The Swiss astrophysicist Thomas Zurbuchen spent many years leading major NASA space missions. At the GDNÄ conference in Bremen, he will speak about the search for extraterrestrial life and present the latest methods used in this cosmic quest.

Professor Zurbuchen, how far have we got in the search for life in space? 
If we take the Drake equation from 1961 as our starting point, we are well on the way. The formula devised by the US astrophysicist Frank Drake remains a valid guide to this day for estimating the number of intelligent civilisations in our Milky Way. Of the seven factors in the equation, Drake was only able to estimate the first one – the star formation rate – at the time. All the other variables remained a mystery because precise data were lacking. Thanks to modern telescopes on Earth and in space, we have made further progress today. New techniques for modelling the origins of life on the early Earth are also very helpful. They show us what to look out for when searching for extraterrestrial life. We are no longer gazing half-blindly into space, but can focus our attention specifically on promising targets. 

Where are we now on this journey?
We have not yet discovered any extraterrestrial life. But when the first exoplanets – that is, planets outside our solar system – were found in the 1990s, it was a huge step forward. Today, we know of more than six thousand exoplanets. Some of them could harbour life, and that is where we are pointing our space telescopes: currently the James Webb Telescope and, in a few years’ time, presumably its successor, the Habitable World Observatory. 

When do you expect a breakthrough?
If life really is widespread, as we suspect today, we should find it within our solar system in ten to twenty years. Perhaps we will also find convincing evidence of this in the atmospheres of exoplanets. Of course, we're talking here about simple bacterial life – so-called microbial biosignatures – not intelligent aliens.

© NASA/Aubrey Gemignani

Thomas Zurbuchen congratulates Alex Mather on his victory in a school contest. The U.S. student had suggested the name “Perseverance” for a NASA mission to the Sun. His idea was selected from among 28,000 submissions. Perseverance landed on the Red Planet on February 18, 2021, and has been collecting soil and atmospheric samples there ever since.

The search for extraterrestrial life was a key focus during your time as NASA’s Director of Science. What were your experiences there? 
NASA remains a leader in many fields, even though competitors such as China and from other regions are growing ever stronger. One of the reasons NASA is so good is that it collaborates with fantastic companies. And because it brings people together in outstanding teams. The expertise and cohesion of the group are crucial in determining whether a mission succeeds or fails – I experienced this often as Director of Science. However, large and long-established organisations like NASA also have their weaknesses, including a bureaucracy that can sometimes get out of hand. 

What were the highlights of your time at NASA?
The biggest and most important project was the James Webb Space Telescope. It was launched in 2021 as an infrared astronomy mission into space and has already provided astonishing insights into the history of the universe. Next up is what we’re doing on Mars: collecting samples with the Perseverance rover and bringing them back in a joint mission with the Europeans. I launched the Perseverance mission – it has yielded some truly spectacular and fascinating samples. Thirdly, there’s the Parker Solar Probe, a mission that has been exploring the Sun from a closer distance than ever before since 2018. Fourthly, the many Earth-observing missions, through which we monitor our planet from above, are very important. 

What highlights are you expecting in the coming years?
The James Webb Telescope is delivering highly interesting data from which we can learn a great deal about the universe. I’m looking forward to the samples that will hopefully be brought back from Mars. In four or five years’ time, two missions will arrive at Jupiter to observe its fascinating moons: the European Juice mission and the US Europa Clipper mission. And then there’s the US robotic Dragonfly mission to Saturn’s moon Titan: It is due to launch in 2028 and will explore the moon’s surface by flying over it with a quadcopter. 

During your time at NASA, you worked with Elon Musk. His space company, SpaceX, recently had a successful stock market flotation. What is your assessment of Musk?
He is one of the most talented and successful entrepreneurs of all time and has achieved an incredible amount. He is not a scientist, but he is very interested in research. As a person, he is complicated: I found him to be thin-skinned, determined and very courageous. Here’s an example: initially, he only had enough money for four rockets. The first three exploded; many others would have given up at that point. Musk carried on, had the fourth rocket launched too, and that one worked. Following this success, and because his rockets are much cheaper than standard models on the market, NASA began collaborating with him. During my years as NASA’s Director of Science, we launched 37 rockets into space, around 30 of which were from SpaceX. 

