Who, me? Really?

In 2016, according to the ‘Science Barometer’, more than 40 percent of all people were found to be interested in science. Nearly the same number want to be kept up to date about science or even be involved in decisions concerning science and research: they want somehow to be a part of it. But experts in scientific education now also say that while many people find research at an early age very intriguing, their faces often show surprise at the question, ‘How about being a scientist yourself?’ ‘Who, me myself? A SCIENTIST?’

How best answer this question from young people? Can one advise them with a good conscience to go into science? The answer is yes, because science needs the best people, and because good science can only be done by good scientists. And because we are dependent upon them. And because science and research are fun and liberating. And because they turn a hobby into a profession and because the work they do is meaningful. But then it must also be possible to offer young people good perspectives. And that is easier said than done.

We at the Robert Bosch Foundation are on the lookout for people with the courage and will to make things happen; people who see in the sciences a way to help shape society; and we support them on this often bumpy path. Their needs are very diverse: there’s the schoolboy who deeply desires to change the world but doesn’t know how and where, and is thinking science might offer a way. Or the brilliant woman researcher who’s uncertain of her own abilities and who, in spite of her quite evident excellence in scientific research, needs first to acquire enough self-confidence to compete with others. Or the inquisitive scientific thinkers who think out of the box, suddenly stand outside the normal routes to subsidies, and now keep trying to find a way to turn their ideas into reality. In the reality of today’s academic Germany, they must keep a single goal in view - and this is only slightly exaggerated - in order to spend their lives in relative financial security in the German world of science: to become tenured professors.

This system of academic musical chairs in which de facto only the above-mentioned 10 percent of researchers are unhampered and free to work independently has been severely criticized by the ‘Young Academy’, to mention only one. One solution proposed is to increase the number of university professors - a proposal which is both easy to understand and controversial.

The eye of the needle in a career of scientific research is the possibility of becoming a tenured professor. The numbers clearly show that this is a risky undertaking and that only a few can pass through. The Excellence Initiative, a bubbling cauldron of newly qualified professors, is cooled according to the Federal Report on Next-Generation Scientists (2013) by depressing numbers: although some 26,000 persons gain a Doctor’s Degree every year, and a total of about 3,750 persons per year qualify as next-generation scientists (e.g. as next-generation group mentors, authors of professorial dissertations, and junior professors), only about 670 of them are invited each year to join university faculties as professors. Only one out of five of these deserving scientists, and only about one out of every 40 with a Ph.D. has any chance at all of being called to join a university faculty. Even the generation change will not resolve this situation, since the number of those who qualify is three times that of the professors who go into age-related retirement. The question, therefore, is whether an increase in the number of professors will solve the problem.

We must look beyond the tips of our own noses: even a rough estimate based on a micro-census and a headcount of the work force shows, for example that even in the business world 15 percent of the work force has management functions. This is just one indication that the real problem of the universities - or at least the only one - is not a dearth of professors.

Other professional sectors offer a diversity of functions, so that not every employee must become a managing director or department head in order to spend a professional career in an organization: among the positions available are those of team leaders, consultants, expert advisors, project managers, instructors, staffers, project leaders, master craftsmen, scientific research assistants, senior advisors, etc., etc. Unfortunately, the ‘winner-take-all’-principle prevails in the world of scientific research, namely: professor or nothing. And that becomes crucial in the mean at the age of 42, the average age when a professor’s chair is offered, and only after the career scientist has already invested immense resources in his or her career. In short: science is a high-risk career path. That is the true crux of the problem. It doesn’t have to be that way; there’s no lack of ideas on diversifying career paths. For example ‘New Careers in Science’, a joint project, examined the issue in detail and found that there is still a lack of resources and concrete implementation of long-term personnel policies at universities. This represents a structural project which, by the way, goes beyond the capabilities and legitimate purposes of foundations.

In thinking about ways to improve the situation by making a career in scientific research more attractive for qualified persons, one may ask the following questions: who will stay the course? Who make up the 10 percent? Is it the cleverest, the most creative, the best of their class, the most brilliant, the most dedicated? Is it those who will benefit us most? Is it those who will find answers to questions we haven’t yet even thought of? (Let’s hope so, otherwise we have an even bigger problem!)

In fact, we at the Robert Bosch Foundation are looking for the ones who can make us all a better society. The reason: we deeply believe that these are the persons who change our world. When we look at Robert Bosch or Klaus von Klitzing we se the same thing: behind every great project, behind every great idea is an extraordinary human being. That’s what impels our foundation in supporting up-and-comers in the next generation of scientific researchers to take a tack that is somewhat old-fashioned and no longer ‘in’ in our academic publish-or-perish, H-index world: we take a good, long look at persons who come to us - at our invitation. We give a helping hand to those who generate confidence in us and the respective panel of examining experts to put their ideas into practice - for example junior professors who are at work on sustainable uses for natural resources. We know full well, however, that there is never a guarantee of success in the academic sciences - either for those we support or for us, the supporters.

This approach is right in line with what these next-generation researchers tell us when we ask them about their wishes or ideas for the academic system. Their answers are, of course, wide-ranging, but three wishes come up time and again: more recognition. More trust. Less ‘fixing-the-women’. More recognition, for example, means receiving an answer - even if only a rejection - when applying for a professor’s position, instead of plying the Internet to learn that the hoped-for job was given to someone else. More trust means, among other things, encharging someone with the use of a new method or work in a new area of an already successful project even though he or she has no previous experience with that area. Finally, less ‘fixing-the-women’ reflects the perception that many programs aim to educate women in the ‘right’ way of behaving if they want to survive in the academic world. Support for young women is good; what’s not good is the ‘subtext’ that says something’s wrong with them and they need only act like men to make everything OK. Countless academic women with top qualifications are out there - in greater or fewer numbers depending on the respective discipline. Finding them is no problem at all, and anyone who doubts this is going blindfolded through the world - and hasn’t yet visited ‘Academia-Net.de’!

But attracting more women to positions of leadership in scientific research is not a one-way street: lifestyles differ vastly, particularly for those with children: the so-called ‘woman’s work’ of times past must continue to be done in future as well: taking care of children, running a household, keeping a family together. Good daycare options are a prerequisite for this, but basically, a dedicated woman is more than just a professor, an institute director, a woman president: she represents an additional, dedicated partner in the family. It can no longer be taken for granted that the woman is essentially responsible for everything. That’s not what equal rights mean. What that means is that if we want to gain more women for positions of leadership in scientific research we need partners who work with their scientific woman partners to build a private life and either share or take over tasks in the family. Men like this do indeed exist, and their numbers are growing. We need to support and acknowledge them - and stop trying to ‘fix’ the women.

That would certainly not solve all career problems in the academic world, but we have to begin somewhere. Optimism is the basic stance of our Foundation’s work, and that’s why we help persons to find their way and to render meaningful service to society and our world. Even - and precisely when - the prospect of success is uncertain.
Katrin Rehak-Nitsche