Professor Bolm, you decided early on to pursue a career in chemistry, became a university lecturer and have remained in this field for over thirty years. Would you choose the same path again?
Yes, it has always been the right choice for me. I can conduct my research at my own discretion and support talented young people in their development: these are advantages I enjoy every day. It is not a nine-to-five job; you are always challenged, and occasionally my team thinks I work too hard. There is a trend among young people to turn their backs on academia and look for a quieter job. I try to counteract this, among other things with my lecture ‘Why you should stay at university’. I will be giving it again soon. 

What are your main arguments in favour of a career in academia?
Freedom of thought and the opportunity to do what you like best in your job. 

What sparked your enthusiasm for research and chemistry in particular?
There were no role models in my family. But my parents gave me chemistry sets and I was allowed to buy all the chemicals I needed for my experiments at a nearby pharmacy. That wouldn’t be possible today; adults would consider it too risky, but in the 1960s and 1970s it wasn’t a problem. I owe a lot to my biology teacher. She was doing a PhD in microbiology and taught biology with a strong focus on chemistry. Her fascination was contagious, and at some point I realised: I’m going to be a chemist.

 © Carsten Bolm

Carsten Bolm’s large, internationally diverse working group in front of the institute building.

It seems that you pursued this plan with determination.
It may seem that way from the outside. I myself felt quite erratic during that time. I moved eight times, in Germany, Switzerland and the USA, and nowhere did I stay longer than two years. The fact that this led to an academic career has a lot to do with luck, with meeting the right people at the right time. 

You mentioned the fascination of chemistry. What exactly fascinates you?
Chemistry requires both brainpower and manual dexterity, a wonderful combination. It is also the only discipline in which new substances are constantly being created – substances that did not exist before. That never ceases to inspire me. 

You are an organic chemist, but you also work in mechanochemistry. How do the two fit together?
At the beginning of an academic career, you have to specialise in a few research questions in order to gain a profile and visibility in the professional world. Later, I gradually expanded my spectrum, including in the direction of mechanochemistry. It is often used in the geosciences, for example when it comes to grinding materials energy-efficiently and without solvents using a ball mill. Twenty years ago, this was still uncharted territory in organic synthesis chemistry, but today mechanochemistry is regarded as a significant methodological advancement. In my working group, we use the process to improve existing synthesis methods and to discover new ground in chemistry – the unusual reaction conditions in the ball mills are good for a few surprises.

  © Carsten Bolm

How do such new approaches emerge at your institute?
Often through interdisciplinary exchange. When searching for new active substances to combat diseases, for example, I work a lot with medical professionals. Sulphur chemistry plays a central role in this, for example in the development of new tuberculosis inhibitors. Thanks to interdisciplinary cooperation, we have been able to significantly expand the substrate range of sulfoximines, which are particularly suitable for use in medicinal chemistry and plant protection. We also collaborate with engineers, for example in the recently reconfirmed RWTH Excellence Cluster Integrated Fuel & Chemical Science Center, or FSC2 for short. Here, we support the development of environmentally friendly liquid energy sources. Whether at our own university or as part of large EU projects, we always rely on high-calibre, reliable partners. And that suits us very well. 

What role do contacts with industry play in your work?
A very important one. I would even say that without industry contacts, it would be impossible to work in my field. My working group, for example, has close contacts with the pharmaceutical industry in order to jointly develop new active substances. A plant protection company is currently testing a new class of compounds discovered in our laboratories. And like many other chemistry institutes at German universities, we benefit greatly from the Chemical Industry Fund in promoting young academics. It awards prizes and grants, which is very important for our young scientists. 

How do you see Germany’s position as a centre for chemistry? 
We are concerned that the large chemical companies are offering fewer and fewer jobs for our graduates. But if you look long enough, you will find something – this is especially true for chemists with doctorates. These are often positions in smaller companies. Overall, the industry is suffering from enormous energy costs and many companies are currently considering relocating abroad. Rapid political intervention to reduce costs would be helpful. 

Almost 30 years ago, you accepted a professorship at RWTH and stayed despite other offers. What kept you in Aachen? 
The strong location, good research conditions and high quality of life. I come from Braunschweig, did my habilitation in Basel and dreamed of a life in southwestern Germany. But I ended up in Aachen. At the time, I thought that if an offer came from Freiburg, I would sign it blindly. A little later, the call from Freiburg actually came. The RWTH made such a generous counteroffer that I couldn’t say no. Another offer followed – but once again, RWTH was better. And over time, I have come to really appreciate the city, its proximity to Belgium and the Rhineland. 

