What has been achieved, what lies ahead? After two years as GDNÄ President, Heribert Hofer looks back – and forward to exciting times with the young GDNÄ. 

Professor Hofer, your term of office as President of the GDNÄ is coming to an end. How do you look back?
With a good feeling. I overcame the initial shyness I felt in the face of the GDNÄ’s great history. The positive response at the meeting in Potsdam, whose scientific program was developed during my term of office, contributed to this. Today, more than ever, I am convinced that the GDNÄ is on the right track with its concerns and is filling a gap in the science system. Just think of the unique combination of personal, interdisciplinary exchange that we cultivate at our meetings, or of the programmes to promote young talent. 

You have been involved in the GDNA’s student programme for many years and have created the popular science slam format “Science in 5 Minutes”. Do you feel that the founding of the Young GDNÄ a few weeks ago in Potsdam was the crowning glory of your term in office?
“Crowning glory” is perhaps a bit much; I would rather speak of a highlight. With the Young GDNÄ, we are giving young people significantly more of a say and more opportunities to shape our society. This was evident in Potsdam, for example, in the many panel discussions in which young people discussed issues with established scientists on an equal footing. The format was so well received by the audience that we want to keep it in the future.

© MIKA-fotografie | Berlin

Right in the thick of it: Professor Heribert Hofer at the GDNÄ conference 2024 in Potsdam.

Until now, there was the student program, but now there is almost always talk of the Junge GDNÄ. How are the two related?
The former student program has been incorporated into the Junge GDNÄ. It includes not only high school students, but also university students and young professionals. The age range is therefore much broader than in the student programme, stretching from 17 to around 32 years of age. The Young GDNÄ are young people with excellent grades in science and medicine who are keen to get involved in the GDNÄ. 

How do the young talents react to the offer?
They are incredibly pleased about the interest of established scientists in them. Many of them come to our meetings with the idea that the older ones are not interested in them – a realisation that has amazed me again and again in recent years. With the Young GDNÄ, we welcome the young people with open arms – and they think that’s great. There are already a lot of suggestions and requests. This became clear at a recent strategy meeting, which was attended by three elected representatives of the Young GDNÄ, in addition to the GDNÄ board. 

What do young women and men want from the GDNÄ?
For example, interesting offers between the meetings, opportunities for personal exchange at the local level and with established GDNÄ members. 

What are the next steps?
A meeting of the Young GDNÄ is planned for next year, when there will be no large GDNÄ meeting. The meeting will serve to promote internal networking and strategic discussion. We also want to establish local groups in which GDNÄ members of all ages can come together to discuss and support each other. The first steps in this direction were taken in 2018 by the then president Wolfgang Wahlster, but understandably this initiative has been dormant during the pandemic years. It is also conceivable that interesting events could be organised, such as guided tours of institutes or companies. We will probably start in a few university towns and expand our network of local groups step by step. The first groups are expected to be up and running in about six months.

© MIKA-fotografie | Berlin

“Sharing knowledge means multiplying knowledge” is written on the T-shirt that GDNÄ President Heribert Hofer was presented with by Secretary General Michael Dröscher at the end of the 133rd Assembly in Potsdam.

You are outlining a cross-generational project. Will the older GDNÄ members play along?
I am quite confident. The contributions of the young GDNÄ are very well received at the meetings, both by the speakers and the audience. And in many conversations with established members, I have sensed a great willingness to get involved in promoting young talent.

 The project requires a lot of coordination: Who pulls the strings in the GDNÄ?
As the future vice president, I will take on this task for two years. We have agreed on this in the board. It will be a lot of work, but I am looking forward to it. 

You may soon have a little more time for such projects.
That’s right. I will reach retirement age at the end of March 2025, which means that my term of office as director of the Leibniz Institute for Zoo and Wildlife Research will come to an end. My regular professorship in this field at Freie Universität Berlin will also expire at that time. Although I will continue to work at my university as a senior professor, my workload will be significantly reduced. This will give me more time for the GDNÄ. 

And what about your spectacular hyena research in the Serengeti?
I will definitely continue with that. Not necessarily on site in Tanzania, as others are now taking over that role, in particular Sarah Benhaiem, to whom I have handed over the project. But in the 37 years of my hyena research, a large amount of data has been collected that is waiting to be evaluated and published. That will easily keep me busy for five years.

Professor von Engelhardt, your 670-page book “Goethe as a Natural Scientist in the Opinion of 19th Century Scientists and Doctors” was recently published. You are the editor of the book. What inspired you to do this work?
I have been studying Goethe and his relationship with science and medicine around 1800 for decades. During my research, I noticed that the German and international reception of Goethe as a natural scientist in the natural sciences and medicine of the 19th century was not dealt with in research, with a few exceptions. This prompted me to address this reception and to document it with selected texts, some of which were found in remote locations. The 670 pages are due to the abundance of remarkable essays.

Who is this volume aimed at?
The work is aimed at Goethe researchers, historians of science and medicine, and anyone interested in Goethe’s contributions to the natural sciences and medicine.

What criteria did you use to select the articles?
The 48 essays by scientists, many of whom were members of the Society of German Natural Scientists and Physicians, are intended to provide a representative international impression of the reception of the natural sciences and medicine in the 19th century. For reasons of space, I had to dispense with extensive monographic presentations, which I mention in the detailed introduction, and which are listed in the complete bibliography of 240 texts.