How did it come about that you returned to Switzerland in 2023 after 27 years in the USA?
I want to give something back to my home country. I come from a modest background; at home, there wasn’t much money left over for schoolbooks and university fees. Swiss taxpayers covered those costs; I owe my education to them. Two weeks after completing my PhD, I went to the US, where I was able to make my own way. So far, there are hardly any programmes in Switzerland aimed at reaching space. I’d like to change that – with my team at ETH and many others across the country. 

© NASA/Bill Ingalls

In front of the ULA “Delta IV Heavy” rocket carrying the Parker Solar Probe (from left): Thomas Zurbuchen with solar astrophysicist Eugene Parker (the mission was named after him) and Tory Bruno, President and CEO of the United Launch Alliance. The “Parker Solar Probe” is humanity’s first mission into a part of the Sun’s atmosphere known as the corona. There, it will study solar processes that are crucial for understanding and predicting space weather events and that can affect life on Earth.

You’re leading the ETH Zurich Space initiative. How far have you got, and what are your plans?
ETH Zurich Space is a space research programme that we’ve been developing over the past three years in collaboration with commercial enterprises. One project is called Life Mission; it’s about the search for signs of life in space. At the same time, we’re trying to model the very early Earth in order to understand the incredibly rapid emergence of life on a cosmic scale – in other words, the transition from chemistry and physics to biology. Another project is developing robots for lunar exploration. Our prototype, called LunarLeaper, could serve as a sort of robotic dog for astronauts and help them with their work. We aim to have the development completed by 2030. LunarLeaper would then be ready to fly on a future Artemis mission. Just as important are the training programmes we have developed, in particular the Master’s programme in Space Systems. 

Many countries have established space programmes in recent years. What is behind this boom?
I see three reasons for this: a desire for knowledge, but also economic and military interests. We humans want to know whether there are other forms of life in space – that would be the primary motivation. Economic and military applications are often closely linked; just think of satellites for mobile communications or for Earth observation. At present, the economic use of space is growing by up to ten per cent a year – a rate achieved by very few other sectors.

© ETH Zürich

Together with his team at ETH Zurich, Thomas Zurbuchen is developing “LunarLeaper,” an exploration robot for lunar missions (shown here in an artist’s rendering). The 15-kilogram walking robot is expected to be operational around 2030. It is designed to help astronauts explore the structures beneath the Moon’s surface.

Is there anything you would recommend to Germany as a spacefaring nation?
Germany’s strengths lie, amongst other things, in the fields of Earth observation, robotics and biomedical microgravity research – three areas that are becoming increasingly important. The country has incredibly talented engineers and scientists. I see particularly positive developments in Bavaria, for example with ISAR Aerospace, but also in other German regions. However, because international competition is fierce, we need to improve – not just in Germany, but across the whole of Europe. A major shortcoming is the lack of rocket launch sites. The existing bases in French Guiana and northern Sweden will not be sufficient for the future.  The security of Germany and Europe also depends on the necessary expansion. 

What specific course of action do you propose?
It is important that we accelerate our development work. On the one hand, this means more funding for research and development in the space sector: The US spends almost six times as much on this as Europe. Secondly, we must become more agile and cut back on bureaucracy. Thirdly, it is important that we support our start-ups and actually buy their products and services. That is how the US took the lead, often with the help of top talent from Europe. 

One last question: in the space community, you’re also known as Dr Z. How did you come by that nickname?
Americans find it difficult to pronounce my surname. At some point, someone came up with the abbreviation ‘Dr Z’. It quickly caught on and everyone knows who is meant. I think that’s, to put it in good Swiss terms, tipptopp.

Erlangen-based palaeontologist Wolfgang Kießling will reveal what prehistory can teach us about the future at the 2026 GDNÄ conference in Bremen.

Professor Kießling, could you please use an example to explain how data from Earth’s history can help us overcome future challenges?
Let’s take the currently hotly debated question of which species are particularly threatened by climate change. My field of expertise can help provide an answer here. Fossil finds show us that species living at the poles or at the equator are most at risk. A mass extinction of species is least likely to occur in the mid-latitudes.  

So are we on the safe side here in Germany and Europe?
We still have the advantage, but we are by no means absolutely safe. Even in our regions, climate-induced species migration towards the poles can currently be observed. This affects organisms for which their native habitats are becoming too warm. They are moving to regions that were previously too cold for them but now offer favourable conditions as a result of global warming. If temperatures continue to rise, we can expect an increase in these shifts in distribution.

© W. Kießling

A fossilised coral reef on the Red Sea coast. 

