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.