The volume contains texts in German, English, French, Italian, Spanish and Dutch. Why did you decide on the original languages?
I wanted to give an authentic impression in the languages that Goethe also understood. In addition, this approach allows foreign quotations to be cited directly from the texts and referenced bibliographically. Nowadays, anyone who wants translations can easily do so using the appropriate software.

© SUB Göttingen Cod. Ms. Lichtenberg VI, 44.

Goethe considered his theory of colors, symbolized in the color wheel, to be his most important work.

Which texts would you recommend to the reader in a hurry? 
For readers in a hurry, I would particularly recommend the articles by Carl Gustav Carus (first published in 1843), Hermann von Helmholtz (1853), Rudolf Virchow (1861), Emil Du Bois-Reymond (1882) and Ernst Haeckel (1882) – all of whom were members of the GDNÄ. Among the foreign texts, the remarks of Ernest Faivre (1859), François-Louis Hahn (1883), François-Jules Pictet (1838) and John Tyndall (1880) deserve special attention. The chapter on the English biologist Thomas Henry Huxley is also very impressive – he was awarded an honorary membership of the GDNÄ at the 1877 meeting in Munich. Huxley opened the first issue of the now internationally authoritative science magazine Nature, published in 1869, with Goethe’s Aphorisms on Nature (see margin). 

Intermaxillary bone, theory of colours, archetypal plant: the naturalist Goethe was involved in an impressive number of scientific topics. How did this come about? 
Throughout his life, inorganic and organic nature, its phenomena, processes and developments were of great interest to Goethe – as such, but also in connection with science, art and human life. “Experience, observation, conclusions – connected by life events” – this is how he described his method in natural research. For Goethe, colours are not only mathematical and physical phenomena; for him, they also have ethical, psychological and cultural-historical meanings. The phenomenon of metamorphosis applies to plants and animals: “The doctrine of metamorphosis is the key to all signs of nature,” as stated in a posthumous text called Morphology. Goethe also published numerous scientific-theoretical writings, including The Experiment as Mediator between Object and Subject or Inventing and Discovering or Analysing and Discovering. Goethe’s scientific writings comprise eleven volumes in the Leopoldina’s critical scientific edition. 

Goethe was a poet and a naturalist: did the one influence the other? 
Despite all the differences, of which Goethe repeatedly reminds us, the connection between the two, or rather the four cultures, was extremely important to him. What is meant here is the cultures of the natural sciences, the humanities, the arts and life. This connection can be seen in both Goethe’s scientific and literary texts, as well as in his autobiographical writings Poetry and Truth or Italian Journey. One literary example is the novel The Elective Affinities, which corresponds with contemporary chemistry in both title and content and interprets the relationships between elements in analogy to the relationships between people. However, Goethe explicitly points out that people have the freedom and responsibility to resist sensual attractions. In his Theory of Colours, Goethe developed numerous ideas about the theory and practice of colours in painting. And the law of the primal plant, as Goethe recognised in Italy, “can be applied to everything that lives”.

© Frithjof Spangenberg, Illustrationen & Kommunikationsdesign

The illustration shows a sheep’s skull with a clearly visible intermaxillary bone (front right). This was the subject of a heated dispute between Goethe and the GDNÄ founder Lorenz Oken.

To what extent was Goethe a child of his time as a natural scientist?
Goethe was very knowledgeable about the natural sciences and medicine of his time. He was influenced by the state of science, maintained connections with many natural scientists and physicians of the time, but also considered the historical development of the sciences and individual researchers of the past. The Theory of Colours is a prime example: Goethe dedicated an entire book to it, describing its history from antiquity to the present day. 

How did Goethe’s contemporaries react to his work?
As can be seen in the present work, the spectrum of reactions among scientists and physicians of his time and up to the present day was diverse and varied according to scientific discipline. The reactions in physics were extremely critical. There was approval in geology, botany and anatomy. According to Nees von Esenbeck, member of the GDNÄ and president of the Leopoldina from 1818 to 1838, Goethe was the first to organise the plant world according to “scientific principles” and to introduce it philosophically. Overall, Goethe the naturalist made a strong impression on his contemporaries. It would be necessary and informative to compare this with the reactions in the humanities and arts from the 19th century to the present day – a task I would like to leave to other researchers. 

What was Goethe’s relationship with the GDNÄ?
Goethe took an interested and approving part in the meetings of the Society of German Natural Scientists and Physicians, founded in 1822, and wrote a study of the GDNÄ that was not published in his time but was later printed several times. He particularly welcomed the new research society’s aim of bringing scientists into personal contact, while noting that its members were not the “least bit” like him. In his speech at the Berlin conference in 1828, Alexander von Humboldt referred to Goethe as a “patriarch of patriotic fame”, whose literary creations did not prevent him from “plunging the researcher’s gaze into the depths of natural life”. 

What was Goethe’s relationship with Lorenz Oken, the founder of the GDNÄ?
The relationship was ambivalent on both sides. A plagiarism dispute between Goethe and Oken triggered the discovery of the cranial vertebra, which Oken described in a publication in 1807 and also sent to Goethe. He was very impressed by the study. He invited Oken to Weimar and supported his appointment to the University of Jena, for which Oken was extremely grateful. In 1823, Goethe claimed the discovery for himself in the Heften zur Morphologie (notebooks on morphology). He said that he had made the discovery in 1790 on the basis of a sheep skull found on the dunes of the Lido of Venice, and although he did not publish it, he reported on it several times in letters from Italy to Germany. Many scientists participated in the controversy and repeatedly took Oken’s side. In other areas, Goethe and Oken were quite close. Despite differing political views and although he described the ban of Oken’s journal Isis in Thuringia, Goethe called the GDNÄ founder “genius”. 

