Reply: Nanoscience is ready to continue at departmental level

This is an opinion piece, the views expressed in the column are the writers’ own. 

We take careful note of the concerns and criticisms raised by a group of researchers affiliated with iNANO in Omnibus regarding the decision to discontinue iNANO’s organisational status as an independent administrative unit in the form of a department-like centre by the end of 2026. We understand that the decision evokes strong feelings and may be experienced as a break with something many have helped build over a long period of time. The criticism in the open letter reflects a strong commitment and professional pride that characterises iNANO.  

As management, we welcome open dialogue – including critical dialogue. In this reply, we address the key questions and concerns. A joint faculty leadership team is behind the decision, but due to a short deadline, the response has only been prepared by the dean's office. 

Nanoscience – a strong and integrated research area at AU

We fully agree that iNANO has been a great success and has contributed to and advanced nanoscience as a strong and integrated field of research at AU and across the participating departments – not least Chemistry, Molecular Biology and Genetics, and Physics and Astronomy here at Natural Sciences. Like many other strong research and learning environments at Natural Sciences (and other faculties), iNANO has been at the forefront of new research areas and innovative ideas and initiatives. 

The researchers behind the open letter also point to important initiatives with iNANO as a participant. In general, large, successful initiatives at iNANO are developed in close collaboration with the participating departments, and the vast majority of researchers affiliated with iNANO are employed at one of these departments. This is a clear indication of the strong and successful integration that has taken place and testifies to the departments' ability to support new academic initiatives. Many of the successful grants mentioned, such as the CO2 Center CORC – an interdisciplinary initiative based on the Department of Chemistry at Natural Sciences and the Department of Chemistry & Biotechnology at Technical Sciences – and several of the mentioned projects have indeed been secured with the departments as the driving force and cover research across many fields.  

Quick clarification is the aim

The most significant organisational change is that the relatively few permanent researchers currently employed directly by iNANO (currently 14 permanent staff) will transfer to positions within one of the faculty’s departments, just as is already the case for the approximately 50 other senior academic staff members affiliated with iNANO. Other employees employed directly under iNANO are also transferred to the relevant departments. We aim to keep the period until clarification as short as possible, so that employees can quickly gain clarity about their future employment conditions. 

Maintaining all the essential elements of the nanoscience activities

It is important to emphasise that no research is changed and no people are moving laboratories as a result of this organisational change – everyone will remain in the research environments where they already are (unless they themselves want to change). The research infrastructure will not be moved either. The ongoing PhD projects are unaffected, and Natural Sciences will of course continue interdisciplinary PhD projects and activities across departments and PhD programmes, as we already do for many other PhD students at the faculty. The Bachelor's and Master's degree programmes in nanoscience will continue unchanged, but will be affiliated with the Department of Chemistry, which, like several other departments at Natural Sciences, houses interdisciplinary programs. 

In other words: Even though we are phasing out iNANO’s status as a department-like centre, we will maintain all the essential elements of the nanoscience activities and continue to provide strong support for the research environments and interdisciplinary collaborations, on an equal footing with all other interdisciplinary activities at our departments. 

In addition, Natural Sciences has in recent years developed several initiatives aimed at strengthening interactions between researchers within focused interdisciplinary areas. This includes the thematic centres that Natural Sciences operates jointly with Technical Sciences, as well as the new interdisciplinary networks inspired by the highly successful ones at Health. 

Why is organisational change necessary?

Why is it necessary to make this organisational change? It has long been a well-known issue that the organisational model for iNANO is neither robust nor financially sustainable based on having only 14 permanently employed researchers. In addition, it contains an inappropriate division of responsibility, finances, strategy and expertise. The signatories of the open letter also make it clear that it must be resolved. 

There are actually only a few options to resolve this undesirable, organisational knot. They can be summarised in these overall solutions: 

• to create an eighth institute for nanoscience. However, this would require even more employees to be relocated organisationally. At the same time, it would erode the other departments – primarily Chemistry – and leave them weakened (not a desire of the faculty management). 

• to merge iNANO with one department (not a wish of iNANO)  

• to maintain special treatment of nanoscience as a continuing area of ​​focus for Natural Sciences (not a wish of the faculty management) 

• to discontinue the organisational model where iNANO has the status of an department-like centre, and move support for research and education in nanoscience to the departments on an equal footing with all other areas

There is not one solution without consequences. The faculty leadership team has unanimously made the decision that best balances financial sustainability, responsibility, strategic authority, and academic diversity, while also maintaining nanoscience as a strong research environment. The final proposed solution therefore clearly represents the faculty management’s choice, and it in no way hinders maintaining nanoscience as a strong brand and research field – just as other interdisciplinary fields that span multiple main disciplines, such as neuroscience, astronomy, climate research, materials science, and bioinformatics within the faculty, are supported. 

Known model

The future model with nanoscience as part of the departments already exists at other recognised universities, so we’re confident that both the education and the research area will continue to thrive. It’s our clear ambition that nanoscience continues as an important interdisciplinary research field at the university. 

The faculty provides several opportunities for nanoscience and other interdisciplinary fields that lie at the academic intersections between departments. We hope everyone will bring their valuable experience and dedication to the process and continue to contribute to keeping nanoscience a strong field at Aarhus University. 

Drawing the new unit’s framework together

Finally, the open letter expresses regret that the faculty leadership didn’t, alongside the organisational change of iNANO, present a complete and finalised model for the interdisciplinary and innovation-promoting efforts (in a broad sense) that Natural Sciences now intends to develop across all the faculty’s institutes.  

We understand the desire for clarity, but precisely because we want a new unit that engages the entire faculty, it’s crucial that we draw the lines together rather than the faculty leadership team presenting a finished plan. There’s no doubt that much can be based on the many experiences from iNANO, but also from other interdisciplinary and innovative environments at AU and elsewhere in Denmark and Europe. 

We’ve already initiated a working group that will host a workshop immediately after the summer holidays, where all the faculty's departments – and of course also iNANO – are invited to contribute to shaping the framework for the new entity.

The faculty management has no desire to exert top-down or micromanagement over the new format and, conversely, found it impossible to initiate this process without first clarifying iNANO’s future. The plan for the new, innovation-promoting and interdisciplinary initiatives naturally depends on relevant environments across Natural Sciences actively engaging and providing input to the process. 

We look forward to working on this in dialogue with everyone.

• Birgit Schiøtt, Dean of the Faculty of Natural Sciences
• Ole Bækgaard Nielsen, Vice-dean for Career Development and Innovation at the Faculty of Natural Sciences 
• Kristine Kilså, Vice-dean for Education at the Faculty of Natural Sciences 
• Poul Nissen, Vice-dean for Research at the Faculty of Natural Sciences

This text is machine translated and post-edited by Cecillia Jensen