How did you come to the GDNÄ?
Through a phone call a year and a half ago. Michael Dröscher, a chemist like me and long-time secretary general of the GDNÄ, asked me if I would be interested in working with them. I was familiar with the GDNÄ at the time, but I didn’t have a clear picture of its goals. I think that’s the case for many people at universities. I then travelled to the meeting in Potsdam and found it extremely successful. I was impressed by the interaction between the disciplines and the appreciative cooperation between young and old – I had never experienced anything like it before. The GDNÄ’s Young Network was founded in Potsdam and has developed magnificently since then. It immediately gives you lots of new ideas. 

Such as?
Perhaps we will be able to organise a series of lectures on topics related to modern chemistry in Aachen, together with representatives of the jGDNÄ. If that works, it could also be a format for other university cities. Another idea would be to send GNDÄ members on lecture tours to German universities in order to put the society and the jGDNÄ in the university spotlight. 

You were elected to the GDNÄ Executive Board as representative for chemistry. What do you want to achieve in this role? 
One of my main tasks at the moment is to recruit top-class chemists to give lectures on their research that are as accessible as possible for the 2026 meeting in Bremen. The topics should be current and of interdisciplinary interest. It’s a wonderful position and fits in perfectly with my goal: I want to make chemistry more visible – in science and in the public eye – and the GDNÄ along with it.

  © Stefanie Zimmer

The laboratory as a place of learning: Dr Renè Hommelsheim (right) answers Christian Keiser’s questions about sulphur chemistry.

How do such new approaches emerge at your institute?
Often through interdisciplinary exchange. When searching for new active substances to combat diseases, for example, I work a lot with medical professionals. Sulphur chemistry plays a central role in this, for example in the development of new tuberculosis inhibitors. Thanks to interdisciplinary cooperation, we have been able to significantly expand the substrate range of sulfoximines, which are particularly suitable for use in medicinal chemistry and plant protection. We also collaborate with engineers, for example in the recently reconfirmed RWTH Excellence Cluster Integrated Fuel & Chemical Science Center, or FSC2 for short. Here, we support the development of environmentally friendly liquid energy sources. Whether at our own university or as part of large EU projects, we always rely on high-calibre, reliable partners. And that suits us very well. 

What role do contacts with industry play in your work?
A very important one. I would even say that without industry contacts, it would be impossible to work in my field. My working group, for example, has close contacts with the pharmaceutical industry in order to jointly develop new active substances. A plant protection company is currently testing a new class of compounds discovered in our laboratories. And like many other chemistry institutes at German universities, we benefit greatly from the Chemical Industry Fund in promoting young academics. It awards prizes and grants, which is very important for our young scientists. 

How do you see Germany’s position as a centre for chemistry? 
We are concerned that the large chemical companies are offering fewer and fewer jobs for our graduates. But if you look long enough, you will find something – this is especially true for chemists with doctorates. These are often positions in smaller companies. Overall, the industry is suffering from enormous energy costs and many companies are currently considering relocating abroad. Rapid political intervention to reduce costs would be helpful. 

Almost 30 years ago, you accepted a professorship at RWTH and stayed despite other offers. What kept you in Aachen? 
The strong location, good research conditions and high quality of life. I come from Braunschweig, did my habilitation in Basel and dreamed of a life in southwestern Germany. But I ended up in Aachen. At the time, I thought that if an offer came from Freiburg, I would sign it blindly. A little later, the call from Freiburg actually came. The RWTH made such a generous counteroffer that I couldn’t say no. Another offer followed – but once again, RWTH was better. And over time, I have come to really appreciate the city, its proximity to Belgium and the Rhineland. 

How did you come to the GDNÄ?
Through a phone call a year and a half ago. Michael Dröscher, a chemist like me and long-time secretary general of the GDNÄ, asked me if I would be interested in working with them. I was familiar with the GDNÄ at the time, but I didn’t have a clear picture of its goals. I think that’s the case for many people at universities. I then travelled to the meeting in Potsdam and found it extremely successful. I was impressed by the interaction between the disciplines and the appreciative cooperation between young and old – I had never experienced anything like it before. The GDNÄ’s Young Network was founded in Potsdam and has developed magnificently since then. It immediately gives you lots of new ideas. 

Such as?
Perhaps we will be able to organise a series of lectures on topics related to modern chemistry in Aachen, together with representatives of the jGDNÄ. If that works, it could also be a format for other university cities. Another idea would be to send GNDÄ members on lecture tours to German universities in order to put the society and the jGDNÄ in the university spotlight. 

You were elected to the GDNÄ Executive Board as representative for chemistry. What do you want to achieve in this role? 
One of my main tasks at the moment is to recruit top-class chemists to give lectures on their research that are as accessible as possible for the 2026 meeting in Bremen. The topics should be current and of interdisciplinary interest. It’s a wonderful position and fits in perfectly with my goal: I want to make chemistry more visible – in science and in the public eye – and the GDNÄ along with it.

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.