Do you still perceive an interest in Goethe as a naturalist today?
A new interest can be observed in the present, especially in Goethe’s theory of colours. There are attempts to understand Goethe’s research, observations and views in this area in the context of his holistic understanding of nature, which contrasts with the objective or experimental-statistical concept of science in modern times. This is very evident in Goethe’s psychological-cultural interpretation of colours, which is usually neglected by physicists, and in his concept of metamorphosis and morphology in the organic sciences.

To what extent can Goethe contribute to a growing together of cultures in science and art?
Goethe’s significance undoubtedly also lies in his contribution to overcoming or, better said, alleviating the separation of the two or four cultures. Goethe was particularly concerned with a mutual connection and communication between these cultures, which is a challenge for natural sciences and medicine. Conversely, however, the arts and humanities would also have to recognise their scientific basis or dependence on nature – arguably an even greater challenge. Goethe describes how worthwhile the effort can be: “It is a pleasant business to explore nature and oneself at the same time, without harming either nature or one’s mind, but rather to balance the two through gentle reciprocal influence.”

Professor Lohse, at the GDNÄ meeting in Potsdam, you recently gave a lecture on placebos or therapy with nothing. But your profession as a pharmacologist is more about therapy with something. How does that fit together?
At first glance, one might see a contradiction here. But placebo effects also accompany every drug therapy and other medical measures, and that is why they are part of it.

The audience was enthusiastic about your lecture, applauded extensively and had many questions. Why is there so much interest in placebos?
I think that many people are affected by it because they have experienced it themselves or seen it in others and have thought about it. The topic also brings together most diverse schools of thought – from scientific drug therapy to shamanism.

How did you come across the topic?
I have been covering it in my introductory pharmacology lectures for more than twenty years because I think that doctors and pharmacists should know about it. They all work, consciously or unconsciously, with placebo effects. These also include harmful effects, so-called nocebo effects. Over the years, I then delved deeper into the subject because I wanted to know what was actually proven in this field and what was just speculation. Just recently, I have come across many new results and some amazing things.

What has amazed you the most?
That the same brain centers are activated in the mind of the doctor as in the mind of the patient when it comes to placebo effects. This has been studied primarily in the treatment of pain. It seems that the doctor must first empathize with the patient’s pain. Then, with this idea, he can activate his own pain-suppressing systems, and that in turn is transferred to the patient. This ability of the doctor correlates closely with his ability to empathize, as can be measured in psychological tests. In my lecture, I went into more detail about the corresponding research results.

Placebo effects in pain suppression result from the interaction between patients and doctors. Pain activates so-called pain centers in the brain (yellow star), as shown by functional magnetic resonance imaging. When empathic doctors come together with such patients, they in turn activate the same centers in the brain. However, they can also activate their own pain-suppressing centers in their brain (blue symbol). This is transferred to patients and leads to the activation of pain-suppressing nerves in them, which release endogenous opioids and other transmitters in the body and thus produce the pain-suppressing placebo effect. This effect occurs regardless of whether the drug administered to the patient contains an analgesic active ingredient or whether it is a pure placebo.

What does this mean for medical practice?
Doctors who are able to put themselves in their patients’ shoes can achieve a great deal with empathy in the reciprocal relationship. It would be good if we could use such placebo effects more systematically and on a reasoned basis, not just intuitively and based on personal experience. That’s why we should increase knowledge in this field and incorporate it more into the training of doctors and pharmacists. 

Can empathy, which obviously plays a major role, be taught and learned at all?
Some things are a matter of talent, but others can be learned. Since empathy is a core skill for therapists, it should be incorporated into the entire training program. The current courses in medical psychology for prospective doctors are a start. 

How far has placebo research come?
Compared to many other areas of medicine, it is still in its infancy. We have only been able to speak of serious, scientifically based placebo research for about three decades. It is an area where medicine, psychology and the new imaging techniques come together. Functional magnetic resonance imaging, in particular, gives us an idea of what is happening in the minds of patients and therapists. So, placebo research is making progress and Germany is playing an important role in it. Four years ago, for example, a national special research area was set up that has already led to a number of interesting results.

© MIKA-fotografie | Berlin

Great interest from the audience: After the lecture, there were many questions and comments on the placebo effect.  

So far, placebos have mainly been used in drug studies to find out whether drugs work compared to them. Do we also learn something from this about how placebos work?
Not really, because in such studies, the placebo arm only serves as a background against which the effect of a drug is to be shown. But treatment with placebos is not neutral. This is shown by studies with open placebos, in which patients know that they are receiving a placebo but still feel a healing effect. There are probably many types of placebo effects – just as there are countless drugs. In the future, we should characterize these in detail and examine their interactions.

A few more words about drug trials: it is rare for a verum to be tested against a placebo alone. If an effective drug already exists, giving a dummy drug is prohibited on ethical grounds. In these cases, the standard treatment plus a placebo is tested against the standard treatment plus a new drug. This makes it more difficult for new drugs to gain market approval: they not only have to work themselves, but also have to provide an additional benefit to standard therapy. 

