Professor Kaysser-Pyzalla, the motto of the 133rd GDNÄ meeting was ‘Science for our lives tomorrow’. In which areas do you see the greatest challenges and opportunities for science?
Our lives tomorrow will be determined by social developments. The greatest challenge for science is to present its own relevance to society in a comprehensible way. We at the GDNÄ must also show the role that research plays in the future of society and its economic and technological foundations. The greatest opportunity for science lies in communicating its results and methods, but also its limitations. To say: ‘We are here for society’. Our task is to make science recognisable in what it produces. Research is thus one of the foundations for decision-making in our democracy. 

Not all of these areas of responsibility are equally attractive to young scientists. Are there any areas that concern you?
I am concerned about the low number of students in technical subjects. But Potsdam has shown that the next generation understands the new challenges. They are addressing issues that deal with current developments or historical missteps and are highly relevant to society. As the GDNÄ, we must convey to our young scientists the significance and interdisciplinarity of research for their development. The ability to work in a team and clear analytical and evaluative skills are also good prerequisites for careers in research that lead into business and back again.

© Dima-Juschkow

The Young Network of the GDNÄ was founded to introduce young people to scientific thinking and working at an early age. How important is youth work within the GDNÄ as a whole?
Recruiting young talent must be our top priority. Without capable, committed and motivated young people, Germany will not be competitive. There are many young people who are inspired by excellent teachers to take an interest in the natural sciences. However, the field of technology is often neglected. We as the GDNÄ must be role models – representing scientific values, rethinking them and explaining their benefits to society. How can we succeed in introducing young people to scientific thinking and working through attractive offers? The GDNÄ gives young talent the opportunity to build networks and get to know new people, but above all to learn about new topics. 

There does not seem to be any gender disparity in young people’s interest in science, as can also be seen in the jGDNÄ. However, in advanced academic and industrial careers, the proportion of women often drops dramatically. Is this a ‘legacy issue’ that can be resolved by better support for young talent, or do you see structural problems that need to be solved?
I still see structural problems here, i.e. a legacy issue. The proportion of female students is steadily increasing. Many successfully complete their studies and some choose a scientific career. But what about the compatibility of family and career? This compatibility, which applies to both women and men, must be incorporated into everyday scientific life so that it produces the expected results. Everyone has the same opportunities. And it is clear that this can work. Increasingly, women are establishing themselves in areas where they were previously underrepresented. At the GDNÄ, too, it is noticeable that young female colleagues are heavily involved in our work and are very committed. 

Science in the 21st century is highly specialised in most cases, with researchers often focusing on very narrow areas of interest. But the challenges for ‘our life tomorrow’ are complex. What role do you see for the GDNÄ in stimulating exchange between disciplines and promoting interdisciplinary thinking?
The role of the GDNÄ must increasingly be that of a pacemaker in the German scientific landscape. We must succeed in strengthening interdisciplinary thinking. Let’s put ourselves in the shoes of a space engineer, for example. Taking orbital mechanics from her area of expertise, she is forced to consider many aspects of a complex mission. She can only succeed in this if she is prepared to think and act beyond the boundaries of her field. She must pool and expand collective knowledge, promote new ideas and also improve cooperation. This requires a high degree of interdisciplinarity in the context of complex systems. Then she, then we, will be successful. 

As important as dialogue within the sciences is, dialogue between science and society is at least as important. However, issues such as climate change and pandemic control have shown that this dialogue does not always work. The current example in the USA, where anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific positions seem to dominate politics, shows in a dramatic way how this can jeopardise not only scientific progress, but even the scientific status quo, i.e. what has already been achieved. How can and must science in general and the GDNÄ in particular respond to this?
The GDNÄ is the sum of its members. Every member should take a clear stand for science in conversations and discussions. Unfortunately, we see in the media how even prominent figures are involved in promoting pseudoscientific theories. We can counteract this through our public appearances. The GDNÄ stands for explainability. This includes translating existing knowledge in a way that is understandable and comprehensible to everyone. This is what the most recent winner of the Lorenz Oken Medal, Armin Maiwald, has been doing successfully for many decades. In this way, the GDNÄ strengthens the acceptance of scientific findings, such as those on man-made climate change. We explain the uncertainties of scientific findings and explain what science is good for. Because science, like the GDNÄ, is constantly evolving.