Report had been commissioned by Franklin Roosevelt and called for Government Support of science in the future. Up next, Peter Strohschneider reexamines Vannevar Bush ideas on the relationship between government and science. Of the endlessd frontier, truth and power in the age of populism, the talk is followed by a panel discussion. At university of california berkeley and the German Historical Institute cohosted this 90 minute event. Good afternoon. Report entitled science the endless frontier is probably one of the most influential science policy papers ever written, not the least so because of its metaphor of the frontier. It has a dramatic prehistory as well. Twoates back to world war and the director of the office of Scientific Research and Development Area during that time he was tasked with organizing and coordinating Scientific Research to further the u. S. War effort. It proved to be as get he skipped he proved to be a Skillful Research administrator. The Manhattan Project was overseen by his organization. However, this was only the tip of the iceberg. Bush did not content himself with engaging nuclear scientist. He went on to build up science at large for sciences wartime engagement. Among other things, he organized the development of antiaircraft rocketry, antibiotics such as penicillin which reduced the death rate among american soldiers due to diseases. This by aseness of on between the sciences and the military complex presupposed an extensive Institutional Innovation institutionalization of research therefore unseen and the u. S. History. That manheim explains before world war ii just a dozen universities in the entire United States spent more than 1 million for all oncampus research. War, 3ast, during the billion was spent on equipment and research alone. The Massachusetts Institute of Development Radar laboratory had 4000 staff, the Manhattan Project was more costly than the entire u. S. Automobile industry. At its height in employed half a million people. Period,back at that today, what most people are interested in is how science affected the war. No less interesting question is how the war affected science. In the aftermath of this lies on, and entire Industrial Complex arose that made the u. S. The leading nation of military technology. Thanks to Vannevar Bush, the idea of basic research was institutionalized. It is important to see that in this regard, a sick research at the universities is complementary to applied research in the military sector. The logic of this constellation serves as the basis for bushs report, science, the endless frontier. Before this logic was made explicit, the question was what to do with the Scientific Infrastructure else up during wartime. President roosevelt addressed this issue in a letter to bush, saying there is no reason why the lesson to be found in this experiment cannot be profitably employed in times of peace. Roosevelt continued that scientific potential should be used in the days of peace for the improvement of the national health, the creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs and the betterment of the National Standard of living. It is easy to understand why roosevelt appreciating the role of science and in particular the organization of science as he did, why roosevelt sought to further the impact of science. Continued to invest in the Research System under the assumption of worthwhile outcomes. This is where science, the endless frontier comes into play as a recommendation of how to build up the Research System that is not only funded by the government, but is also highly effective when it comes to enabling Better Living conditions. It must be said that bush was clever enough to realize what such a task demands. , being taskede with drawing up a blueprint for the funding and organization of nationwide Research System might appear appealing. The more correct word is daunting. Donald stokes explains, by the. By the period between world wars, there was active hostility on the part of the Scientific Community to the acceptance of federal support stemming from on ease about the control that such support might bring. Letter to bush toailed a two fold job design a plan that would gain the support of the Scientific Community, but one that would also be politically acceptable by promising to contribute to the nations welfare. A job not only challenging but contradictory. Thetokes points out, Scientific Community was determined that if this wartime flow of resources continued, but direct governmental control over research should be drastically cut back. At the same time, roosevelt asked for the betterment of the standard of living, and this as Vannevar Bush rightly saw, was not always the primary goal of research. Rather, they may follow their intrinsic curiosity and the outcome of such inquiry is secondary. Consequently, bush employed a logic of Research Policy that he surely did not invent, but of which he became its most popular voice. Calledition has been dated utilitarianism. This logic of postdated utility utilitarianism referring to a research who the industrial labs of General Motors from 1920 to 1957 during on being asked the difference between pure science and industrial science, he responded, the difference is 20 years. This idea is reflected in bushs report as follows basic research is performed without thought of practical benefits. It results in general knowledge and an understanding of nature and its laws. This general knowledge provides a large number of important practical problems, though