Which species can adapt well, and which are particularly sensitive to climate stressors?
Snails and oysters are relatively resilient. Fish fall somewhere in the middle. And corals are very sensitive. 

Climate change has always existed and, in one way or another, the Earth has coped with it – that is the argument put forward by climate sceptics. How do you respond to that?
Yes, throughout Earth’s history there have been repeated heat waves leading to mass extinctions. It is also true that the Earth has recovered from them. However, that recovery took millions of years. During the heat-induced mass extinction at the end of the Permian period, which ended 250 million years ago, more than 80 per cent of all species became extinct. Back then, it took five million years for biodiversity and the functionality of ecosystems to be restored. 

How do you know this so precisely?
We base our findings on careful scientific analyses of a vast number of prehistoric finds. Most of these findings are freely accessible online in the non-commercial Paleobiology Database, which provides information on more than two million fossil finds from all over the world. I first came across the database during my postdoctoral research in Chicago. Back then, it was still a very small project. Today, it is run by around four hundred scientists, mostly on a voluntary basis, and has more than 550 official publications to its name. 

Your role as lead author at the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from 2017 to 2023 was also on a voluntary basis. What was your seven-year stint there like?
I was a lead author for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Sixth Assessment Report and was responsible for one of three working groups. My group focused on the impacts of climate change, adaptation to it and vulnerabilities. I contributed data from palaeontology. For me, those were very inspiring years, but also an incredible amount of work. We lead authors had to sift through and evaluate mountains of literature in order to be able to make robust statements on climate adaptation in the assessment report. I often flew around the world for meetings with colleagues; nowadays, discussions usually take place online. Each working group comprised almost three hundred scientists, who ultimately published a report totalling nine thousand pages, plus a synthesis report. A work like this is intended for the archives; nobody reads it all the way through. For politicians and the interested public, the key messages are always summarised – which is very useful.

© Carola Radke, Museum für Naturkunde Berlin

Using a polarising microscope, Wolfgang Kießling examines wafer-thin rock samples, known as thin sections, to determine their exact composition, geological history and mechanical properties. The photo was taken during Kießling's time as a professor in Berlin.

Climate change has now receded into the background as a topic of public debate. How do you feel about that?
It is frustrating, but not surprising given the many global crises. However, the problem will not go away if we ignore it. Climate change is advancing rapidly and is already causing massive damage worldwide. At the moment, I see strongly contrasting trends, for example in China. The country emits extremely high levels of greenhouse gases, yet at the same time it is very active in combating climate change and expanding renewable energy. In China – and, fortunately, elsewhere in the world too – scientific findings are certainly being incorporated into political decisions. That gives cause for hope.

When it comes to the effects of current global warming on ecosystems, there is repeated talk of imminent tipping points. How reliable are such predictions?
Predicting tipping points is extremely difficult. For coral reefs – my area of specialisation – there have been numerous such predictions, and so far none have come true. I’m very sceptical about this and don’t believe the reefs will disappear completely, as is occasionally warned. Many reefs are currently in a poor state, but in some parts of the world they are still largely intact. This applies, for example, to the Red Sea, but also to Indonesia, even though dynamite fishing is still practised there in some areas. The situation is likely to be different with the Gulf Stream, which gives Northern Europe a relatively mild climate. In that case, I consider tipping points to be entirely realistic.

© W. Kießling

Field research on a fossilised coral reef in Apulia.

What do you make of the sensational prediction by a Chinese research group that a change in the average global annual temperature of 5.2 degrees Celsius will inevitably lead to mass species extinction?
The study is reputable and has also been included in the latest World Climate Report. However, the findings have not yet been confirmed by further studies. Currently, global warming stands at 1.2 degrees Celsius compared with pre-industrial levels. If the trend continues, the figure could reach 3 degrees by the end of the century and possibly hit the 5.2-degree mark in 150 years’ time. 

As a basic researcher, you also put your research findings into practice, very much in the spirit of this year’s GDNÄ conference. Please give us an example.
Our most successfully applied project is called Ageless; we have been running it for two years in collaboration with the Universities of Bremen and Oldenburg. Ageless is part of a major programme by the Federal Ministry of Research aimed at protecting biodiversity in the so-called Blue Ocean. These are areas in international waters, 30 per cent of which are soon to be designated as UN protected areas. We already know that protected areas must be oriented predominantly parallel to the lines of longitude and must not be rigid, because particularly endangered species migrate towards the poles. If we did not take this into account, our successors would have to start from scratch in twenty years’ time. The collaboration with nature conservation organisations and social scientists in co-design is particularly exciting. This means that, whilst we are conducting our research, the initial findings are already being put into practice. Previously, publication came first, followed, perhaps, by application. 

