sweden and during the year, 12 courses with a total of 238 course participants from 21 different organizations (Swedish universities, authorities and foreign universities) were held (Figure 6). To further strengthen and develop Swedish research teams’ expertise in bioinformatics, the “Swedish Bioinformatics Advisory Program” was established in 2015. The program is for doctoral students and participants are assigned a senior bioinformatician as an advising specialist for their doctoral project. In 2016, the program’s third round of applications was held with about six applicants per place for a total of 18 places. Of them, 26 percent was from universities outside the four host universities. Another effort in bioinformatics support is the bioinformatic drop-in where researchers can participate and discuss bioinformatic problems with experts from SciLifeLab unannounced. In 2016, more than 230 meetings were held, of which 85 were outside the host university (to compare with 65 for 2015 and 15 for 2014).
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
13
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Scientific activities Figure 7. Number of publications 2013–2016
All publications
Whereof articles & reviews
2016
2015
2014
2013
Figure 7 Source: Bibmet, KTH Library’s bibliometric database based on Web of Science.
14
SciLifeLab is a research center with several activities in molecular biosciences. The research infrastructure sets the tone for SciLifeLab’s operations and is the part of the operations that develops and provides advanced technology and expertise to researchers in life sciences from all of Sweden. The SciLifeLab research community is linked to the research infrastructure, where 160 research teams in the field of molecular biosciences are active in the areas of health and the environment. Research is conducted in the entire area of life sciences, such as molecular biology, cancer, immunology, stem cells and new biofuels. The development of the research infrastructure is driven by researchers at the same time that it is a requirement for the development of the research itself. This symbiosis is central to SciLifeLab and a prerequisite for the synergy effects that the center wants to achieve. Efforts on several levels to stimulate this will be an important part of the work of the new Management Group. In the first few years of SciLifeLab’s development, extensive focus was placed on the development of the infrastructure, but in future years, increasing importance will be placed on stimulating research activities and promoting networks in different areas of research. One activity already under way to promote a scientific dialog and build networks is SciLifeLab’s series of mini-symposia within some of the areas where the research community is internationally strong, such as medical population genetics and genomics, biodiversity and evolution, cancer research and drug discovery and development. The mini-symposia have been very well visited with more than 400 visitors in 2016. The scientific research community is primarily located in Stockholm and Uppsala. In Stockholm, around 800 researchers and staff in the research infrastructure are gathered in two buildings on KI’s Solna campus. In Uppsala, the researchers are located at several campuses at UU and around
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
SciLifeLab’s meeting place Navet at the Uppsala Biomedical Center. Both of these physical meeting places have the objective of promoting a national interdisciplinary research community. In addition to operations at the host universities, SciLifeLab also has activities at universities in Gothenburg, Umeå, Linköping and Lund. Scientific production and technical development SciLifeLab aims to be one of the world’s foremost research centers in molecular biosciences. As of 2016, bibliometric analyses are applied to follow the impact of research results over time. Figures are presented from 2013 when SciLifeLab became a national center. The number of publications1 presented in Figure 7 is a volume measure of scientific production and is based on all scientific articles published by researchers with SciLifeLab in the address field. The figures are based on publication year and unfractioned calculation. Since the database is updated with some delay, complete information for the past year is not available at the time of this annual report. The figure for 2016 shall therefore be interpreted with some caution. In spite of this, an increase of more than 50 percent is visible for the partial items of articles and reviews if one compares 2016 with 2013, which is largely due to the number of researchers affiliated with SciLifeLab having increased. The field-normalized citation rate2 reflects an article’s citation rate compared with the global citation rate for publications of the same type, from the same year and in the same subject. An individual article’s indicator is 1 if it is cited as many times as the average citation in the world for similar articles. The average value of the field-normalized citation rate for all articles and reviews from SciLifeLab is on a level well above the global average for all years (Figure 8). All
Figure 8. Field-normalized citation rating 2013–2015
World average
2015
2014
SciLifeLab
2,1
1,6 Figure 8 Source: Bibmet, KTH Library’s bibliometric database based on Web of Science.
2013
Footnote 1. Includes the categories article, review, meeting abstract, editorial material, letter, correction/addition, software review. 2. The field-normalized citation rate is presented without self-citations and are fractioned averages. The field-normalized citation rate and international co-publication only build on statistics from the types articles and reviews.
15
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
“In addition to publications, the technical development resulted in the facilities increasing their capacity, for example by improving and implementing new technology in their production.”
Footnote 3. cetsa screening identifies known and novel thymidylate synthase inhibitors and slow intracellular activation of 5-fluorouracil, Almqvist et al, Nature Comm., 2016. 4. Accelerated cryo-EM structure determination with parallelisation using GPUs in RELION-2, Kimanius et al, eLife, 2016. 5. A proposal for antibody validation, Uhlen et al, Nature Methods, 2016.