Let’s take a closer look at the placebo effect: what do we know about its psychological and biological basis?
Psychologically, the expectations of patients are important. Both positive and negative expectations have a strong influence on the success of treatment – therapy with nothing, so to speak, is based on our expectations. We still know very little about the biological processes involved. What we do know is that placebos increase the activity of certain brain regions. For example, when it comes to pain suppression, placebos activate precisely those regions and neural pathways in the brain that are responsible for controlling pain perception. 

Do you need pills for the placebo effect or is positive expectation enough?
Pills, with or without active ingredients, or other specific measures such as acupuncture have a placebo effect. The best approach is a good medicine combined with positive expectations. Most studies show that a medicine plus placebo works twice as well as a placebo alone. 

For which illnesses is the placebo effect greatest?
The effect has been well studied for pain, especially for migraine, for functional disorders of the gastrointestinal tract, and in general for disorders with a strong psychosomatic component. Even depression can often be alleviated with placebos. This effect has been convincingly demonstrated and it is what makes studies on antidepressants so difficult. 

For which diseases should the placebo effect not be relied upon?
Whenever you know that there are drugs with a good verum effect, whose ingredients have been shown to help against a specific disease. In this case, you have to use the verum – knowing that its effect will be supplemented by placebo effects. If you don’t do that as a doctor, for example in cancer therapy, it becomes dangerous. This is also the strongest criticism of controversial forms of therapy such as homeopathy. 

More than a few patients report amazing healing successes with homeopathic remedies. What is your opinion on this?
Good homeopaths know how to use placebo effects efficiently. The effect of homeopathy is based on this, and not on the almost infinitely diluted medicines that are used. I think it is nonsense to ascribe verum effects to these remedies. 

What is the future of the placebo effect?
I expect to see a lot of new findings soon. And I hope that we will identify and understand very different placebo effects and mechanisms, and that we will be able to draw practical conclusions for training and therapeutic practice.

Professor Hasinger, a year ago you were appointed founding director of the German Centre for Astrophysics (DZA) in Lusatia, Saxony. How can we imagine your day-to-day work?
We can’t talk about everyday life in the usual sense yet, we haven’t been around long enough for that. The political decision for our centre was only made in autumn 2022. That was our big bang, so to speak: there was nothing before that, now everything is being created step by step. 

What are the next stages?
We will be organising three major international conferences here as early as 2025. The official founding of the DZA is planned for early 2026 – we are currently still in the set-up phase. In the winter semester of 2026/2027, the new Master’s degree programme in Astrophysics will start with five professorships at the Technische Universität Dresden. We hope to be able to move into our new central buildings on the outskirts of Görlitz around 2030. In around ten years’ time, around a thousand people will be working at the DZA. 

That’s an ambitious schedule. Where are you currently?
We are pretty well on schedule. In the first year, we took on a good 20 people, mainly in the administrative area, and this year we plan to take on just as many more. We are currently setting up temporary accommodation for five years in the historic post office in Görlitz. Planning for the future centre is in full swing. Now it’s all about creating sustainable structures for a globally unique large-scale research centre. 

Who is supporting you in this Herculean task?
A large team of great colleagues from ten renowned research institutions throughout Germany, including the German Electron Synchrotron DESY in Zeuthen and the TU Dresden. We submitted the application to establish the DZA together and are now sharing the work. A lot of support also comes from business and politics, directly on site in Görlitz, and of course at federal and state level.

© Paul Glaser

Handing over the keys with prominent visitors (from left): Saxony’s Science Minister Sebastian Gemkow, TU Dresden Rector Ursula Staudinger, Minister President Michael Kretschmer, Federal Research Minister Bettina Stark-Watzinger, DZA Director Günther Hasinger and Görlitz Mayor Octavian Ursu met in February 2024 to inaugurate the DZA’s transitional offices in the centre of Görlitz.

The DZA is made possible by funding from the structural change fund for lignite mining regions. How high is the budget?
A total of 1.2 billion euros is available from the state until 2038. The money comes 90 per cent from the federal government and ten per cent from the state of Saxony and will flow in annual instalments. We also want to attract third-party funding from national and international sources. Our budget is generous, but that alone is not enough. 

What more do you need?
We also need to think about housing, schools and daycare centres for our employees, the quality of life on site, roads and railway lines. We are currently holding many discussions on such topics. A new ICE railway line from Berlin to Wroclaw via Dresden and Görlitz would be fantastic. The region is currently left behind in terms of transport, but fast train connections would open up completely new opportunities also for scientific contacts, such as those we are currently establishing in Poland and the Czech Republic, specifically with universities in Wroclaw and Prague.

© Paul Glaser

At a discussion event on the prospects for Saxony as a centre of science in January 2024 in Crostwitz

Keyword science: What is the focus of the DZA?
There are three main areas. Firstly, basic astrophysical research to help us understand the development of the universe. This involves receiving and analysing signals from the early days of the cosmos. This is possible with modern telescopes that are spread all over the world, in the Chilean highlands as well as in the Antarctic ice. New, huge radio observatories are currently being built in Australia and Africa. Europe is planning another gigantic research instrument in the form of the Einstein Telescope. In future, the measurement results from all of these facilities will converge in Saxony, where the world’s largest civilian data set will be created, much larger than today’s internet. This treasure is to be analysed in a cost-effective and energy-saving manner, and this is where our second focus comes into play: the DZA will develop new technologies and algorithms for resource-saving digitalisation that will benefit society as a whole. Focus number three is a technology centre in which we develop innovative solutions for observatories – I am thinking, for example, of new semiconductor sensors, silicon optics or control technologies. Modern companies with around two thousand high-quality jobs are to be created through spin-offs and other effects. 