it may not give a complete specific answer to anyone of them. The function of applied research is to provide such complete answers. New products and new processes do not appear full grown, they are founded on new principles and new conceptions which in turn are painstakingly developed by research in science. Today, it is truer than ever that basic research is the pacemaker of technological process. This is the narrative of Research Universities like that we are hosted at this afternoon. Of thetill at the core narrative of these institutions. It is clear that bush employs the logic of post dated utilitarianism or what is tantamount, the linear concept, the assumption that this that the discoveries made by research will automatically turn into technologically, medical, or social progress. , the bushassumption report can be see as an ,ndorsement of basic research as a defense of the freedom of researchers to choose their Research Topics independently. As he said himself, quote, we must remove the rigid controls which we have to impose and recover freedom of inquiry and that healthy competitive spirit so necessary for expansion of the frontiers of scientific knowledge. That aupposing difference between basic research and its application is not ultimate, but merely temporal, bush seems to be able to satisfy both the scientific cause for freedom of inquiry, and the social political need for accountability and public spending. Skepticism,axpayers bush was quick to point out the fruits of such spending, saying, quote, the pioneer spirit is still vigorous within this nation. Science offers a large on them a large, unexplored hinterland for the pioneer. The rewards of such exploration, both for the nation and the individual are great scientific is one essential key to our security as a nation, to better health, two more jobs, to a higher standard of living. The cultural progress is the only notion bush added to the president s letter. Tools that bush uses for this task . Are they truly beneficial to the Science Community and to society as large as he claimed . Public balance between interest and the economist logic of research go hand in hand over the long term the way bush or are there inconsistencies hidden beneath the surface of such claims that bush does not address when confronting straightforwardly what wouldve been a better strategy . We have to ask ourselves if the concept of postdated utilitarianism touches on concerns that have lain dormant for decades but which are now resurfacing due to the recent upsurge of antiintellectualism. It amounts to the question of whether research and Research Managers following the bush narrative have contributed to and nourished antiscientific skepticism long before political movements discovered that topic for themselves. If so, what can we do better . If the freedom of research is of value in itself that cannot be measured, at least not in any linear sense, then defending it means involve strategy. A realistic strategy for both society and researchers that fosters an open exchange of arguments instead of concealing them by a powerful but insensitive narrative and metaphor. We can discern at least two when reflecting on the feasibility of the bush report in regard to a relationship between the Scientific Community and society as a large. Thee issues are threatening unwritten contract between science and society, and they are taking on increasing actuality with the potential to destroy the very preconditions of research themselves. Those are your responsibility and exaggerated promises those are your responsibility esponsibility and exaggerated promises. The argumentation bush employs provided a brilliant rationale for public spending with little public accountability. Politicians delivered taxpayer scientists, but only scientists could evaluate the research they were doing. This refersmatters to is the idea that the freedom of inquiry is only justified if researchers and those peers who review the researchers work are responsible, visavis the rest scientific the Scientific Community at large. Follow theld not modest proposal to further this responsibility and to save thence by newly aligning entire Research System to the military complex, i agree with him that is that it is important that researchers take the responsibility seriously with regard to scientific approaches to generating new knowledge. It alternately means practicing good science and safeguarding good scientific practice. This includes taking a stand against issues of fraud that plague modern science, such as the fabrication of results, false claims of hasty ways of conducting research, and the replication crisis. Thes not surprising that author draws attention to a survey of researchers from a nature journal in 2016 which shows that 80 or more believe that scientific practice is being undermined by such factors as selective reporting of data, publication, poor statistical analysis, insufficient attention to replication, and inadequate peerreviewed. In theour colleagues sciences have these assumptions. The Research Community has established standards for itself regarding how research should be conducted. The standards must not only be reviewed on a continued basis, they must also be safeguarded. Formertails establishing guidelines and procedures for handling allegations of fraud at the same time, these efforts to protect Research Centers are being set into place. Are individual black sheep who abuse these efforts by engaging in dubious practices, whistleblowing serves as a