16
bibliometric indicators shall be seen over a longer time period and should be interpreted with some caution for the past year, since reporting to Web of Science (and thereby to KTH’s bibliometric database Bibmet, which is used here) has some delay. The citation rate is therefore presented only for the years 2013–2015. The citation rate for articles from 2015 should also be interpreted with some caution as these articles have only had time to be cited for a brief time. Many researchers in SciLifeLab’s research community are active in international coop eration. In 2016, the proportion of articles co-published with one or more researchers from other countries was 73 percent (Figure 9), which clearly shows SciLifeLab’s international networks. SciLifeLab’s research infrastructure constitutes an important resource for researcher throughout Sweden. In 2016, the platforms presented 681 publications where one of the facilities was used or where technical development was done at a facility. In some cases, these are published together with researchers affiliated with SciLifeLab and are then included in the total number of publications presented in Figure 7. Of the 681 publications, 38 percent used more than one facility, which is an increase compared with previous years (Figure 10). Four percent of the articles are published in journals with a high citation index (journal impact factor (JIF) over 25) and thereby a large impact. This analysis of the infrastructure’s significance to research around the country has a built-in delay and therefore largely reflects projects carried out before 2016. In the analysis of the research infrastructure, indicators other than for publications with the SciLifeLab address have to some extent been analyzed. This will be reviewed in 2017. The platforms also conduct technical development to be able to offer next generation technology and be on the forefront of the research. In 2016, 18
percent of the platforms’ resources were devoted to these activities. During the year, the technical development in the platforms also resulted in several articles (8 percent of the aforementioned). I addition to publications, the technical development resulted in the facilities increasing their capacity, for example by improving and implementing new technology in their production. One example is a method developed further that with a high capacity can detect interactions between proteins and small molecules in cells3. Another technical development has led to a new advanced analysis system being used that can analyze up to tens of thousands of cells per day instead of hundreds of cells as before. New software, updates and development of IT systems and more efficient work flows have reduced delivery times and increased the quality of produced data in several facilities. One example is new updated software that was developed together with international cooperative partners where the analysis period has been shortened by at least 50 times4. Besides a developed service offering, some technical development projects in the platforms lead to global knowledge dissemination. An example of this are the guidelines for the validation of antibodies published from one of the facilities that also belongs to the Human Protein Atlas project5. Several platforms have also made available results, software, substance libraries and raw data for searching and download (open access), which is an important scientific asset globally. For example, SciLifeLab has contributed to the most extensive mapping of proteins in the human cell to-date. A new version of this cell atlas, which is a part of the Human Protein Atlas project’s database, was released during the year. Proteins’ expression patterns in the inner parts of the cell are thereby available to the entire research community. Service at and cooperation with SciLifeLab’s
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
facilities have generated significant discoveries in both the areas of health and the environment. Among the top ranked publications in 2016 (JIF >25, Figure 10), facilities from the National Genomics Infrastructure platform and National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden platform have contributed to world leading research on human learning capacity6, type-2 diabetes7, the functional evolution of birds and horses8 and Parkinson’s disease9. SciLifeLab also contributed bioinformatic support for sequencing of the first whole genome for a marine flowering plant10. The National Genomics Infrastructure, National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden and the Affinity Proteomics platforms also contributed to the development of a new method, spatial transcriptomics, for quantitative gene expression data and visualization of mRNA in tissue sections11. SciLifeLab fellows program SciLifeLab fellows are a group of promising young researchers who are important to SciLifeLab’s development and have considerable
potential to contribute to Swedish life science research. By analyzing their complete publication lists (i.e. including publications outside SciLifeLab), this potential can be evaluated from a bibliometric perspective. This shows that 34 percent of their articles are among the 10 percent most cited articles in their respective areas in the world12. The impact for fellows’ publications is very high with a citation rate13 that is 2.6 times higher than the global average. These young researchers are in the beginning of their independent research careers. This involves creating their own team and applying for additional funding to strengthen the team and the research opportunities. During the year, SciLifeLab fellows were awarded a number of different prestigious grants and scholarships, such as the Swedish Research Council’s starting grant, the European Research Council Starting grant, the Ragnar Söderberg Fellowship and the Wallenberg Academy Fellow grant. In total, 134 people work in research teams led by fellows, of whom 52 percent have a PhD. Together, these teams have 100 external coope-
Figure 9 Source: Bibmet, KTH Library’s bibliometric database based on Web of Science.
Figure 10 *Journal Impact Factor.
Footnote 6. Okbay et al, Nature, 2016.
Figure 9. Co-publications internationally 2013–2016
7. Fuchsberger et al, Nature, 2016.
International co-publication (%)
2016
2015
2014
2013
73
68
64
60
9. La Manno et al, Cell, 2016.
Figure 10. Publications from research infrastructure 2014–2016 Publications
2016
2015
2014
Total number of publications where data or analysis support has been used or technical development was performed at a facility
681
417
363
Number of publications where more than one facility has been used
257
45
67
29
24
21
Number of publications with JIF* >25
8. Lamichhaney et al, Science, 2016; L amichhaney et al, Nature Genetics, 2016; Imsland et al, Nature Genetics, 2016.
10. Olsen et al, Nature, 2016. 11. Stahl et al, Science, 2016. 12. A ll publication data for fellows are based on a weighted average for 16 fellows from the beginning of their career without self-citations. 13. Average field-normalized citation rate without self-citations.
17
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
“SciLifeLab’s platforms reported 79 collaborative arrangements with healthcare during the year.”
Collaboration rative partnerships, mainly with other academic groups, but also with industry, authorities and research infrastructure, of which 69 percent are international collaboration. Fellows have co-published 51 percent of all of their articles with researchers from one or more other countries. UU recruited an additional young team leader in the SciLifeLab’s fellows program in 2016. The program now comprises 17 researchers who are establishing their research and research teams in one of the four host universities in connection with SciLifeLab. Another two fellow positions were announced at UU in the fields of molecular psychiatry and precision medicine during the year and will be filled in 2017. With the aim of expanding the center’s national network, a young team leader has been appointed at Chalmers and one at SLU within SciLifeLab’s national fellows program. At UMU, recruitment of another person within the national fellows program is still under way. These positions are half-funded by the university in question and half-funded by SciLifeLab and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. During the year, SciLifeLab initiated cooperation with the Wallenberg Centres for Molecular Medicine, which comprise of four newly started centers at GU, LIU, LU and UMU. SciLifeLab fellows in Stockholm, Uppsala, Gothenburg and Umeå will be a part of a national network for career development with scientific meetings and discussions together with fellows at the four Wallenberg Centres for Molecular Medicine. This collaboration also aims to promote cooperation between the universities at the respective location, cooperation with healthcare services and technical development.