That sounds fascinating. But how does all this fit in with Görlitz, the easternmost city in Germany with only 57,000 inhabitants, right on the Polish border?
If you look at Europe as a whole, beautiful Görlitz lies at the centre. There is a great deal of scientific and technical expertise in the area: with the Zittau-Görlitz University of Applied Sciences, the renowned Dresden University of Technology and a long company tradition in precision mechanics and microelectronics. The particularly good granite in Lusatia is of great importance to us. Near Görlitz, in the district of Bautzen, we are planning a globally unique laboratory for the development of astrophysical and commercial technology. It will be located two hundred metres underground and will be about the size of an underground station. It owes its name Low Seismic Lab to the Lusatian granite rock. This dampens the seismic waves that constantly pass through the ground, meaning that a special geological calm prevails here, with almost no seismic disturbance factors. This is an invaluable advantage for sensitive measurements, such as gravitational waves. The laboratory is also suitable for the development of quantum computers and other high-tech applications. If we are lucky, we will soon be able to participate in the billion-dollar Einstein Telescope, the most sensitive gravitational wave observatory of all time. 

What do local people say about the DZA and its big plans?
We are now getting a lot of encouragement. But there was also headwind at the very beginning. A citizens’ initiative in Lusatia feared that the construction work would lower the groundwater level and create a repository for radioactive waste. We then organised a barbecue for everyone in the summer of 2022, i.e. before our project was awarded the contract, to get people talking. As it turned out, the opposition came from a small but loud minority; everyone else was rather curious and open-minded. When I later picked up the guitar and joined them on a musical journey through life from Oberammergau to Munich, Potsdam, Hawaii, Madrid and Görlitz, the ice was broken. We now organise the barbecue every year. I have promised to sing a song in Sorbian this summer. I still have a lot of practising to do.

© Paul Glaser

The guitar solo by the head of the DZA, here in Cunnewitz in August 2023, is a fixed item on the programme of the barbecue and information evenings for the public.

An astrophysicist who gets up on stage with a guitar and sings–- you don’t see that every day. How come?
In my youth, I was a member of the Munich rock band “Saffran”, which released a record and even made it onto the cover of Bravo magazine. Later, I wanted to become a sound engineer, but then decided to study physics. I owe the fact that I caught fire for astrophysics to two gifted academic teachers, Joachim Trümper and Rudolf Kippenhahn. Both were Max Planck directors, which is what I wanted to become. That worked out and everything else developed from there. 

You took on the founding mission for the DZA at an age when others had long since retired. What appealed to you?
The huge opportunity – you only get something like this once in a lifetime. I’ve managed large institutes with up to a thousand employees before, but taking a centre from zero to one hundred is new and really appeals to me. What we as a specialist community have been calling for in our memoranda for decades is finally coming true: a national centre for astrophysics. 

You recently turned 70 – is retirement even an option for you?
First of all, I want to get the DZA up and running and help organise my successor. That will certainly take a few more years. After that, I want to retire, but I don’t want to be idle. My non-fiction book “The Fate of the Universe”, published in 2005, urgently needs a sequel. I want to write it and develop my musical skills – I might like to learn the double bass. 

You gave a lecture on black holes and the fate of the universe at the GDNÄ’s 200th anniversary celebrations in Leipzig. How do you remember the anniversary?
As a science festival in an elegant setting and with a rich programme. It was a showcase for research in front of an impressive audience. 

If we imagine the scientific system as an orchestra: What part does the GDNÄ play?
I imagine the GDNÄ perhaps as the viola. Its warm, dark sound forms a kind of bridge from the first and second violins to the low string instruments cello and double bass. Some of the greatest composers were violists, for example Bach, Beethoven and Mozart.

BSE, bird flu, coronavirus: how the renowned virologist Thomas Mettenleiter has contributed to overcoming major epidemics, what has kept him on the Baltic Sea island of Riems for 27 years and what his audience can expect at the GDNÄ Assembly 2024.

Professor Mettenleiter, as President of the Friedrich Loeffler Institute, Federal Research Institute for Animal Health, for many years, you had to deal with world-shattering epidemics, just think of the BSE crisis, bird flu and the coronavirus pandemic. Which was the biggest challenge?
For me personally, it was definitely the BSE crisis. After that, nothing could scare me. I was still relatively new in office when the first cattle born and raised in Germany tested positive at the end of November 2000. The excitement was huge. At the time, we knew very little about the prions that caused the disease, but we were expected to provide competent information as soon as possible. Some time earlier, an informal expert commission had been set up under my chairmanship. In April 2000, we recommended that the Federal Government should prepare for the first case of indigenous BSE. Unfortunately, this did not happen. 

