The government wants to focus Siva's activities solely on real estate. This is presented as a technical reorganisation, but in reality it is a political choice about the role the state should play in the development of new industries. We cannot spend innovation capital and expect to become richer.
This opinion piece was first published in Norwegian by the news outlet Shifter.no and was subsequently translated into English using AI. The text has been proofread by a human.
Mar 12, 2026
Ketil Widerberg
Read the opinion piece in Norwegian at Shifter.no: Ikke bruk innovasjonskapitalen på murstein
With Siva as a pure real estate player, profits from the sale of buildings will go straight back into new real estate investments. At the same time, Siva's stakes in innovation companies will be divested, and the state will lose value. This is the government's current plan for restructuring the policy apparatus.
For environments such as the Oslo Cancer Cluster and its associated innovation park, this means that value built up through long-term collaboration between research, clinics, entrepreneurs, investors and state capital can be extracted – without anything being returned to the innovation capacity that actually created the return. We must challenge this.
When Siva invested in the Oslo Cancer Cluster Innovation Park at the Radium Hospital more than 10 years ago, it was not just a property transaction. It was a means of building an environment. The value that has subsequently been created is due to the quality of the research, access to clinical studies, the companies that have grown, the capital that has been raised, and the international partners that have chosen to establish themselves here. The property is the framework. The activity is the engine.
Values in an innovation environment are not made from concrete alone. When the state realises gains from property developed in a specific innovation environment, value is extracted from a system that has itself helped to create that value. Today, it is argued that such gains cannot, for reasons of principle, be linked to the environment, because real estate activities must be kept separate from innovation instruments. The accounting distinction is necessary for state aid reasons. However, this does not mean that the Norwegian Parliament is prevented from deciding how realised gains should be used.
Accounting techniques are not the same as economic policy. The Public Administration Act requires objectivity, equal treatment and proper case handling. EEA regulations set limits for public support. None of these regulations prohibit the Norwegian Parliament from deciding that a portion of the realised gains from state ownership should be returned to the purpose for which the investment was originally intended – as long as this is done through open, legitimate and objective arrangements.
The decisive factor is the design. Our proposal is that a defined share of the net realised gains from the sale of property in a specific innovation environment should be returned to the same environment. The scheme must be transparent, based on objective criteria and subject to clear reporting and control requirements. The funds must be used for shared infrastructure and capacity building that is available to the ecosystem and designed within the state aid rules. We have good experience with this.
The principle should be simple: when the state realises significant gains from property developed in a specific innovation environment, a defined proportion – for example, 50 per cent of the net gain – should remain in the same environment to strengthen its innovation capacity. Not for symbolic reasons, but because it is strategically correct.
In the case of the Oslo Cancer Cluster, funds should be allocated to testing and pilot infrastructure, and other measures that attract private capital and international scaling for start-up companies that have their laboratories and operations in the innovation park. It is investments such as these that increase the ability to translate research into industry. This is where long-term value creation takes place.
Macroeconomically, this is rational. Norway's main challenge is not a lack of capital. It is the ability to translate knowledge into scalable industry and exports. Real estate provides stable returns. Innovation provides productivity growth, new markets and a future tax base. If the state systematically extracts value from knowledge-intensive environments without strengthening their ability to grow, we reduce the return on our own policies.
The state must also be a predictable partner. Private investors and industrial players enter into partnerships with the state because the state signals long-term thinking and purpose. If the state appears to be a player that realises value without strengthening the underlying innovation capacity, confidence is weakened. Capital seeks stable frameworks and consistent signals.
Siva was not established to maximise financial returns. The state owns Siva in order to achieve sector policy goals. The allocation of profits must therefore also reflect this purpose.
This is a political choice. The Norwegian Parliament can decide that part of the value created in specific innovation environments should remain and strengthen them. The question is whether we want to use Siva as a state property manager – or as a strategic tool for building new export industries.
If Norway is serious about its ambitions for world-leading health innovation and industrial restructuring, as the government has stated in its export strategy and roadmap for the health industry, we cannot be content with reinvesting in bricks and mortar. The state must reinvest where the value is actually created.
Ketil Widerberg,
General manager, Oslo Cancer Cluster
Oslo Cancer Cluster, in collaboration with the Berlin Center for Gene and Cell Therapies, has published a new whitepaper titled “Bridging the Gaps: Unlocking the Future of Advanced Therapies in Europe via Novel Alliances.”
Norwegian biotech Zelluna is entering the clinic for the first time.