means of reporting scientific fraud. Limiting a whistleblowers this anonymity can be misused for personal motives leading to andnuating insinuations denunciations, hence it may constitute a form of scientific misconduct. I could elaborate on some drastic examples of this in the discussion. There are numerous examples and symptoms of dysfunctionalitys with in the Research System. To some degrees they may be systemic, but at the same time personal ethics, into play. Losing the trustworthiness of researchers threatens Public Acceptance of the freedom of inquiry, what is at stake is nothing less than the credibility of the Research System as a whole. A trust crisis. This is one of the aspects i would allude to. The other is exaggerated promises. In understanding the role of trust and research and the fact that trustworthiness of those involved plays an integral art in the relation between science and society, another aspect becomes equally important. In the researchers moral code of conduct, researchers are called upon to be honest in expressing the extent to which science can help find truth. It is not helpful to exaggerate or raise expectations that cannot be met. The desire to do so is all too understandable. Societies expectations of society of science and research are expanding rapidly, the trust put in them are not. The pressure grows to prove the direct impact of scientific invested funds. Science response to this with promises of immediate practical benefits, from the creation of jobs to the defeat of diseases. Vannevar bush sends his regards. Spiral of into a impactmanship between requirements and impact does not this spiral strengthen societies trust in research as it threatens to ruin it. Surprisingfore not understandingnear of the relation between research and its application has been contradicted several times, perhaps most forcefully and a 1967 department of defense study entitled project inside, which concluded that military improvements are largely unconnected to insights from basic research. To put it bluntly, making promises that cannot be kept , trusts credibility gaps credibility and eventually faith in knowledge can only be gained if we also talk about the limit of knowledge claims and the uncertainties of knowledge claims. This is something that the author of science, the endless frontier, something the author Vannevar Bush neglected to address at the expense of the system that he wanted to build up. Irresponsible research, and exaggerated promises, and unrealistic expectations, these examples are symptoms of dysfunctionalitys with in the Research System and they threaten a healthy relationship between science and society. This becomes all the more dramatic today as we recognize an increasing tendency of politicians to provide easy answers to difficult questions in order to win the popular vote. This also threatens a healthy relationship from the outside of the Research System. These politicians take science and research as an object of insinuation. They spread this trust toward the experts while deliberately hindering an open exchange of arguments, which has been the standard in liberal societies. It is the inversion of what the Frankfurt School called the dialectics of enlightenment, namely that sound arguments of educated people lead to resentments against argumentation and against a decent quality of reasoning. For the sake of the argument, lets refer to people who invert this dialectic as populists. Their simplifications promised to get rid of the complex cities of modern life. They try to incriminate any kind or theve discourse need of feeding their claims with reason. What they leave behind is the. Rder of alternative facts ofsuch an order, validity utterances does not derive from truth claims, but from power. The problem with alternative facts is not that others interpret information differently than i do. This is the truism of modern society. Nor is a problem that politicians war against the media would have secured the distinction between truth and lies. To the contrary. This distinction of truth and lies is always presupposed. Otherwise, the talk of fake news would be impossible. The idea of a posttruth era is therefore misleading. It is dangerous, it makes something delivered of look natural, more so, it does not disclose the fact that terms like fake news and alternative facts are causing a substantial political shift instead of referring to an objective world as a legitimate source of definesnding, populism the reference to power as the only legitimate source of understanding. That those who follow their claim of power are truth teller, those who will not are liars. Truth becomes a function of power. What oneto this, cannot simply inverse this logic. Power must not become a function of truth. Crackould be the sign to the sciencetocratic fallacy. Extensively in books like the 2016 volume, the war on science. This approach is not the right answer to the shift in the relation of truth and power. Pluralisticces are in themselves, they do not generateertainty, but methodologically reliably knowledge. The science academies tell us what the case is and what that means, they cannot tell us what the case should be. , there of this distinction confusescraitic unambiguous facts with ambivalent political consequences. It forgets that what is evident for me is by no means evident for everybody. Most importantly, it does not see the sign the sciencetocratcic response to the pluralism and does not see that political power is legitimated not through truth but