Nevertheless, the BSE crisis was ended quickly. How did this succeed?
The decisive factors were the ban imposed at EU level on the feeding of animal meal, for example, the removal of risk material from the food chain and the extensive testing of slaughtered cattle depending on their age. The number of cases then fell rapidly. As far as we know, only two animals born in March and May 2001 were still infected in Germany. It was an extremely turbulent time, during which two federal ministers, Andrea Fischer and Karl-Heinz Funke, resigned. During these years, I learnt how important communication between science, politics and the media is. Fortunately, the measures proposed by the scientific community were quickly implemented and proved successful. In this respect, the BSE crisis is a successful example of science-based disease control

© Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut

A scientist works in a full protective suit in the laboratory of the highest biosafety level 4 zoonoses. This is where research is conducted into pathogens such as Ebola and Nipah viruses. The suit is connected to the air supply via a valve, which constantly supplies air. This also inflates the suit so that even if there was a small hole, nothing would get inside via the escaping air flow. The scientist checks cell cultures on a screen.

How much was your expertise in demand during the coronavirus pandemic?
During the three COVID-19 years, other institutes were at the centre of political and media attention. However, we at the FLI were asked essential questions right at the beginning of the pandemic: Are farm animals in Germany susceptible to SARS-CoV-2? Does this jeopardise our food supply and do they represent a potential reservoir? Thanks to our modern research infrastructure on the island of Riems with high-security isolation stables, we were able to immediately test whether cattle, pigs and chickens, for example, are susceptible to the pathogen. We also investigated the interaction of the pathogen with other animals such as mice, golden hamsters, fruit bats, ferrets and raccoon dogs in order to find and characterise possible reservoirs or models for human infection.

What did you find out?
Cattle, pigs and chickens were not or only very slightly infectious and did not pass on the pathogen. In this respect, there was neither a risk in terms of food supply nor with regard to the creation of a new reservoir. Fruit bats, ferrets and raccoon dogs, on the other hand, proved to be susceptible to the pathogen, but did not fall ill and were still able to pass on the pathogen efficiently. This fits in with what we know about reservoir animals and bridge hosts. Hamsters and special genetically modified mice became severely ill. Ferrets, in particular, reproduced the largely mild human infection affecting only the upper respiratory tract, while golden hamsters and these mice showed the clinical picture of severe COVID-19.

There is currently much discussion about the need to come to terms with the coronavirus crisis. What do you think?
We should definitely analyse what happened objectively in order to learn from it for the future. Many decisions had to be made quickly and under uncertain conditions, especially during the hot phase – this should always be taken into account. A uniform policy for the whole country is important for the future; we should avoid a federal patchwork quilt in situations like this. However, the coronavirus years have also shown how immensely important basic research and modern research infrastructures are. We have them to thank for the highly effective mRNA vaccines, which had been researched for a long time, as well as numerous findings that helped us to survive the crisis. In order for this to continue in the future, sufficient funding is needed – not only for the establishment, but also for the maintenance of research facilities, personnel and training.

It is often said that the next pandemic is sure to come. What are the new threats?
We are currently in an inter-pandemic phase, that much is clear. But no one can say exactly where the dangers are coming from. What we do know is that three quarters of new human infections come from the animal kingdom and that pathogens such as the coronavirus continue to jump back and forth between animals and humans. We must never lose sight of influenza viruses: they are highly variable and adapt quickly to new circumstances. Fortunately, there is a global monitoring system for influenza viruses under the aegis of the World Health Organisation (WHO). We also need something similar to monitor animal populations in order to detect pandemic risks quickly. An international agreement on pandemic prevention, preparedness and response could help here. This is currently being negotiated under the leadership of the WHO and I am still cautiously optimistic that the member states will be able to agree on this. This would also be very much in line with the One Health concept, which is becoming increasingly popular and which sees humans as part of the animal kingdom in a shared environment.

The type of animal husbandry, which is also the focus of the Friedrich Loeffler Institute, plays an important role here. What trends do you see in this area?
The view is changing and animal welfare is becoming more important. In livestock farming, quality is becoming more important than quantity. To what extent and over what period of time this happens is also a question of funding and ultimately a political decision. This also applies to another issue: the silent pandemic of antibiotic resistance. It is favoured by the excessive use of antibiotics in all areas. In Germany, their use to promote growth in animal husbandry is banned, but this practice is still common in many countries. However, it is not just about animals; the use of antibiotics in humans must also be more targeted and more restrained.

© Friedrich-Loeffler-Institut

The Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI) has two animal barn units with biosafety level 4 zoonoses, where full protective suits are also mandatory. In Europe, only the FLI currently has such animal houses; there are a handful worldwide, for example in Canada and Australia.

You went to East Germany as a West German professor during the reunification period – and stayed there. What experiences did you have?
Initially, I was met with an interested distance, but also with curiosity and high expectations. The distance had to do with the fact that, unlike the institute directors before me, I am not a veterinarian, but a biologist. In addition, I was still quite young when I came to the island of Riems with my Tübingen working group in 1994. In the wake of reunification, the institutes had shrunk from 850 to 162 employees. The infrastructure was dilapidated. In my perhaps somewhat youthful recklessness, this did not deter me, but rather challenged me. What helped me a lot were the many motivated colleagues at all levels of the institute, who had a lot of expertise and experience. It has been a long journey, but today the Institute plays in the Champions League of the field, both academically and in terms of infrastructure. Its development is certainly one of the East German success stories, as described by my Greifswald colleagues Michael Hecker and Bärbel Friedrich in their book and in the interview on this website. For me, the Institute is a life’s work and I am happy to have been given the privilege of continuing the tradition of the co-discoverer of the virus, Friedrich Loeffler.