18
Healthcare and authorities SciLifeLab’s platforms reported 79 collaborative arrangements with healthcare during the year. The projects contribute to increased knowledge of molecular disease mechanisms and improved diagnostic methods within, among others, the areas of cancer, cardiovascular, neurodegenerative, autoimmune and metabolic diseases. The Next Generation Diagnostics platform has the mission of developing, validating and implementing new advanced methods for clinical routine diagnostics. The methods are based on large-scale genetic analyses with next-generation sequencing (NGS) and proteomics. The platform currently comprises five facilities, which are tied to the university hospitals in Gothenburg, Lund, Stockholm and Uppsala. The platform also works in national networks for various disease areas, such as solid tumors, blood diseases and hereditary diseases, with the aim of harmonizing and working out methodology and national guidelines for interpretation and reporting. Access to NGS-based diagnostics is thereby secured for all patients regardless of regi onal affiliation. In 2016, NGS-based techniques were used as a complement to diagnose more than 1,000 patients with hereditary diseases, and for refined diagnostics, risk grouping and decisions on treatment with new targeted cancer medications for more than 1,500 patients with solid tumors and blood diseases. In addition, the platform continued to establish nationwide service for large-scale multiplex protein analysis (in 2016 more than 36,000 samples) and set up analysis of new biomarkers, such as micro-RNA and microparticles in various diseases. Multiple international cooperative arrangements were established in cancer diagnostics, data processing and bioinformatics during the year. The platforms arranged a much-appreciated symposium
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
19
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
at KI with more than 280 participants where new technology and its potential role in healthcare were discussed. In addition to cooperation with healthcare, there is also collaboration with multiple authorities, such as the National Veterinary Institute (SVA), the National Food Administration, the Public Health Agency of Sweden and the Swedish Defense Research Agency (FOI). Among other things, a collaborative project with the Public Health Agency, SVA and the National Food Administration was completed in 2016 concerning effective contagion tracing. The report sheds light on the importance of stronger national and international collaboration on the exchange and utilization of sequencing data for the purpose of contagion tracing and, here, the SciLifeLab is an important actor. In addition, 121 service projects for authorities and other external organizations were carried out at the facilities. Industry In 2016, SciLifeLab’s research infrastructure carried out 55 projects for large and small companies, of which 43 are service projects at the facilities. In addition to this, there are a number of cooperative arrangements in research infrastructure with companies, of which some are exemplified below. Facilities in bioimaging, affinity proteomics and sequencing have access to new and innovative instrumentation from world leading companies, such as Zeiss, Leica Microsystems and Cambridge Epigenetix, by serving as a demonstration site for them. At some facilities, beta versions of systems under development are also tested. At SciLifeLab’s facilities, a number of commercial collaborations on technical development are under way for the benefit of the technology and service offered at the facilities. For example, several facilities in affinity proteomics, functional genomics and diagnostics
20
have collaboration with Atlas Antibodies, Olink Proteomics, Olink Biosciences and Fluidigm concerning the development of methods and instrumentation. In the sequencing facilities, technical development projects are under way concerning automation, sample preparation, new analysis methods and panels together with global leading diagnostics and genomics companies, such as Illumina, Qiagen and Thermo Fisher Scientific. Together with Google, the National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden platform is working to evaluate Google’s cloud infrastructure for large-scale single-cell RNA sequence analysis. The Center for Translation Microbiome Research is collaboration between the Swiss pharmaceuticals company Ferring Pharmaceuticals and KI, which started in January 2016 and is based on the facility for clinical genomics. Research at the center focuses on the role of the intestinal flora in diseases in the gastrointestinal tract and women’s gynecological health. During the year, the infrastructure necessary for the activities was built and the collection of test materials from groups of individuals was initiated. SciLifeLab collaborates with AstraZeneca at several different levels. The AstraZeneca-financed research program in molecular disease mechanisms is under way with ten projects in various areas of disease with a total budget of usd 37 million. The Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden platform has initiated strategic open innovation cooperation with AstraZeneca’s substance library. Through this cooperation, the platform gains access to AstraZeneca’s substances for screening. At the microscopy facility, a collaborative project is under way with AstraZeneca where both industry-employed doctoral students and affiliated researchers from the company work with SciLifeLab’s instruments in advanced light microscopy to study issues concerning the pharmaceuticals supply.
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
The pilot project SciLifeLab Partnering has developed a model to initiate collaborative projects with mutual benefit between Swedish companies and researchers at SciLifeLab. The project is co-financed by Vinnova. In total, nine collaborative projects were initiated in the scope of SciLifeLab Partnering of which two projects were initiated in 2016. AIMday is a tool to create meetings and initiate collaboration between industry and business. In 2016, “AIMday Anti-infective medicines & diagnostics” was carried out where around 50 participants from 10 different companies and academic communities met in 12 workshops to discuss questions formulated by the companies. Companies are also welcome to SciLifeLab to demonstrate new technologies and collaborate with researchers at recurring mini-exhibitions. In total, 43 companies participated at 20 occasions in Solna and Uppsala. In 2016, four patent applications were submitted, of which one patent concerns internal technical development and three concern results from collaborative projects. For two of the patents, several facilities were involved. One example of how SciLifeLab contributes to Swedish innovation is the Gothenburg-based company Scandicure AB, which is the result of a researcher’s collaborative project with the Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden platform. During the fall, a Strategic Relations Officer was hired to draft a strategy for SciLifeLab’s continued collaboration with various actors. This includes strategies and models for collaboration with industry, healthcare and other actors. In addition, an investigation is under way on the legal aspects of collaboration, which also includes clarifying the legal and ordinance-governed prerequisites SciLifeLab has to effectively conduct its operations.
Schools and the public SciLifeLab has a responsibility to provide information about its activities and get involved in a broader social perspective, which is done through a number of different activities. In a program within Researchers’ Night, a European initiative that in Sweden is coordinated by VA (Public & Science), 120 high school students and teachers participated over one day with younger researchers’ presentations of their own research and a tour of the laboratories in Solna. Uppsala’s high schools were invited to SciLifeLab in Uppsala to listen to this year’s winner of the “Science & SciLifeLab Prize for Young Scientists”. Around 30 students and teachers participated in the half day event, which offered lectures and group discussions about the prize winners’ research. SciLifeLab’s operations and research conducted at SciLifeLab have also been highlighted and called to the attention of the public in Swedish media on 326 occasions during the year (printed press and online) and 438 times in international media (online).
“In 2016, four patent applications were submitted, of which one patent concerns internal technical development and three concern results from collaborative projects.”
21
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
“The interest in collaboration with the Drug Discovery and Development platform continues to grow.”