Through your institute, you are part of the GeoZentrum Nordbayern. Here, too, the aim is to advance the practical application of scientific findings. Is this proving successful?
Yes, there are a number of promising projects. In mineralogy, for example, research is being carried out into olivine-based concrete, which releases no greenhouse gases – or significantly fewer – than the carbonate cements most commonly used today. In petrology, colleagues are searching for metallic raw materials deep within the Earth to help meet growing demand – for instance, in the field of rare earths. 

You’re originally from Coburg, conduct research and teach in Erlangen, and are regarded as a leading expert on the geological consequences of climate change in marine ecosystems. How did someone from Franconia end up in marine research, specialising in coral reefs?
It might sound strange, but I don’t have to drive far to reach a beach. And the nearest coral reef isn’t far away either – it’s practically on my doorstep, so to speak. Of course, these are fossilised environments, such as those in Franconian Switzerland or Lower Bavaria. There, in Saal an der Donau, I recently discovered the remains of 150-million-year-old tropical corals in a quarry and took a few samples back for our institute. Once you develop an eye for it, you can find such traces of the past almost everywhere. 

What sparked your interest in this field of research?
As a teenager, I was determined to study a natural science subject. My maths wasn’t good enough for physics, and I didn’t like the dissection involved in biology. That’s how I ended up in the geosciences and, through one of my professors, eventually in palaeontology. He was so enthusiastic about his subject that it rubbed off on me. I have never regretted my choice of subject, and ever since I became a professor myself, I have tried to pass on that enthusiasm.

Thomas Kühlein, Professor of General Practice in Erlangen, explains how evidence-based medicine can contribute to better healthcare at the 2026 GDNÄ conference.

Professor Kühlein, according to the conference programme, you will be speaking in Bremen about truth and science. That’s a broad topic – what exactly will you be discussing?
Evidence-based healthcare – in other words, medicine that is based on the best available research findings and the experience of practising doctors, whilst also taking the patient’s perspective into account. That’s how good medicine should be, I thought more than twenty years ago when, as a GP in a rural practice at the time, I undertook my first training in this area – and that’s still my view today. But unfortunately, evidence-based medicine is often misunderstood, misinterpreted or ignored. 

Where do you see this happening? 
For example, in the cancer screening programmes offered by health insurance funds for breast cancer, bowel cancer, skin cancer, cervical cancer, prostate cancer and, more recently, lung cancer. The aim of these screening programmes, as they are known in technical terms, is to detect tumours at an early stage. In other words, when they are often easily treatable and those affected have not yet experienced any symptoms. That is the theory. The reality observed in studies looks different. The risks and expected benefits for individuals are generally smaller than anticipated, and potential disadvantages due to so-called overdiagnosis are sometimes even more likely than the benefits. However, this is often not communicated fairly. Overall, specialised programmes for at-risk groups would probably be much more efficient.

© Uniklinik Erlangen.

The Institute of General Medicine is responsible for specialist research and teaching at Erlangen University Hospital. Here is an exterior view.

This is precisely what is currently being discussed in relation to skin cancer screening.
Yes, we expressly welcome this. Germany is the only country with a nationwide, non-risk-based skin cancer screening programme. Insured individuals aged 35 and over are entitled to this early detection examination every two years. As expected, the programme has led to an increase in the number of skin cancer diagnoses, but not to fewer people dying from skin cancer – the available studies show this very clearly. This is precisely what is referred to as overdiagnosis. It is therefore high time for a change of course: away from a one-size-fits-all approach, towards screening for people at high risk of skin cancer. This includes people with very fair skin as well as, for example, farm workers or road workers. Another advantage of the risk-adapted approach: if unnecessary screening tests are eliminated, doctors have more time for patients who are genuinely ill. 

Smaller screening programmes may also help to reduce healthcare costs. The federal government is currently searching almost desperately for further ways to save money. Where do you see the greatest potential? 
Firstly, in the planned primary care system. The project is included in the coalition agreement, and the government intends to introduce it gradually. According to the plan, those with statutory health insurance should first visit their GP when ill, who will then either provide treatment themselves or refer the patient to a specialist as appropriate. This could help avoid unnecessary medical costs. 

