Professor Schüth, you are a Max Planck director in your main job, and you also hold numerous honorary positions. Do you know off the top of your head how many there are?
There are actually quite a few, but I don’t have the exact number at hand. The roles are very different, also in terms of the time required. It ranges from 80 percent of my working hours in the years as Vice President of the Max Planck Society to a two-hour meeting every few years in smaller committees. 

A few months ago, I took on another role: that of Vice President and incoming President of the GDNÄ. What motivates you to get involved with the GDNÄ? 
I like the breadth of topics it covers. The GDNÄ shows how different areas of science interact – this is not so clearly visible in other societies. When I was asked whether I would like to take on the role, I only had to think about it briefly before saying yes. The presidency begins gently with two years as vice president and ends just as gently – that makes a lot of things easier.

 © Isabel Schiffhorst für MPI für Kohleforschung

Main entrance to the Max Planck Institute for Coal Research in Mülheim an der Ruhr.

How do you intend to proceed as a new member of the presidium? 
First of all, I will take a close look at everything and support what is going well. One example is the new GDNÄ junior organisation, the jGDNÄ. I think it’s great that it exists now and that it is absolutely in keeping with the times. Similar developments can be seen in other scientific societies – I am thinking, for example, of the young chemists’ forums of the German Chemical Society, which practically every local section now has. What is important is that young members are given the freedom to create something themselves. 

What priorities would you like to set in the future? 
The effect of science on society seems to me to be increasingly interesting and important. What do citizens think about science and research, what do they get out of it and what can we scientists offer them? In my opinion, the GDNÄ is a good forum for such questions and for exchanging ideas with the public. 

How can this be achieved?
Perhaps in the future we should involve the social sciences, humanities and arts more closely, at least selectively. I am currently experiencing how helpful this can be at the Leopoldina, where I am participating in a focus group on climate and energy. We natural and technical scientists in the group benefit greatly from the expertise of the economists who are also involved. They help us to develop business models for our great ideas. Because if it doesn’t pay off, you can forget it – that’s an important insight that I’ve gained over many years of work. Economic expertise, for example, could also enrich the GDNÄ, for example in individual topics at the meetings. Nevertheless, it would retain its character as a scientific society. 

© Frank Vinken für MPI für Kohleforschung

A scientific society that engages in dialogue with the public…
…yes, and that is strength of the GDNÄ, which we can further expand. There is a great need for communication, because on the one hand science is more important than ever, but on the other hand society trusts it less than it did 20 or 30 years ago. Today there are alternative facts and lateral thinkers with whom a reasonable conversation is hardly possible. As scientists, we have to justify our work more than we used to and explain more precisely what science can and cannot do. The GDNÄ is a very good platform for this. 

Political issues are currently dominating public discourse. This also includes the anti-scientific behaviour of the Trump administration. Should Germany take the opportunity, as some suggest, to specifically poach US scientists? 
We should signal our willingness to accept them and show them the options available in Germany. I don’t think it’s the right approach to aggressively encourage American scientists to leave their country.

Is your institute affected by current US policy?
Yes, the consequences are noticeable. For decades, we were able to send our postdocs to the US for a few years of research without any problems. This is difficult at present because many US research institutions are uncertain and do not know what will happen tomorrow. “Get back to us in a few months” is often the response to our inquiries now.

© Frank Vinken / MPG

The grinding process in a ball mill activates a catalyst in such a way that it mediates the synthesis of ammonia at a much lower temperature and pressure than is necessary in the established Haber-Bosch process.

Your current research work is about the energy of tomorrow. It is in this context that mechanocatalysis should be seen, and last year you were able to obtain a 2.5 million euro Advanced Grant from the European Research Council (ERC) for research into this area. What are you planning to do with it? 
We want to understand the fundamental processes in mechanochemistry at the molecular level. We carry out our mechanochemical reactions in ball mills. These reactions take place at room temperature and normal pressure, for which several hundred degrees and hundreds of bar of pressure are otherwise required. The new approach saves resources, time and costs. My research group has already realised exciting projects with this concept, for example the synthesis of ammonia. A detailed understanding of the process could enable the production of completely new materials. However, this is not part of the ERC project, and the clarification of the processes is initially pure basic research. Nevertheless, my department is currently preparing to establish several start-up companies based on the knowledge gained.