Drug discovery and development International evaluation In spring 2016, the Drug Discovery and Development platform at SciLifeLab together with the rest of the research infrastructure underwent a major international evaluation. The conclusions of the international experts in drug discovery and development agreed well with the more general evaluation of SciLifeLab’s organization that the Swedish Research Council conducted on behalf of the government in 2015. The evaluators considered the work to establish the Drug Discovery and Development platform to have been excellent and that the services and professional support offered to the users is competitive even in an international perspective. Expanded operations The interest in collaboration with the Drug Discovery and Development platform continues to grow. The portfolio of major pharmaceuticals projects (programs) that have been approved by the platform’s national steering committee has increased from 10 programs in November 2015 to 19 full collaborative programs in November 2016 (Figure 11). This increase was made possible through an expanded budget in 2016 and because an effective and flexible project model was worked out at the platform. Some programs have also matured to the level where actors other than the Drug Discovery and Development platform have a better possibility to contribute to the continued development. Examples worth mentioning include a partnership with an international pharmaceutical company and a program that has been approved for clinical studies. Examples exist where experimental parts of the program have been carried out at a different platform, but the Drug Discovery and
22
Development platform has been responsible for bioanalysis and strategic evaluation and planning of the program for discussions with presumptive investors. This illustrates the value of the collaboration between platforms within SciLifeLab. Expansion, collaboration and expert support Besides support for a larger program portfolio, the expanded budget for the Drug Discovery and Development platform (from SEK 41 million to SEK 52 million) in 2016 also enabled an expansion of the operations at LU and an establishment of a strategic cooperation with the Swedish Toxicology Sciences Research Center (Swetox). Part of the work of developing human antibody drugs now takes place at the Department of Immunotechnology at LU. The collaboration with Swetox is enabling a toxicological study of the proposed biological functional mechanisms already at project start. To guarantee a high level of quality in expensive in vivo experiments, an informal group of experts in in vivo pharmacology and toxicology was established during the year. The group offers the Drug Discovery and Development platform’s users support in the planning of pharmacological in vivo studies to ensure the best possible conditions for understanding exposure, effect and side-effect profile at the same time that ethical requirements for animal experiments are met. Collaboration with financiers and business The interest in the Drug Discovery and Development platform is growing from academic groups in both Sweden and abroad, as well as from national and international financiers, small and medium-sized enterprises (SME) and global pharmaceutical companies. To facilitate the communication between these
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
23
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Figure 11. Drug discovery and development program Full-scale program Small molecule program
Pre-project
Assay Development Hit ID Lead Generation Pre-clinic PoC Lead Opt./Dv
Uppsala University, Oncology
Johan Flygare
Lund University, Metabolic Diseases
External partner Approved in Phase I
Mårten Fryknäs
Selvita S.A Started in the Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden platform
Thomas Helleday
Karolinska Institutet, Oncology
Started in the Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden platform
Mathias Hallberg
Uppsala University, Neuroscience
Started in the Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden platform
Sonia Lain
Karolinska Institutet, Oncology
Thomas Helleday
Karolinska Institutet, Oncology
Maria Eriksdotter
Karolinska Institutet, Neuroscience
Robert Harris
Karolinska Institutet, Autoimmunity
Anna-Lena Spetz
Stockholm University, Autoimmunity
Olov Andersson
Karolinska Institutet, Metabolic Diseases
Sophie Erhardt
Karolinska Institutet, Neuroscience
Antibody program Susanne Lindquist
Umeå University, Autoimmunity
Marene Landström
Umeå University, Oncology
Per Almqvist
Karolinska Institutet, Neuroscience
Manuel Patarroyo
Karolinska Institutet, Oncology
Mats Persson
Karolinska Institutet, Infection
Rikard Holmdahl
Karolinska Institutet Autoimmunity
Sara Mangsbo
Uppsala University, Oncology
Jonathan Gilthorpe
Umeå University, Neuroscience
Figure 11 The two-colored arrows indicate that a program has started in the Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden platform and then transferred to the Drug Discovery and Development platform.
24
stakeholders, a newsletter was begun in 2016. In 2016, the Drug Discovery and Development platform initiated collaboration with Vinnova’s support program in life science, Swelife. Projects with a drug focus that intend to apply for funding from Swelife have been offered the possibility of meeting representatives for the Drug Discovery and Development platform and thereby receive external coaching and a second opinion about their proposed project before the application is sent in. In 2016, VR also announced funding for proof-of-concept studies prior to commercialization. Most of the awarded VR grants with a drug focus were projects that have or had support from the Drug Discovery and Development platform. The Swedish innovation system offers a path for drug projects to move from primary research to utilization. The innovation centers or equivalent organizations at the researchers’ home university
play an important role in helping the project owners with expertise on patenting and commercialization. The ambition is to make the collaboration with these actors more frequent for more effective innovation support and bridge financing. As a part of the work to educate all actors, two fully booked workshops were held during the year. The first “How to get conclusive data from in vivo pharmacology studies. Role of ADME and pharmacokinetic studies.” with lectures from AstraZeneca and Merck, among others, focused on the industry’s requirements for exposure data from in vivo studies and resulted in the formation of an in vivo design group as support for the platform’s users (see above). The second workshop “From project to biotech” with contributions from AstraZeneca and Novo Seeds, among others, focused on financing and how to continue running the project after the work at the Drug Discovery and Development platform.
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
“In 2016, work was initiated to prepare long-term goals for the entire operation.”