Your major research topic, animal viruses, has occupied you for a long time. How did you come across the topic?
The trigger was Hoimar v. Ditfurth’s history of evolution “In the beginning was hydrogen”. My parents gave me the book as a present in 1972 and I read it with great enthusiasm. I was particularly fascinated by an illustration depicting bacteriophages, i.e. viruses that infect bacteria. That was the seed for my career – and I am still an enthusiastic virologist.

That doesn’t sound like retirement, which you have officially been in for almost a year.
That’s right, I’m still very busy, even if I no longer spend up to 14 hours a week at the institute. But all in all, I have almost a full-time job again and sometimes I wonder how I used to do it on the side, so to speak. A new experience for me is giving talks to students about virology and One Health, for example last year in Göttingen and in the next few weeks in Greifswald and in Sigmaringen in Upper Swabia, my old home. I chair a working group on One Health at the Hamburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities and I chair the veterinary medicine section of the German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina. As a scientific advisor, I support several UN organisations and the World Organisation for Animal Health in the One Health High-Level Expert Panel. I also continue to teach at universities and give lectures on my core topics.

At the GDNÄ Assembly 2024 in Potsdam, you will be giving a lecture on climate change and infectious diseases. Can you give us a few details?
I will be presenting the One Health concept in more detail, including its history, because it is by no means brand new. It will also be about pathogens, especially viruses, which are spreading as a result of climate change. We will be talking about so-called vectors, i.e. carriers of infections such as mosquitoes and ticks, which are influenced by climatic changes. The whole development has an uncanny dynamic and I try to visualise this.

It was 35 years ago, but many people still remember 9 November 1989. How did you, Professor Friedrich and Professor Hecker, experience the event?
Friedrich: I was in Berlin and watched the news on television. The next day, I took part in a rally with my working group in front of Schöneberg Town Hall. It was said that what belongs together is now growing together – the atmosphere was moving. We had the feeling that we were right at the centre of history.
Hecker: I came from Bayreuth, sat on the train to Greifswald and knew nothing about it. It wasn’t until I got home that my wife told me what had happened in Berlin. 

You were in West Germany on the day the Wall came down. How did that happen?
Hecker: It really was a strange coincidence. In almost twenty years as a researcher in the GDR, I was only allowed to travel to the West twice to give lectures and meet colleagues. I wasn’t in the party and I wasn’t a travelling cadre. The first time was in Hamburg in the summer of 1989. The second time, colleagues invited me to the University of Bayreuth at the beginning of November. I would never have expected that the Wall would fall just then. 

How do you remember the days after 9 November?
Hecker: There was a great deal of excitement and a spirit of optimism in my institute, the situation was heated. Nobody knew what was coming.
Friedrich: I’ll never forget the Trabi parade on the Kudamm and a cycle tour across the Glienicke Bridge to Potsdam. We thought the Cold War was over and the mood was euphoric.

@ Peter Binder

Visiting Greifswald: In the early 1990s, Bärbel Friedrich and her husband Cornelius Friedrich visited the laboratory of Michael Hecker (right). In conversation, the Greifswald microbiologist explained, among other things, an early method for separating proteins.

What happened in science?
Friedrich: We immediately invited our East German colleagues to visit institutes and to the annual conference of the Association for General and Applied Microbiology, VAAM. It happened to take place in Berlin in March 1990.
Hecker: As the last president of the GDR Society for Microbiology, I was allowed to give a welcoming address at the VAAM conference in question, during which – I was extremely emotionally tense – I lost my voice several times. Just one year later, the two societies merged at the follow-up conference in Freiburg. 

Much has already been said and written about the turnaround in science. What is special about your new book?
Hecker: We are focussing on research at universities, especially developments in the life sciences.  Our book describes how the life sciences in East Germany, which had been completely left behind, were brought up to international standards surprisingly quickly. A lot of negative things have been written about the general development since reunification. We present a positive example, a German-German success story. This also deserves to be heard.
Friedrich: For us, science is a prime example of successful integration between East and West. That is one of the most important statements in our book. The discussion about science at East German universities is currently out of kilter. Our aim is to bring it into balance. 

Before we come back to this topic, let’s outline the three phases that you describe in detail in your book: the years from 1965 to reunification, the 1990s as a transformation phase and the period of consolidation from 2000 to the present. What was the state of microbiology in the GDR before 1989, Mr Hecker?
Hecker: We sat behind the Wall and looked enviously to the West, where the great discoveries in biology were being made. We lacked the equipment, the expertise, the whole environment. But we had excellent young people with whom we conducted passionate research despite the poor conditions. There were many interesting, atmospheric conferences that I remember fondly. For example, on the island of Hiddensee. There, in the summer of 1985, we buried the genetic engineering of the GDR in an urn on the beach in the name of the father, the clone and the holy splicer because of the lack of chemicals.
Friedrich: I am a child of the sixties and lived through the student riots. Back then, Göttingen was the Mecca of German microbiology and a springboard to America. At MIT I learnt the latest methods in molecular biology and experienced an open, yet competitive environment. When I returned to Germany at the end of 1976, I had to fight: there were hardly any positions for young scientists and only limited research funding. The competition was tough.
Hecker: We didn’t realise that at the time. They were sitting in paradise and we were on the outside – that’s what we thought.
Friedrich: In the end, I was lucky and decided to take up a professorship at the Free University of Berlin. I started there in 1985 with the establishment of a new science-orientated microbiology department. The students were very motivated, it was a good, exciting time. 