through majorities and the constitution. These tendencies are mirroring the antiplurality of populists. Ofinst the populist menace the conditions of truth ratictation, the scienceoc position provides no remedy. For if andight only if they do not miss apprehend themselves to hold the truth exclusively in their hands. Only as explorers of rational, methodologically crafted truth can they encounter pluralities. Knowledge is open to revision. How should we otherwise think of intellectual and scientific progress . Researchers have to communicate and engage the public when public decisions are called upon. They cannot dictate political decisions very only in taking that seriously can researchers ensure that a differentiation between truth and falsehoods remains a function of facts and not a function of power. Ambition tobushs institutionalize the freedom of inquiry can be embraced, then we should also recognize that the economy of research hinges on a broader public consent. Assuming the naturalness of that autonomy would be such an assumption contradicts the interests of both, those who andre desperately application of basic Research Results think of those suffering from illnesses, and those in the scientific communities themselves. Uncritical stance towards ones own autonomy can only lead to insensitivity and those people who accept the economy in the first place. The bested placed place for researchers to do justice between freedom of their own research and the responsibilities toward society anlarge is by assuming attitude of self limitation and self distance, by being honest and modest and to work for institutional context that foster the likeliness of this attitude of selflimitation. This attitude is what matters, not only in the areas of research, but in an open and Pluralistic Society as in a constitutional democracy. Theticularity plurality of scientific and scholarly expertise, the principle of method based skepticism, the inflexibility to derive normatively from factual out in, this is what shapes the space of modern research and we should not abandon it easily. Society researchers and Research Managers all believed in the however, weve, could believe in it, we could believe in it all too easily as it was designed to please everyone, to please both sides. Things may have changed. Dysfunctionalitys with in the Research System as well as exaggerated promises of economic or medical impact, they, with the risk of corrupting both, the Research System and the social political perspective on it. They might compromise the plausibility of the analyst frontier of the endless frontier narrative. An indicator is the recent upsurge of antiochus election the recent upsurge of antiintellectualism across the globe, ranging from the recent political election to debates about the brexit referendum to the newly formed party in germany called the or thetive for germany president s purge of the universities in turkey. If external pressure on the the researchon system is increasing, then we should Pay Attention even more to the standards of good scientific practices and to exercising modesty when it comes to societal impact. Good arguments on the value of publicly funded research and freedom of inquiry are not to be abandoned, but they need to be exaggerated a less manner, without research, we cannot speak of Climate Change or genetics or been able to fly to mars. It is hard to build Institutional Research funding on a public consensus taste on promises and expectations which can alter which can all too easily be disappointed. There is too much risk in such a rush. The risk that Vannevar Bush was ignorant of. It is now time for a new thinking on the multiple and complex relations between society and research. Thank you very much for your attention. [applause] a wonderful talk and there will be a great deal to discuss. There is a Brilliant Panel to discuss this. My colleague is the Thomas Seibold chair on the history of china on the history of science and she is a student of science and cultural politics in the 20th century. Heisenberg is one of the great studies in the subject. She also did an important collection and has been engaged in the scholarly work of understanding these issues that we have heard about. Of is also a practitioner institutional science. Lab, she isther the the faculty lead on the ,erkeleys data side program she is a campus figure in building the infrastructure of science and Science Education on campus. Deputy director of lawrence laboratories. He is also the director of the computing section at Lawrence Berkeley labs. He has an administrator of the kind of scientific enterprise we are talking about. He is also a leading practitioner read i expect in this audience not many of you would appreciate his algorithms. [inaudible] panel. Remarkable i was asked before they commented to post the first question to the panel. What wen is this have had is the diagnosis of the Current Situation in science in western society. On the one hand, is a crisis of honesty, a question of enterprise and fraud, and a question of exaggeration, which makes the public less committed to these issues. The treatment for this is what we might broadly call a piston the logical modesty. The problem with epist omological modesty is that it does not sell. What strikes me in the context of these real issues in this country, commitment to the bush mission is unwavering. Budget is up to 37 , the energy Year Department and space, telescopes are being built. The political system seems to be cruising along