Evaluation and development of the operations In 2016, extensive work was conducted to develop the operations. This work was done by the Management Group in cooperation with the host universities based on their own initiatives and earlier evaluations done by VR and SciLifeLab’s International Advisory Board. The work covered management and decision-making organization as well as organization and assignments for SciLifeLab’s research infrastructure. The majority of the organizational changes will be implemented in 2017, but already in 2016 an Infrastructure Director was appointed who is a member of the operational Management Group with responsibility for platforms and facilities. In addition, a new organization was created with center-wide responsibility for central activities, support functions and administration where existing and new personnel in Stockholm and Uppsala now work fully integrated and are led by a Head of Operations and a Vice Head of Operations. Within the scope of this organization, the Data Office was established, the task of which has been described above. In 2017, the previously node-centered organization will entirely disappear, the current Management Group will be restructured and will include representatives from the four host universities with the task of working together with the Director, Co-Director and Infrastructure Director. Regular meetings are held with representatives of decision-making bodies in each host university, which safeguards dialog and mutual exchange for the benefit of future development of both research and infrastructure. In 2016, work was initiated to prepare long-term goals for the entire operation. One
goal is better contact with industry and therefore, one person has been hired with responsibility for collaboration issues. In addition, the research infrastructure has undergone an extensive internal evaluation in spring 2016, a process that will be carried out every four years. To help in this, SciLifeLab invited an international panel of experts in the platforms’ respective technical fields. Besides evaluating the existing facilities, an evaluation was also done of potential new facilities, known as candidate facilities. Candidate facilities are potential facilities, proposed as national facilities by Sweden’s universities. In a positive outcome, they will become a part of SciLifeLab’s national platforms. This process is a part of SciLifeLab’s life cycle for the research infrastructure, which was established during the year. The life cycle is a flexible model that allows new technology and service to come in and the phase-out of technology no longer in demand. Newly developed technology that could be offered as a service can be reviewed at the respective university with funding from the university in question in a so-called pilot project. Pilot projects can then be proposed as candidate facilities in a national evaluation. The 2016 evaluation resulted in a report from the international panel, and based on it, thorough work was done to choose the best technologies that will be offered in the infrastructure. In addition to this, the platforms were reorganized for the best possible synergy between facilities and the new structure will be implemented in 2017. In addition, work is under way to clarify directives and assignment descriptions for
25
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
“The total allocation of infrastructure funding for SciLifeLab in 2016 was SEK 258 million, of which SEK 52 million was earmarked for drug discovery and development.” the facilities, and recommendations for how user fees can ensure a long-term stable operation. An important decision in 2016 was that SciLifeLab will no longer organize regional facilities as of 2017. Distribution of allocated funding The total allocation of infrastructure funding for SciLifeLab in 2016 was SEK 258 million, of which SEK 52 million was earmarked for drug discovery and development. Of this funding, 79 percent was allocated to platforms, facilities and operations directly linked to them (Figure 12) and 5 percent for future costs in connection with the restructuring of the platforms in 2017-2018. In addition, more than SEK 16 million was allocated to platform operations by the host universities through strategic research funding. SciLifeLab financed facilities at other universities in an amount of SEK 22 million with the intention of completing and strengthening SciLifeLab’s infrastructure and strengthening the national network. Of SciLifeLab’s total infrastructure funding, 16
percent was used for central research activities, communication, education, collaboration, IT infrastructure, premises and premises adaptation and salaries for management and administration. The universities’ strategic research funding of a total SEK 152 million was allocated as in the previous year. In Stockholm, the funding is allocated to KTH, in its capacity as the principal, and is divided into thirds between KTH, KI and SU, while UU handles its own appropriations. Within the respective university, there are special bodies for preparation and decisions on strategic research funding. Most of the strategic research funding has been used for research activities in the scope of SciLifeLab, with the largest focus on positions for young researchers (SciLifeLab fellows), at an existing faculty and research teams active in the center. All four host universities have also provided support from the strategic research funding for the development of new technology, pilot projects, that can mature and, after positive evaluation, be established as new national platforms.
Figure 12. Distribution of infrastructure funding (SEK 000s) Allocation from infrastructure funding
Contribution from other funding
National Genomics Infrastructure
51,681
120,948
Drug Discovery and Development
46,116
9,539
National Bioinformatics Infrastructure Sweden
18,900
49,224
Affinity Proteomics
21,000
24,576
Next-Generation Diagnostics
10,500
61,072
Structural Biology
14,000
52,401
Functional Genomics
9,432
18,172
Chemical Biology Consortium Sweden
6,000
13,646
Bioimaging
4,800
2,700
Metabolomics
3,000
20,230
18,220
0
203,649
372,508
Platforms
Figure 12 Distribution of infrastructure funding for SciLifeLab’s platforms and their funding through other funding in 2016.
26
Other platform support Total
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
27
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Figure 13. Other funding that is used to s trengthen the infrastructure
User fees
Private foundations
University and government financiers
Figure 13 Sources of the part of other funding that is used to strengthen the infrastructure. Private companies and other international financiers represent less than 1 % and are therefore not presented in the figure.
28
Healthcare EU Other public
External financing SciLifeLab represents a research center that both provides infrastructure on a national basis and conducts research. The core of the research is comprised of 160 (11 SU, 28 KTH, 38 KI, 83 UU) group leaders, of whom some are responsible for part of the infrastructure. To get a picture of the total research volume, the scope of these researchers other funding is reported. Other funding includes all funding allocated to the group leaders besides SciLifeLab’s basic financing. The most important parts of this other funding are project and faculty funding for the researchers and grants from external funding bodies that were awarded to the responsible group leader, and the funding accordingly includes support for both research and platform activities. The platforms’ user fees are also included in the other funding. A substantial amount of other funding goes to the platforms to strengthen the infrastructure (Figure 12). In 2016, the facilities reported that this funding totaled SEK 372 million (Figure 13), of which 40 percent was comprised of user fees and 11 percent (a partial amount of the total university and government funding of 22 percent) came from the universities themselves in addition to SciLifeLab’s basic funding. In addition to user fees and university support, the facilities report that the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation accounted for SEK 72 million of the external financing, the Swedish Research Council accounted for SEK 37 million and other financiers (eu, international financiers, government and private organizations and companies) accounted for SEK 80 million. The largest part of other funding was comprised of funding intended for research under the management of one of SciLifeLab’s researchers. Information on the total volume of other funding has
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
been taken directly out of the university’s reports for the research community’s group leaders and this way represents actual revenues and expenses in 2016. Included in revenues is the total volume of other funding of SEK 909 million, which is more than twice as much as SciLifeLab’s total basic funding (strategic research funding, funding for national infrastructure and funding for drug discovery and development). The total volume of funding in the scope of SciLifeLab’s operations is more than SEK 1.3 billion for 2016. Risk analysis SciLifeLab’s rapid development has entailed a risk that management and governance is not entirely suitable and effective. There is also an ambiguity in SciLifeLab’s steering documents that leads to unclear legal circumstances. After an external and internal review, SciLifeLab has initiated a change process in the organization and operations. Besides increased efficiency, the work aims for long-term stability and risk minimization. The process, which was begun in 2015, was anchored with the host universities and Board in 2016 and will be established in 2017. In 2017, the work on necessary documentation will be completed, such as a four-party agreement, working procedure, delegation of authority procedure and workplace agreements at the Solna campus. In addition to this, directives will be prepared for the operations and advisory bodies.