The transformation phase began with the fall of the Berlin Wall. How did it come about, Mr Hecker, that you became Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in Greifswald?
Hecker: I was more or less forced into it. I actually wanted to go out into the world to catch up with modern research. Instead, I had to help reorganise our university according to the FRG model. It was an exhausting four years. The majority of professors were not taken on, some for reasons of age, others because of professional deficits or because the findings of the Honours Commission spoke against it. There were many layoffs, particularly in the humanities and social sciences. When it came to subsequent new appointments, the picture in Greifswald was similar to that at most East German universities: around two thirds of the new appointees were East Germans, including habilitated junior academics. There were significantly fewer in the humanities. If we had had more qualified applicants from East Germany, the proportion would probably have been even higher. Nevertheless, it was urgently necessary for colleagues from the West to come to us with their international experience. On balance, there can be no question of the West colonising the East.

@ Design: Sabine Schade

In the bestseller by Leipzig literature professor Dirk Oschmann, “The East: a West German invention”, it sounds quite different.
Hecker: Mr Oschmann addresses disappointed East Germans with his book, he wants to provoke. But when it comes to the sciences, he doesn’t have an overview. He writes from the perspective of a humanities scholar. The generalised statements do not apply to the life sciences and medicine. He writes, for example, that East Germans can be found among secretaries or technicians, but hardly among professors.  According to the book, he had to deny his East German identity in order to be accepted as a scientist in the West – something like that never happened to me. The claim that the East has been overrun by the West in the field of science is nonsense. On the contrary, the figures from the DFG Funding Atlas show that the amount of funding provided in East Germany is completely in line with the amount spent at West German universities. 

Mrs Friedrich, you experienced the period of reunification in Berlin, first in the western part of the city, then in the east. How do you remember those years?
Friedrich: In view of the challenges posed by the unification of the two parts of the city, money was tight and the time pressure was great. There were dramatic cutbacks, and the West Berlin universities also had to cut back. By 2010, around 350 of the 500 professorships at Humboldt University had been filled after being advertised – as many as 220 of the new professors came from the East. 

It is often said that the academic system in the Federal Republic was transferred one-to-one to the East. Is that true?
Friedrich: In the beginning it was like that, everything had to happen very quickly. But there was a huge backlog of reforms in the West even before reunification. Reforms finally came in the 1990s, partly as a result of the Bologna Process. Towards the end of the decade, more money flowed into the science system and the DFG was able to develop the forerunners of the Excellence Initiative, the DFG Research Centres, and later the Clusters of Excellence. I was Vice President of the DFG at the time and experienced a great deal of openness towards the universities in Eastern Germany. There was also a great willingness to help East Germany in the Wissenschaftsrat and in federal research committees. Looking back, there were major changes in the German science system as a whole during this phase. 

Please briefly outline the developments in your fields since 2000, during the consolidation phase.
Hecker: The young scientists at my institute, who swarmed out into the world immediately after 1990 with funding from the DFG, finally brought the expertise we lacked to Greifswald. With the new knowledge and in good co-operation with microbiologists from all over Europe – including Bärbel Friedrich, Jörg Hacker and many others – we were able to establish a reference laboratory for microbial proteomics.  This enabled the universities in the East, which had been left behind for many years, to work very quickly according to international standards. 
Friedrich: This collaboration was also extremely fruitful for my research group. We were integrated into large networks for genome research on microorganisms. There were many joint publications. In Greifswald, the Krupp Wissenschaftskolleg actively supported the East-West collaboration. The establishment of the college was initiated by the Essen-based Krupp Foundation in 2000. A special event was the establishment of a doctoral programme together with Israel. 

The East German universities have caught up considerably in the current competition for excellence. Ten initial applications for clusters of excellence were assessed favourably –- more than ever before. Does it take a generation to keep up in the top league?
Hecker: That may be the case across the board. But in some places it happened much faster. Dresden has been a scientific beacon since reunification. Jena, with its outstanding non-university institutes, also caught up quickly. Both locations have been doing very well in the competition for excellence for some time now. It should be emphasised that the research projects were initially mostly shaped by newly appointed researchers from the old federal states. In the meantime, however, a new generation has grown up that is unfamiliar with the often overused East-West debate. Many of them have been able to make a name for themselves professionally in renowned laboratories around the world after completing their doctorates. They receive highly attractive job offers and their CVs are similar to those in the West. As a result, the issue of East-West is becoming increasingly blurred with the younger generation.  

This year sees state elections in Saxony, Thuringia and Brandenburg. The AfD is likely to do well in all three states. What consequences would that have for science?
Friedrich: It could be catastrophic. A strong influence of the AfD would severely restrict the freedom and internationality of science – and these are the very foundations of successful research. The AfD denies climate change and the coronavirus facts. This is not compatible with a modern, evidence-based scientific world view.
Hecker: I take a similar view. Banning the party would not achieve much. We have to counter the AfD with arguments and convince people of the necessity and benefits of free science.