with the Vannevar Bush enterprise. Despite these real and public questions about science and its promise. I would begin by saying how do you account for this disjuncture between what seems like a fatal and a not terribly convincing cure, and the fact that the patient is cruising right along . On the cruising right along maybe i should step back and say that i feel outnumbered as a mathematician turned Computer Science among all these historians. That means it gives me the opportunity to say things that you hopefully just believe what i say them and i do not have to find the sources. Those microphones do not work, so i will speak up. Question, i want to add two things. I think where we are today, there are two additional pressures on science. One is indirectly mentioned in this notion that Peter Strohschneider mentioned in populism. Specific, andu. S. This is an interesting debate for historians of science. I think an antiscience attitude has been always quite strong in the United States and has a long history. It is based on a very little interpretation of the bible and consequences of this, you can go back almost 100 years and look at the debates that were driven this has beennd going on for 100 years. It can go back further, fascinates me that a state legislator like indiana regulated that the value of pi is 22 divided by seven. You look at this [inaudible] i think there has been an unfortunate antiscience thread in the american discourse over more than 100 years. This thread of conversation vanished because of things like the Manhattan Project where a bunch of scientists decided what the outcome of the Second World War was. It subsided because of the success of the Apollo Mission and the fact that the president declared we would be there in eight years and we were there in eight years. There are these early successes based on Vannevar Bushs model. These faded from memory. The catalyst we now have is we have a president who does not believe in science. You can look at very simple things as the people who formulate science policy, and to encourages other unsavory , one and a arise half weeks after charlottesville he can say the antiscience , justde is unfortunate like the attitude that it is ok again to be racist. People who were quiet because of success for 50 or 60 years suddenly feel they can express themselves. For those of you who do not believe me, i read an article my friend sent me that said that the eclipse clue to the flat earth theory. Thed this up unfortunate thing about the internet is i learned a lot about flat earth theory. This is alive and well. You get where i am going. Historian my colleagues why is there this strong antiscience attitude that is stronger than one would expect across a broad base of the u. S. Population . If i had more time i would switch to a completely different topic. Do i get to respond to this and then you respond . That is what i was instructed. I am happy to go and artistic to go anarchistic. I think he has nailed something. The postwar order had a 60 year run, but the postwar order has broken down. The social legitimation of compact the social around science and the public in the United States in particular was a creation of the Second World War. With the fading memory of the successes and the challenges that Peter Strohschneider pointed us to, that compact is not easily recoverable. At the same time, the postwar order around the underlying liberal social consensus in this country has broken down, where the Public Welfare could be based on and less economic growth. Thosenot by accident that two breakdowns happened in the same timeframe, because they both go back to the foundation of our postwar social order on the successes of the Second World War and the decades immediately following. In fighting inviting and not enough to give behavioral modesty as the solution of that challenge as much as i think that responsibility in the conduct of humility around the promises societal impact must be done. My question and probably yours as well to Peter Strohschneider is to ask us to speak about the things he knows so well around institutional structures and research, because the system itself has profoundly shifted since Vannevar Bush put out science and the endless frontier, from state centered to the decentered with a Strong Industrial drive that has not been part of our conversation so far but is so present for those of us living in california right now. We do have the same institutions that were established right after the Second World War, the institutions of science. As the universities were essentially restored in the United States, in germany as well, on a very classic model and the postwar institutions of science all our legacies of that postwar moment, and our question collectively is what of those institutional structures do we , letto find ways to reform me follow this one step further, the moral code of conduct i asnk all of us scientifically trained invested scholars believe in of honesty up against does run some of the structures and incentives of the postwar Research System. To gain grants, to gain publicity, to secure the resources for our work, and so i wonder if there is a more fundamental challenge to our institutions that goes along with the reinforcement of our attitudinal stances to address the fact that underneath the postwar social compact is this underlying skepticism and distrust that i think is resurfacing with the breakdown of the postwar order and which will not disappear in the conflict, as you so poignantly