 Let’s take a look at your background: you studied chemistry and law, an unusual combination of subjects. How did that come about?
Most chemists go into industry after graduating, so I thought that an additional law degree wouldn’t be a bad idea. Lawyers think differently, and that interested me. When I failed the first exam three times, I was seized by anger and wanted to prove that I could do it. Anger is a good motivator. My career then took a different path, but my knowledge of law helped me later when I founded our company hte. 

You are celebrating your 65th birthday this year. For many working people, that’s a turning point in life. How about you?
I plan to retire at the age of 68, which is the retirement age possible for Max Planck directors without major hurdles. That would be almost two years later than the regular retirement age. By then, we are talking about 2028, the doctoral projects in my field should be completed, and the ERC project will also be running until then – with me spending a few months in my emeritus workplace. I am looking forward to the new freedoms of retirement. I will write books, perhaps starting with a book about energy. And I want to hike across Germany, once from north to south.

Professor Kohse-Höinghaus, we are taking International Women’s Day on 8 March as an opportunity to talk about your recently published autobiography. In it, you describe your path as a woman in a technical field, as the subtitle says. Do you see yourself as a pioneer?
Yes, definitely. For a long time, there were hardly any women in physical chemistry and especially in research on combustion processes. When I started at the German Aerospace Center (DLR) in Stuttgart in 1979 as a newly graduated chemist, I was the only woman scientist there. At first, I was eyed sceptically, but then I was accepted. Later, when I applied for professorships, I learned behind closed doors that they were looking for an established man for the position. And not a young mother with a baby and a husband with his own career, as was the case with me. Fortunately, this changed and women were increasingly recognised in my discipline as well. 

How did that become noticeable?
To give an example, condescending behaviour towards female colleagues became increasingly rare. For me personally, there were two events that made me feel I had arrived: in 2007, I was the first woman to be appointed chair of the German Bunsen Society, and in 2012, I was the first woman to be elected president of the Combustion Institute, the leading international professional society, for a four-year term. Both of these achievements have also paved the way for other female scientists. 

Who is your book aimed at?
Above all, for young people who are pursuing a career in science. I want to show them, using my example, how winding career paths can be and encourage them to follow their own compass. But in principle, anyone who is interested in the development of science and technology over the last fifty years can benefit from the book. It is richly illustrated and I have tried to write in a way that is easy to understand, entertaining and vivid. That’s another reason why I think the volume would make a good gift or prize for special achievements.

 © from the book “Burning for Science”

Doctorate in 1978, here with supervisor Professor Friedrich Stuhl.

You wrote the book in English. Why not in German?
English is the global language of science today and my academic network is international. I want my colleagues around the world to be able to read the book easily. Young people are familiar with English anyway, so I don’t see any problems there. 

That wasn’t the case when you were young. And it wasn’t foreseeable back then that you would become a professor of physical chemistry.
That’s right. I grew up in the Ruhr area in a family of teachers, and my parents weren’t thrilled when I wanted to study chemistry. Would you even be able to find a husband with a degree like that? Today it’s hard to imagine, but back then people worried about things like that. It wasn’t easy for me at university either. I came from a grammar school that specialised in modern languages, had deficits in maths and physics and had to catch up on a lot during the first semesters at the University of Bochum. I often set three alarm clocks to make sure I didn’t miss a course. It was exhausting, but also a good time with a lot of freedom. 

Can you give us an example?
The first thing that comes to mind is how I built a laser at the end of the 1970s that was important for my doctorate in atmospheric chemistry. A lot was happening in this field of research in the 1970s and there was a great deal of public interest in it. The background to this was the increasing air pollution, especially in the Ruhr area. For my laser, I had to delve deeply into physics, which I really enjoyed. My doctoral supervisor Friedrich Stuhl spent a research semester in the US during that time. When he came back, I was able to hand him my completed dissertation. 

Now the big wide world of science was open to you. Which stations were decisive for you?
I got my first permanent position in 1979 at the DLR in Stuttgart. I had already said goodbye to atmospheric chemistry – now I wanted to find out where air pollution actually came from and what could be done about it. So, scientifically, I had switched to combustion research and at the DLR I was able to examine such high-temperature processes in detail using laser spectroscopy.