5
The following key issues will be taken into account in the documentation:
• clarification of the mandate of KTH’s University Board towards SciLifeLab’s Board. • clarification of each party’s financial responsibilities for the operations. • regulation of SciLifeLab in the steering documents of KTH. • mandates and directives for charging fees for the platforms’ operations. • clarification of special measures for the handling of personal data and it security need to be taken.
“SciLifeLab’s rapid development has entailed a risk that management and governance is not entirely suitable and effective.” 29
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Board, operational management, scientific advisory board and steering committees 2016 SciLifeLab Board 2016 Chairman
Prof. Janet Jansson (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, USA)
Prof. Carl-Henrik Heldin
Prof. Jonathan Knowles (University of Basel, Switzerland, FIMM University of Helsinki, Finland)
Industry representative
Prof. Svante Pääbo (Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany)
Margareta Olsson Birgersson
Prof. Aviv Regev (Broad Institute, MIT, USA)
University representatives Prof. Sophia Hober, KTH Prof. Stellan Sandler, UU
Steering Committee Stockholm 2016
Prof. Anders Karlhede, SU
Prof. Karin Dahlman-Wright, KI
Prof. Henrik Grönberg, KI
Prof. Marie Wahren-Herlenius, KI
Prof. Staffan Edén, GU
Prof. Amelie Eriksson-Karlström, KTH
Prof. Gunilla Westergren-Thorsson, LU
Prof. Mathias Uhlén, KTH
Prof. Marianne Sommarin, UMU
Prof. Ylva Engström, SU
SciLifeLab’s operational Management Group 2016 Prof. Olli Kallioniemi, Director Prof. Lena Claesson-Welsh, Co-Director Prof. Mats Nilsson, Director of the Stockholm node Prof. Johan Elf, Director of the Uppsala node Dr. Annika Jenmalm Jensen, Interim Director of Infrastructure Prof. Peter Nilsson, KTH representative
International Advisory Board 2016 Prof. Bertil Andersson, Chair (Nanyang Technological University, Singapore) Prof. Sören Brunak (Technical University of Denmark, Denmark) Prof. Jan Ellenberg (EMBL Heidelberg, Germany) Prof. Yoshihide Hayashizaki (RIKEN Omics Science Center, Japan) Prof. Sirpa Jalkanen (University of Turku, Finland)
30
Prof. Janet Thornton (EMBL-EBI, UK)
Prof. Stefan Nordlund, SU
Steering Committee Uppsala 2016 Prof. Eva Tiensuu Jansson, UU Prof. Göran Alderborn, UU Prof. Hanna Johannesson, UU Prof. Kristina Edström, UU Prof. Leif Andersson, UU Prof. Mats Larhed, UU Prof. Peter Lindblad, UU
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
31
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Finances The operations in SciLifeLab have basic financing through direct government funding, and in addition to this, there is other funding that consists of both the university’s ordinary appropriations and funding from external financiers. Comparable figures of the previous year are shown in parentheses. In 2016, SciLifeLab’s basic financing consists of a total of SEK 410 million (345), of which SEK 206 million (154) is funding for national infrastructure, SEK 52 million (41) is funding for drug discovery and development and SEK 152 million (150) is funding for strategic research areas (SRA). The direct appropriations to SciLifeLab are allocated to KTH as an extended faculty appropriation and UU with regard to strategic research funding. The extended portion of the KTH faculty appropriation is allocated on to participating universities (Figure 14). Of the remaining funding for national infrastructure, SEK 17 million (12) is not yet allocated between the participating universities. The unused funding will be used for the restructuring of SciLifeLab’s operations as decided in 2016 after the international evaluation and will be carried out beginning in 2017. From earlier years’ unallocated funding, SEK 6 million was allocated to UU, KI and KTH in 2016. The distribution of the 2016 funding in drug discovery and development was made to: KTH SEK 16 million (15), UU SEK 15 million (12), SU SEK 12 million (9), KI SEK 6.5 million (4) and LU SEK 2 million (0). In 2016, the entire appropriation was allocated, and in 2015, SEK 1 million was unallocated. Costs for central activities outside the platforms and administration and support functions are distributed between KTH and UU and are included in the funding allocated to KTH and UU. Of the 2016 strategic research funding, SEK 106 million (105) was allocated to KTH and SEK 45 million (45) was allocated to UU. Stockholm’s funding is distributed in thirds, but some redistribution took place on the grounds of joint efforts; the final distribution was SEK 34.6 million (35) to KTH, SEK 34.6 million (38) to KI and SEK 37 million (32) to SU. Here, the income statement and balance sheet present the outcome of the operations conducted at the participating universities. The funding that
32
has not yet been allocated from KTH is thereby not included in the revenues and the financial result. Revenues SciLifeLab’s revenues for 2016 amount to a total of SEK 1,341 million (1,239), of which SEK 909 million (867) is categorized as other funding according to SciLifeLab’s definition of the scientific community. The largest external financiers are the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, the Swedish Research Council and EU funding. Revenue recognition differs between the universities depending on whether the revenue is classified as an appropriation or grant. Appropriations may not be allocated to periods, which means that KTH and UU report the entire appropriation as revenue regardless of use. KI, SU and UU recognize the funding from KTH as revenue from grants and unused funding is thereby allocated to periods as unused grants. Total revenues are hereby not comparable between the universities. Expenses Regarding strategic research funding, a total of SEK 168 million (154) is reported in costs, SEK 185 million (147) for national funding, SEK 53 million (40) for drug discovery and development, and SEK 905 million (873) for other funding. Of the total costs, 40 percent (41) consist of personnel costs, 7 percent (8) of premises costs, 32 percent (29) of operating costs, 13 percent (13) of indirect costs and 8 (9) percent of depreciation. Unused grants (advances) The unused grants include both unused other funding and government appropriations distributed from KTH to the other universities and allocated to periods there as grants. In the scope of SciLifeLab’s financing, the universities have reported SEK 148 million (143) in unused grants from KTH. A large part of these are intended to cover future depreciation costs for investments in equipment and instruments. In total, all of the universities reported SEK 437 million (484) in unused grants, of which SEK 289 million (341) is in the category of other funding and is thereby the respective university’s responsibility and is not controlled by SciLifeLab’s management.