put it, between truth and power. I am af there is historian, but before that i was trained as a scientist. I wonder if we are not speaking in the same voice as historians and scientists observing the scene we have lived in, and through which you have a powerful and poignant position to help shape, an invitation to you to tell us how you think about this and how we might shape those futures that are both behavioral and structural institutions so we can move out past that breakdown of 2016. We should follow on this. I can speak to this a little theories i fully support that we have to be responsible in conducting science, not overpromising as we go forward, one element that is currently missing in the scientific dialogue is that scientists continue to assume that if they published a great paper and get our prize, that is sufficient to explain their science. I see this over again in washington, it is difficult, increasingly difficult to explain science to the decisionmakers. Scienceean by explain is not explaining how it works, but creating an image of what ,an result from was being done or the postdated utilitarianism, or have stories ready that even in the last 20 years there were wonderful stories of how science actually impacted the economy. My favorite story is that the current oil and gas boom that the u. S. Enjoys is the basis of science. That story is unknown, it is unknown even among scientists. The reason it is unknown is typical. America, there is a morphology of a great inventor and great doer. It is much easier to say there was this wild character in east texas and he bought land no one else wanted to. He worked on this for 10 years and finally invented something called horizontal drilling and it changed the landscape and Economic Outlook for the u. S. That is the story that is being told. The reality is he could have never drilled if it had not been for materials that word developed in the 80s that made the drill bit much more suitable , and he could not of drilled if there had not been research about alternative drilling methods paid for by the federal government. Ironically, the federal government decided in the year 2000 they had spent more than 20 in thisvesting technology, now it is time for industry to pick up. 2008 or picked it up in 2009 and wants us and was successful. As is a textbook example of how the federal government can create research. Who is hearing the story for the first time . Case in point. If you hear it, tell it to who says scientists do not do anything for the economy. I just told you a story and i think for scientists it is important to tell stories because all of the rest, the politicians,c all the remember is stories. We need to be better storytellers and all the things we have heard. I would say politicians mostly work on the basis of anecdotal evidence. This is an argument because i was claiming there were different forms of evidence, not only one. Discussion, if would hold on the differentiation between political practices to which narratives of research and science belong, i can tell the 24 of global gdp rests on the solution of the schrodinger equation. To hold onto differentiation between political discourses and an analytical approach to what is happening to modern societies and Research Systems, not to confuse these two levels, they follow different logics. Toould go back for a moment an analytical approach. I cannot more agree to what you said. My first observation would be we have ats president who does not believe in science. My idea is that modern science began by overcoming belief and faith systems by empirical knowledge and by methodological research. I say this to point to an internal paradox of the science discourse, namely that we claim believe in methodological knowledge claims. The knowledge of science has become so overwhelmingly complex on almostt everybody every question is a dilettante and not an expert. This difference between the dilettante and the expert approach is solved by this notion of believe in, trust in science. Science is the contradiction of belief. The second point, which has to do with that, back to what you said about the biblical fundamentalism in american ideologies ofese the chicago declaration and all that which is certainly a strong antiscientific or antiintellectual list movements. Is heavilyh system over coded religiously. , if youilicon valley see steve jobs, when he promoted the smartphone, black shirt, only this hand what ise moses the law of modern times, the iconography of all this and the discourse of we could have saved lives. What is the nih discourse about, it is about saving lives. This is my foreigners topology ofon the american political discourse. Saving lives is a religious attitude, not a scientific attitude. This is the one point. You made very clear that i was only moralizing the problem. [laughter] you are very precise that i was only moralizing the problem. I had only these parentheses e or two times when i sat to make that likely. Say, in the first instance i would argue the pluralization of the Research System, meaning the categories and organizational forms, meaning the settings of the decisionmaking processes and meaning the categories taken into account in evaluation, processes and making funding decisions. An example, and germinate we differentiate between program Oriented Research and what we curiosity driven research. This question is there is no difference between Programmatic Research and blue sky research. Research is research. The difference is the difference