© from the book “Burning for Science”

A permanent research position at the age of 27 – that’s what many young researchers dream of today.
I was also very happy to receive the offer from Stuttgart back then. I had good working conditions, great colleagues and a secure income there, but after a while I needed new challenges. In 1987, I then moved to California with my husband Klaus for a good year to do research at Stanford. There I learned a lot about mechanical engineering and molecular spectroscopy, and both opened up new horizons for me in combustion research. During this time, I made many new friends who are still important parts of my professional network today. 

Many young female scientists are not accompanied by their partners on a year abroad, but the opposite is often the case. How come your husband travelled with you?
We had already had a long-distance relationship for a few years and didn’t want to repeat that. So my husband, who is a doctor, took unpaid leave from a clinic in Stuttgart and applied for and received a scholarship. We were both kept very busy and in 1988 we returned to our institutes in Stuttgart full of fresh ideas and energy. 

Two years later, in the summer of 1990, your daughter was born. At that time, there was neither a parental allowance nor the right to a day care place. How did the dual-career couple Kohse-Höinghaus fare during this phase?
It was a period of upheaval in every respect. I was aiming for a professorship at a university so that I could pursue my own research interests and work more with young people. My husband was looking for a leading position in a clinic, which he eventually found in Oldenburg. In 1992, parallel to my work as a group leader at the DLR, I was able to habilitate at the University of Stuttgart, as the first woman in the faculty. It was a turbulent time, which Klaus and I survived thanks to our solidarity, with moral support from relatives and friends, as well as private childcare and a housekeeper. Since then, Oldenburg has been the centre of our lives. From there, I regularly commuted to the University of Bielefeld, where I had been appointed to the Chair of Physical Chemistry in 1994. My husband and I shared the family work, and our daughter was well looked after. Nevertheless, some people couldn’t stop calling me a bad mother. 

Do you see yourself as a role model for young women today who want to combine research and family? 
Yes and no. Today, there is more state support for young families. The climate in terms of equal opportunities has also changed significantly in research funding and appointments. Many universities and research institutions make it easier to combine two careers and a family with dual-career strategies. However, it is still a balancing act that requires a great deal of commitment. In an experimental subject like chemistry, it can help to avoid laboratory-intensive periods when you are pregnant. And it is not only when the children are small that you need a lot of support and preparation for any eventuality – but that applies equally to other professions. However, especially in an international context, I realise that many young women today still face similar difficulties to those I faced more than 30 years ago.

© from the book “Burning for Science”

Today you mentor young people. Did you have something like that in your career?
No, and I missed that very much. That’s why I always tried to support younger generations with advice and practical help. As a senior professor, I still maintain contact with more than a hundred scientists who have worked with me. The teutolab is another example of mentoring in the broader sense. I founded the Bielefeld-based hands-on laboratory as one of the very first such extracurricular learning centres to inspire children and young people to take an interest in the natural sciences. The corresponding federal association, which we helped to establish in Bielefeld, is now 20 years old, and this year we are celebrating the 25th anniversary of the teutolab. 

You are still active as a senior professor. How can we picture your activities?
I sit at my desk a lot and I travel a lot. At my desk, I work on lectures, professional articles or scientific statements for academies and scientific organisations. In the last two years, I have been intensively involved in working on my autobiography. As a scientist with an extensive network and long-standing connections abroad, I am often on the road, for example in China. I think it is very important to maintain contacts there despite political tensions, especially with young scientists. Without China, there is no solution to some of the global problems of our time – we have to work together. 

One of these problems is climate change, which is largely due to the combustion of fossil fuels. Has this not made you doubt your field of expertise?
Absolutely not. We have to give up burning fossil fuels, but not combustion research. This is because it provides the scientific basis we need to develop climate-neutral fuels for industry and transport. Combustion research also provides us with the tools to better fight major fires, whether in the wild or in cities. With my research, I have been able to contribute to our understanding of the complex chemical reactions that take place in high-temperature processes and to identify ways to avoid pollutants. And that makes me feel good.