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Figure 14. Distribution of funding for national infrastructure 2016 (SEK million) University
2016
2015
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
51
43
Karolinska Institutet
44
29
Stockholm University
23
22
Uppsala University
51
43
Linköpings University
6
3
Umeå University
2
2
University of Gothenburg
5
0
Lund University
2
0
Chalmers University of Technology
2
0
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences
3
0
189
142
Surplus/deficit
2016
2015
Revenues
1,341
1,239
Expenses
1,311
1,215
Surplus/deficit
29
24
Revenues for transfers
49
42
-49
-42
29
24
2016
2015
Personnel costs
518
501
Premises costs
93
96
Other operating costs
414
352
Indirect costs
177
159
1
1
108
106
1,311
1,215
Figure 15. Surplus/deficit (SEK million)
Grant issued (costs for transfers) Surplus/deficit
Figure 16. Community costs (SEK million) Community costs
Financial costs Depreciation and impairment losses Total
33
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Financial reporting Accounting and valuation principles • In this annual report, the indirect costs are recognized as their own expense item since the report is a compilation of individual projects and does not include all operations at the universities. In the calculation and reporting of indirect costs, the universities apply the Association of Swedish Higher Education (SUHF) model. The reporting of the indirect costs takes place per cost unit through overhead calculation. Each university can thereby present what is included in the indirect costs.
• The revenues have been handled and recognized differently, depending on whether they were classified as appropriations or grants. This means that the different revenue items cannot be compared between the universities.
• In the handling of fixed assets, the universities follow the Swedish National Financial Management Authority’s (ESV) general guidelines with regard to straight-line depreciation, which means that an equal percentage of the cost is depreciated each year. For all reported universities, the depreciation periods are within the interval 3-7 years for computers, 5-10 years for machinery and equipment, 10-40 years for buildings and land improvements and 5 years for intangible assets.
• Unless otherwise stated below, the amounts are reported in thousands of Swedish kronor (SEK 000s).
• In this annual report, only certain balance sheet items have been reported so the report thereby does not have a complete balance sheet.
34
• Eliminations have been made with regard to the universities internal transactions when it comes to the joint operation of the center. • This financial statement does not focus on different branches of operations.
• Rounding effects may occur. • Otherwise, various prerequisites and accounting principles can affect the respective university’s reporting, for example different social security contributions. • Some information for this report is not available at a project level.
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
35
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Income statement Income statement total (SEK 000s) Operating revenues
Total 2016
Total 2015
Revenues from appropriations
242,554
234,855
Revenues from fees and other compensation
169,154
158,880
Revenues from grants
928,215
844,674
710
555
1,340,633
1,238,964
Personnel costs
518,393
501,151
Premises costs
92,632
96,552
Other operating costs
413,629
351,873
Indirect costs
177,208
158,727
859
931
108 753
105,736
1,311,473
1,214,969
29,160
23,995
Funding received from the government budget for grant financing
20,269
13,993
Other funding received for financing of grants
29,039
28,412
Contributions paid
- 49,308
- 42,405
Balance transfers
0
0
29,160
23,995
Financial income Total operating revenues
Operating costs
Financial costs Depreciation and Âimpairment losses Total operating costs Total operating outcome
Transfers
Changes to capital for the year
36
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Income statement per source of financing (SEK 000s) Total 2016
Strategic research funding
National infrastructure
Drug discovery and development
Other funding
Revenues from appropriations
242,554
99,265
48,272
16,157
78,861
Revenues from fees and other compensation
169,154
7,631
8,972
1,163
151,388
Revenues from grants
928,215
81,470
130,484
37,835
678,426
710
271
50
17
372
1,340,633
188,637
187,778
55,172
909,047
Personnel costs
518,393
63,914
70,725
27,753
356,001
Premises costs
92,633
19,140
24,219
4,977
44,297
Other operating costs
413,628
44,428
50,096
8,000
311,104
Indirect costs
177,207
19,658
25,487
8,107
123,954
859
137
101
2
618
108,753
21,072
14,247
4,209
69,225
1,311,473
168,349
184,875
53,048
905,199
29,160
20,288
2,903
2,124
3,848
Funding received from the government budget for grant financing
20,270
328
3,736
0
16,206
Other funding received for financing of grants
29,039
0
0
0
29,039
Contributions paid
- 49,309
- 328
- 3,736
0
- 45,245
Balance transfers
0
0
0
0
0
29,160
20,288
2,903
2,124
3,848
Operating revenues
Financial income Total operating revenues
Operating costs
Financial costs Depreciation and impairment losses Total operating costs Total operating outcome
Transfers
Changes to capital for the year
37
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Income statement, total and by university (SEK 000s) Operating revenues
Note
Total
KTH
KI
SU
UU
LIU
UMU
GU
LU
Chalmers
SLU
Revenues from appropriations
1
242,555
139,047
21,844
1,266
80,362
0
0
36
0
0
0
Revenues from fees and other compensation
2
169,153
56,531
12,923
856
98,843
0
0
0
0
0
0
Revenues from grants
3
928,215
123,180
243,330
89,767
449,358
2,000
5,850
5,730
4,000
2,000
3,000
Financial income
710
389
0
44
277
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total operating revenues
1,340,633
319,147
278,097
91,933
628,840
2,000
5,850
5,766
4,000
2,000
3,000
518,393
100,272
106,358
41,888
262,823
322
1,852
2,663
951
642
622
92,633
25,145
18,918