in the categories taken into account or engaged in the Decision Making processes. We must have decisionmaking processes where decisions and institutional forms of research are only made on the basis of criteria of scientific and intellectual equality and we must have other decisionmaking processes legitimate. Political or or economic relevancys or these utilitarian aspects is a legitimate part of the decisionmaking process. From my perspective, there is no what io a pure have tried to search is a third andbetween utilitarianism eight pure and up your functionalism. Metaphor he was not abandoning a previous metaphor, and that was the metaphor of pure science. Substituting is the metaphor of pure science. Publicbjecting to federal funding in the 1920s and 1930s, they were talking about pure science. Genius was tos overcome the contradictory task compromise, by a metaphorical compromise, the metaphorical compromise is a sick science is basic science. The metaphor is that the basis has an implication in 20 years, this post dated utilitarianism. That is the Vannevar Bush model. My question is whether this is still pertinent. This is a unifying system that rests on the fictitious notion of science and society as. Nified systems which engage us that is not true. Both are increasingly toentiated, diverse overcome this only moralizing attitude to the problem, my perspective would be institutional organizational settings which allow for the complexity of the interactions sides,e on both diverse and complex systems. The last sentence comes the question on what we call is more thanf it only a means of reducing complexity. This plea for more diverse city is a plea for more complexity. Challenging for parts of society. This is than the open question i these how to overcome over challenging aspects of these plea for pluralistic [inaudible] thank you very much. You mentioned specific examples like honesty and integrity and goodwill being more widely adopted. May i . Ohschneider [laughter] to the lastneider question, i would say no. To the first, which is another amount aspect, that scientific knowledge claims and technology categorically ambivalent and ambiguous. Since the invention of the hammer, we can use the hammer to hit nails, but you can also use turn it on its head. This by no means have anything to do with Scientific Research, and if this true all medical, technological, societal knowledge. Tell the do is they chances, the opportunities. They never tell the risks. Unplausibility or credibility gap of modern research. That is your point. Could you say who you are . People are more motivated by fear. Energy,k about chemical silent spring, atomic energy, you end up with meltdowns. There is a way to thelize the fact of negativities, which is what people really remember more than the positives. Mr. Strohschneider i think because no simple way it would take place not within the arm of research but from the site of society and politics, and so the question of how to balance the question and opportunities is itself a political question and a question of power plays for political, economic, and so forth interests. And not to be overcome by a simple assumption that society to homogenous entity would be consensus call on what the opportunity and what the risks of a perspective scientific knowledge or technological culpability would be. Be therey answer would is no word beyond societal struggles of destruction. You want to speak to it . No. [laughter] i wonder if we can broaden the discussion . Mr. Strohschneider may i say that this is the difference between germany and america. The risks are on the german side. This is what we call mentalities of society. You said earlier that the organization that you are the chair of deals with research. If you were too broad in discussion, which you see a way in which these new types of context you are talking about, these new understandings of findings would contribute to humanities and social Sciences Research . Can you speak more to how it research . Other when i cameneider criticism of populism, the limitations were more or science,e of the humanities, engineering, medical research, and so forth. From my perspective, on the german situation, as far as i consolation,e u. S. I would by no means, with respect to this hypotheses, say there is a difference between e. M. Sector in the social sciences and humanities. The alternative for germans is to find the populist party, which is now about to enter the German Parliament in the election in three and a half weeks, has an Election Program againstll, half a page gender research, to get rid of it totally. Installed overwe the last 30 years in gender research. To get rid of the papers, to get researchnder diversity , interesting for you, of course. There is room for improvement at this point. Yes . I am currently a research student. My question would be i acknowledge the fact that we can , we can do careful weight that. Then that point very much, but we live in a world that is highly information driven and also attention driven, and there is a lot of noise we are surrounded by all the time. I wonder, when we talk about the relevance of the broader public, to have the discussion within the academic system and with each other but not so much with whether by i wonder that we also give up shaping the narrative of how much science to theearch matters future challenges, generally the contribution of science to the world. Wholequestion to the panel would be what we recommend me as a young researcher, or all us, what