This requires a large number of GPs. But there is already a severe shortage of them everywhere.
In the meantime, chairs in general practice have been established at almost all medical faculties. These help ensure that students perceive general practice as an interesting subject right from the start. Of course, it takes time for these students to actually enter practice. Another approach is to relieve GPs of tasks that can be handled by other members of the primary care team. This has a lot to do with fee structures. Here too, a fair bit has already happened in recent years.

© Uniklinik Erlangen.

Together with his team at the Institute of General Medicine in Erlangen, Thomas Kühlen (top row, right) is investigating the scientific foundations of good patient care.

We’re still on the first cost-saving proposal. What’s next?
My second proposal aims to improve digital connectivity between doctors, patients, health insurance funds and other stakeholders in the healthcare system. An example: electronic patient records can prevent duplication of costly diagnostic tests and reduce laboratory costs; we just need to start using them consistently at last. And thirdly: evidence-based thinking and practice must be embedded even more firmly – in medical training and in doctors’ day-to-day work. Not everything that is statistically significant is also relevant. If the evidence suggests it, we can sometimes leave things out. In my experience, patients go along with this if I explain it to them properly. 

 That may apply to individuals. But do you believe that a large part of the population is ready for a culture of leaving things out?
No, something like that doesn’t happen overnight. Today, it is mainly older people who are open to such discussions, as they no longer wish to undergo every medically feasible treatment. This is not a question of money, but one that relates to our attitude towards life and the end of life. As a society, we tend to have a rather dysfunctional relationship with mortality. This fuels the obsession with what is medically possible and the over-provision in the healthcare system; we doctors should always be aware of this.  We play a key role in this system, and together with our patients we can make a real difference. Joint decision-making is crucial: scientifically sound, tailored to patients’ needs and, finally, well documented. 

Let’s return to the title of your GDNÄ lecture. What claim to truth can science make from the perspective of evidence-based medicine?
At best, science is an approximation of the truth. Its findings remain valid until they are refuted by new evidence. The type of studies used in evidence-based medicine never provides truths that are laws of nature. What I find particularly important in this context is that science can provide the best possible basis for decision-making, but nothing more. We ourselves must make the decisions and take responsibility for them. I will explain in Bremen how all this can contribute to better medicine.

Asymmetric organic catalysis? Nobel Laureate Benjamin List explains how he came up with this crazy idea and what it means for our future at the 2026 GDNÄ conference in Bremen.

Professor List, in December 2021 you were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry. Has your life changed since then?
Yes, it has – especially at the beginning. TV appearances weren’t part of my normal daily routine before. Nor were the many public lectures, whether at ‘Jugend forscht’, the Kulturhaus Heidelberg or in university lecture theatres. The first two or three years were very intense. In the meantime, I’ve been able to get my life back to normal and finally have enough time again for my large research group at the institute in Mülheim. It’s not as if, as a Nobel laureate, you stop doing research.

What are you currently working on?
I’d like to highlight two projects. Firstly, we’re trying to remove the greenhouse gas CO2 from the atmosphere by breaking it down into O2 and C using sunlight and catalysts. The oxygen O2 returns to the atmosphere without any issues; what remains is carbon. This could be used as a kind of solar coal for all sorts of processes in the chemical industry. Surplus coal could be buried, for example in tunnels along the Rhine and Ruhr. The whole thing could help solve humanity’s energy problem and would be climate-neutral at the same time. We’re still facing a few tricky problems, but hopefully they’ll be solved in ten years’ time. Our idea isn’t entirely far-fetched; after all, CO2 splitting is already taking place on Mars, albeit only in small quantities. 

And your second project?
We’re currently setting up a company that produces pure fragrances. At the molecular level, fragrances usually consist of two variants, known as enantiomers. They fit together like a picture and its mirror image, but have biologically different effects. The original might smell of mint, for example, and the mirror image of caraway – together they make a strange mixture. In industrial production, therefore, the aim is to produce pure fragrances containing only one of these molecular twins. To date, this has only been possible using complex processes. With the help of our patents, production can be simplified and made cheaper. I think we’ll be able to start this year. I am a basic researcher, but getting to know the industrial world is exciting.

© David Ausserhofer

At work: Benjamin List leads a team of around forty researchers from all over the world. Teamwork is a top priority in the List research group.