7,185
40,379
23
420
292
123
105
43
413,628
112,953
79,260
20,144
197,609
1,044
441
454
1,047
61
615
177,208
37,065
48,513
18,132
71,077
287
539
611
475
227
282
858
729
7
0
121
0
1
0
0
0
0
108,753
29,192
22,391
9,045
47,534
5
132
157
0
0
297
Total operating costs
1,311,473
305,356
275,447
96,394
619,543
1,681
3,385
4,177
2,596
1,035
1,859
Total operating outcome
29,160
13,791
2,650
-4,461
9,297
319
2,465
1,589
1,404
965
1,141
Funding received from the government budget for grant financing
20,269
9,659
2,723
6,097
1,790
0
0
0
0
0
0
Other funding received for financing of grants
29,039
3,314
11,578
0
14,147
0
0
0
0
0
0
- 49,308
-12,973
-14,301
- 6,097
0
0
0
0
0
0
Operating costs Personnel costs
4
Premises costs Other operating costs Indirect costs
5
Financial costs Depreciation and impairment losses
Transfers
Contributions paid
-15,937 Balance transfers Changes to capital for the year
38
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
29,160
13,791
2,650
- 4,461
9,297
319
2,465
1,589
1,404
965
1,141
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Balance sheet Certain balance-sheet items (SEK 000s) Assets
Note
2016-12-31
2015-12-31
81
22
0
0
81
22
260,424
284 016
6,984
3,038
251,705
273,822
1,735
7,156
164,608
112,586
160,681
111,926
3,927
660
Authority capital
260,220
287,337
Capitalized change in capital
231,060
263,342
29,160
23,995
9,723
1,792
37
200
9,686
1,592
456,527
496,777
436,652
484,301
19,875
12,476
Intangible assets Capitalized development costs Rights and other intangible assets
Tangible assets
7
Improvement expense for other’s property Machinery, equipment, installations, etc. Construction in progress
Period delimitation items
8
Accrued grant revenues Other accrued income
Capital and liabilities
Change in capital as per income statement
Liabilities, etc. Accounts payable Other liabilities
Period delimitation items Unused grants Other deferred income
9
39
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Notes to the income statement Note 1 Revenues from grants National funding (SEK 000s) University
2016
2015
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
50,798
55,248
Karolinska Institutet
43,819
29,000
Stockholm University
23,158
21,900
Uppsala University
50,930
42,621
Linköping University
2,000
2,000
Umeå University
5,850
3,400
University of Gothenburg
5,000
0
Lund University
2,000
0
Chalmers University of Technology
2,000
0
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå
3,000
0
188,555
154,169
2016
2015
16,157
16,006
Karolinska Institutet
6,423
3,992
Stockholm University
12,070
9,114
Uppsala University
14,850
12,000
2,000
0
51,500
41,112
2016
2015
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
34,575
34,932
Karolinska Institutet
34,575
37,883
Stockholm University
37,026
32,102
Uppsala University
45,505
45,000
151,681
149,917
Drug discovery and development (SEK 000s) University KTH Royal Institute of Technology
Lund University
Strategic research funding (SEK 000s) University
The tables above show how the 2016 appropriations from the government have been distributed between the universities. SEK 17 million from the 2016 National funding has not been allocated and is not included in the compilation above.
40
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Note 2 Revenues from fees and other compensation This includes, for example, revenues with regard to user fees from those who use the resources at SciLifeLab. Note 3 Revenues from grants The grants include the universities’ allocated grants from KTH and grants from external financiers. Note 4 Costs for personnel, social security contributions including vacation pay University
2016
2015
KTH Royal Institute of Technology
53,20 %
53,20 %
Karolinska Institutet
51,60 %
49,30 %
Stockholm University
52,40 %
52,72 %
Uppsala University
48,90 %
46,70 %
Linköping University
52,38 %
51,25 %
Umeå University
52,46 %
49,80 %
University of Gothenburg
52,94 %
Lund University
50,04 %
Chalmers University of Technology
54,70 %
Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Umeå
51,50 %
Note 5 Indirect costs All universities use the Association of Swedish Higher Education (SUHF) model. Note 6 Changes to capital for the year The surplus of SEK 29 million (24) pertains to operations conducted within the involved universities. This surplus does not include the SEK 17 million (13) in unallocated funding from KTH.
41
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
Notes on certain balance sheet items Note 7 Tangible assets Tangible assets (SEK 000s) 2016
2015
10,767
4,775
Depreciation
3,783
1,737
Residual value, closing balance
6,984
3,038
Cost
556,289
582,047
Depreciation
304,584
308,225
Residual value, closing balance
251,705
273,822
1,735
7,156
0
0
1,735
7,156
260,424
284,016
Improvement expense for other’s property Cost
Machinery, equipment, installations, etc.
Construction in progress Cost Depreciation Residual value, closing balance Total tangible assets
Note 8 Certain period delimiting items on the asset side Accrued income (SEK 000s)
Accrued grant revenues, government Accrued grant revenues, non-government Other accrued income Total
2016
2015
38,183
14,768
122,498
97,158
3,927
660
164,608
112,586
Note 9 Certain period delimiting items on the liability side When funding is transferred from KTH to the other universities, it is booked as grants at the recipient. The unused grants that are gathered at these universities are presented below. The category of unused grants from KTH largely consist of future funding for investments in infrastructure. Tangible Unused grants (SEK 000s) 2016
2015
Unused grants from KTH
147,627
143,121
Unused grants, other government
211,266
200,015
Unused grants, non-government
77,759
141,165
436,652
484,301
Total
42
SciLifeLab Annual Report 2016
43
With this report we proudly present SciLifeLabs’ contributions to excellent life science research during 2016. In order to follow our progress during 2017 and in the future, please visit our webpage www.scilifelab.se