kind of creed what can we do as a concrete contribution to make visible and toience matters involve us the on our academic world that we are involved in every day . I think i partially answer to this. We really all as scientists, and particularly s. T. E. M. Scientists, need to communicate to the public and use the opportunity whenever you use it in whatever organizational setting you after i think that is very simple. How much impact that has, i do not know, but i think we should have all scientists tell a neighbor what you do and why it is important. It is simplistic, but it is something we have to start. And there is a very important attitudinal component to that, which is to feel that you have a responsibility to the larger public that does not live in your disciplinary world to be intelligible, and in some sense to begin in the service of their good as well. That is something that the institutionalization of basic research, as separate from has taken off the plate of previous generations but is now their for all of us that is not in the academy now, and here, i would say there is even more of a demand for those in humanities and social sciences to remember their social isponsibility as well, that academia cannot be forcing facing inward anymore. He needs to reduce a strong yet complex narrative to reflect what we do, not just for public inding, but in order to make salvageable what it is that matters about what we do. [indiscernible] that breaks down, and the question is raised, this question is really the flow of information and what it does to the general the way in which the socalled public and politicians are informed on what that means actually. What kind of trust can even be established . There is enough information out there. You go to an airport, a bookstore, Public Sciences from , booksds of perspective could be called basic research. I agree that the american as the dew were is always overshadowed, but still, i really wonder about , thateally basic problem it is a basic breakdown for institutions that were set up in a way that the institutional setting itself provided a kind of trust, and that connection allows you to not be there at all anymore for a majority because in my experience, for people in europe, there are other elements. We are opposite. I want to use evidence for this institutional breakdown with any generational evidence, but i will leave that. [laughter] peter, you want to respond to this . Thistrohschneider category of crisis, many aspects of the crisis, in my perspective, president trumps Attitude Toward Research is not an attitude against us. It is an attitude against very form of described research and intellectual endeavor, which are in conflict with his own economic interests. It is a power play. It is not a play in other words, against the research. I find it politically unwise of march of attended the science i attended, of course but i find it politically quite unwise. In german, you say [speaking german] we jump with a stick. It is a virtue. Be toond sentence would tell the story of science, research, the benefits that stem from that to the story, but whose task is to tell that story . Responsibility of the sciences, or is it about accountability of the individual the day, every some of and every move that he or she does in research . Is highlighting the accountability of research as a form of organization or near capitalist organization of the Research System, the Research System has to be responsible, but not had every individual research to be accountable for his research, her research at anytime of the day throughout the year. Mean,sk of this i accountability from business schools, of course. Theoreticalethical, developed notion. Or the responsibility of working for the responsibility and the Public Acceptance of research, is it science, politicians, and to my perspective, my project is an important part, what do you science politicians are charged with, that they have to explain the usefulness, the responsibility of research fieldsis other political , be it the military, foreign affairs, and so forth, and the Forward Division of labor, lastly, we did not talk about what i would call the researchction price of , which has to with the publication crisis and all of these. The Research Systems at universities are ever extending. Logic ofves follow the ,he endless ghost of everything we acknowledge the endless frontier of growth. It is quite natural that as we explain, Research Becomes even that many parts of society, you are right, there is no need, whether you claim to the, i want to know what you are going to do if it is expanding that,t dimension friendly, we did over the last 60 years. It is two minutes after 2 00. I think everybody of the panel will stay and talk afterwards. Thank you to the audience, and thank you guys for coming. [applause] [captions Copyright National cable satellite corp. 2017] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. Visit ncicap. Org] interested in American History tv . Visit our website, cspan. Org history. You can preview upcoming programs, watch college lectures, using force, archival films, and more. American history tv at cspan. Org history. Cspan, where history unfolds daily. 1979, cspan was created as a Public Service by americas Public Television companies and is brought to you today by your cable or satellite provider. Touringyear, cspan is cities across the country, exploring American History. A look at our recent visit to concord, ne new hampshire. Americantching history on cspan3