You were awarded the Nobel Prize for the discovery of asymmetric organic catalysis. What makes this process so significant?
Catalysis as such is very, very important for our lives. Just one example: without the Haber-Bosch process, that classic example of catalysis, there would be no fertilisers. We wouldn’t then be eight billion people, but perhaps only four billion due to a lack of sufficient food. I consider catalysis to be humanity’s most important technology.  Overall, there have already been several Nobel Prizes for catalysis research, and almost all of them were for metallic catalysts. Unfortunately, these also have drawbacks: many of them are expensive, rare and, on top of that, toxic. In 1999, I experimented with a small molecule, the amino acid proline, and discovered that it not only acts as a catalyst but also specifically produces the desired enantiomer. When I published this in early 2000, it came as a huge surprise to the scientific community: an organic molecule found in the human body acts as a highly selective catalyst – incredible! 

You share the Nobel Prize with the Scottish-born US researcher David MacMillan, who arrived at similar results independently of you. Was the discovery in the air?
In hindsight, you could see it that way. David and I actually knew nothing about each other. We each made the crucial discoveries independently in 1999. When my very first proline experiment worked, I thought: Wow, this could be something big. Yet the idea itself wasn’t actually that new. Other chemists had tried it too. When the initial experimental results from the 1960s and 1970s weren’t really understood, interest in it waned. David MacMillan and I then tried a different approach and succeeded. Many chemists at the time rubbed their eyes in disbelief and asked: How could we have overlooked this?

@ David Ausserhofer

A scene in the laboratory of Benjamin List’s ‘Homogeneous Catalysis’ department at the Max Planck Institute for Coal Research in Mülheim.

Is organocatalysis used in industry today?
Yes, in many fields, including the production of medicines. One example is darunavir for the treatment of HIV. The active ingredient, a so-called protease inhibitor, prevents the AIDS virus from multiplying in infected people. The World Health Organisation has included it on the list of essential medicines.

Is more public funding needed for catalysis research?
Yes, that would be money well spent. At present, we are lagging behind in artificial intelligence, quantum and fusion technologies, far behind the US and China. Catalysis is not as popular, but it represents a major opportunity for Germany. We have a long tradition in this field and a great deal of expertise in the country. 

Let’s take a look back: how did you come to become a chemist?
It all began when I was eleven years old. Together with two friends, I had set up a small laboratory in a basement in Frankfurt; we bought the necessary chemicals from a local chemist. At that time, I wasn’t yet taking chemistry lessons. Later, I had a few gifted teachers who encouraged me. But by then my interest in the subject was already very strong, and no teacher could have steered me away from that path. 

The GDNÄ has its own youth organisation, the jGDNÄ. Is there anything you would advise young people interested in the natural sciences?
Follow your passion! Don’t let yourselves be swayed, even if your parents say: ‘I see you as a lawyer or a doctor.’ There are good career opportunities in the natural sciences, both in academia and in industry. The world has recognised how important research is. And it’s a stroke of luck if you’re interested in it. It gives me immense pleasure to be able to unlock a few of nature’s secrets and perhaps change the world in the process. 

On 19 September, you will be giving the public Nobel lecture on the topic of ‘Organocatalysis for our world’ at the GDNÄ meeting in Bremen. What prior knowledge is needed to follow your talk?
An interest in the subject should suffice. I try to speak as clearly as possible. 

What message do you want to convey to your audience?
Organocatalysis can be both basic research and application. Both are fascinating, and that is what I want to convey. And in doing so, I’d also like to promote the Max Planck Society a little. Its outstanding basic research is well known to many, but not everyone realises that it is also the most successful start-up organisation in this country. I have one more message: enthusiasm for what you do is important. Whether in research or in other areas of life. 

To conclude, may I ask you about a particular photo showing you standing on your hands with your legs crossed in the laboratory? How did that come about?
The photo was taken a few years before the Nobel Prize, during an interview with my fellow student Catarina Pietschmann, who works as a freelance journalist in Berlin. ‘You have to swim against the tide now and then,’ I’d said during the conversation, ‘maybe even stand on your head.’ That’s how the idea for the handstand in the lotus position came about. My wife was in the lab at the time; she held me up. I can’t manage a handstand on my own just yet. 

Do you practise yoga?
Yes, yoga is important to me for keeping my mind fresh. I’ve been doing it for many years, one to two hours a day and mostly without instruction. I’ve got the hang of it a bit now.