17. October 2006 Helmholtz Head Office
Speech by Professor Dr. Jürgen Mlynek, President of the Helmholtz Association at the Acatech Annual Assembly on 17 October 2006 - Daring to venture to the top!
Speech by Prof. Dr. Jürgen Mlynek, President of the Helmholtz Association, at the annual assembly of the Acatech – the Council for Technical Sciences of the Union of German Academies of Sciences and Humanities – on 17 October 2006 in Berlin.
Minister Schavan, Mr Milberg,
Ladies and gentlemen,
A bizarre battle is currently waging in the media. Who was the first to climb the Zugspitze? Josef Naus, a gutsy lieutenant who climbed the mountain in 1820, or a nameless shepherd 50 years earlier? Mountaineers have always liked to argue this point; it is a question of honour. We scientists can well understand them; we also attach a great deal of importance to being the first to have discovered something, the first to publish exciting new findings.
The goal of being the first to reach the summit, to venture to the top, is the force that drives us. We are willing to take daring new steps in order to achieve it. Timing is crucial in patent law. And it is not just a question of prestige, it's a question of profit, too. Will the inventor be able to reap the benefits of the seeds he or she has sown?
But there are other motives for wanting to get to the top. The desire for new insight and new understanding. That was the objective of Alexander von Humboldt, for example, as he inched his way up Chimborazo in Ecuador back in 1802. At 6,300 metres the inactive volcano is twice as high as the Zugspitze and Humboldt was by no means an athlete - but his toughness and desire to succeed kept him moving onwards and upwards. Apparently a heavy nosebleed forced him to turn back just before he reached the summit. That is at least what Daniel Kehlmann tells us in his novel "Measuring the World".
Humboldt was indeed passionate about measuring the world. Humboldt was convinced that only precise measuring data could give a proper picture of physical reality. He was, as we see, a man of modern mind.
And he saw his passion reflected in the young Hermann von Helmholtz, who gave his name to the Helmholtz Association. Humboldt helped the young military doctor embark on a scientific career. Helmholtz made good use of this opportunity, ultimately becoming, alongside von Humboldt, one of the last great universal scholars and classical physicists, who paved the way for a new scientific age.
Helmholtz had great expectations of science. As he once said on his profession: "Working in the best interests of the nation, scientists seek to increase the knowledge and insights that can serve to enhance industry, wealth and the beauty of life, to improve political organisation and the moral development of each individual."
And Helmholtz turned his words into actions: In a public-private partnership with Werner von Siemens and with the support of the Kaiser he founded the Physikalisch Technische Reichsanstalt, the first large non-university research institution. Today it is known as the Physikalisch Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB). It performs ultra-precise calibration and metrology for the benefit of industry. That may sound like a routine activity, but it is far from mundane.
In the late 19th century this scientific institute conducted experiments that were decisive in bringing about the biggest revolution the world of physics had ever experienced: the discovery of quantum physics. Today quantum physics are found in every microchip; it makes a major contribution to the GNP and you don't even have to understand it in order to make use of it in your CD player or computer at home.
And that brings me to the theme of this year's Acatech annual meeting: "Daring to innovate". Both Hermann von Helmholtz and Werner von Siemens were willing to take risks in the pursuit of scientific discovery. Yet both knew that basic research and application must go hand in hand. Innovations like microchips, and possibly the quantum computer of the future, only come about as the last stage in concerted development activities; they owe their existence to basic research.
The philosopher Jürgen Mittelstrass recently said that the hype surrounding innovations often distracts from actual needs - including the freedom not to think in categories of how we can use something but in categories of fundamental knowledge.
And he is right. Fundamental research prepares the ground for innovation. But at the same time it is true that if not enough attention is paid to how we can use something, to the application of research findings, then our society cannot profit sufficiently from the added value they could bring. If we want to compete on the global market, we must apply our research and knowledge in innovations, we must put our intellectual clout to concrete use. You could say that innovation is research plus implementation.
Research, yes, but what kind of research? Many people still have a very simplified image in their minds, a kind of timeline starting with the basic research, moving on to application-oriented research and then to the final product at the end. Therefore a scientist can either perform application-oriented research or just basic research. But this "either/or" has nothing to do with the reality of it. Advances usually come about through a complex interaction of basic research and development work, a mixture of curiosity and practicalities.
I would like to discuss this using the example of energy research. I choose this field because energy is equally important to politics, industry and research. For me personally it is a topic of particular interest because around half of public-funded energy research in Germany takes place at Helmholtz Centres.
Energy research is also a good example of how basic research, applied research and technical development are all intertwined, so it will serve as a good illustration of what I have just said.
Fossil fuels continue to supply the lion's share of energy. This is absolutely catastrophic. Not only because it makes us dependent on certain sources, but because of the impact it has on climate change. What we need to do now is to find alternative energy sources to fossil fuels as soon as possible and to develop solutions that can ensure our future mobility. This is an enormous challenge, which will require the investment of all our best efforts and brightest minds. Another case where we must dare to venture to the top!
In the short term we are focusing on developing more efficient energy conversion processes for fossil fuels like coal, crude oil and natural gas. Power stations must be updated and equipped with the latest components. To achieve this we are working on the basis of the engineering strengths we have at our disposal.
And, of course, it is necessary to continue expanding the use of renewable energies such as solar and wind power to generate electricity. Biogas can also make a contribution. There are many interesting new developments in this field, some of which are based on existing solutions, some of which still require basic research. For example, some ideas demand totally new classes of material, such as nano-materials for power engineering. Because we will need new materials, be they for solar cells, light construction materials, energy storage in fuel cells or components made of superconducting materials which allow loss-free electricity transport and transformation.
Materials like these are currently being simulated on super computers, for example at the Helmholtz Research Centre in Jülich, before actual synthesis begins. Before we can reach that stage, however, we have to understand how the composition of a material relates to its properties. We have to be curious about the very basic processes, and grasp the wider picture.
We will also need materials with extreme properties and superconducting components for a potential energy supply option which will not be ready for a good few years yet: nuclear fusion. This involves us bringing the process which powers the sun down to Earth in a controlled fashion.
The experimental fusion reactor being built in Cadarache in France will be the first of its kind to generate more power than the energy input needed for its operation. Over the next ten years it will cost around ten billion euros. The countries of Europe will together finance half that sum, the rest of the money will come from the United States, Japan, India, China and Russia, which will each provide ten per cent.
This project is like the virgin climb up a mountain of unspecified height, alongside which Alexander von Humboldt's slog up Chimborazo looks like a walk in the park. We are planning our expedition as carefully as possible, in collaboration with many different countries. And we will need to be patient; it will take a several decades before the first electricity generated by nuclear fusion flows from our power points.
My depiction of the energy situation would not be complete without mentioning nuclear power. On a global scale, the energy obtained from splitting atoms will have a secure place in the energy mix in the short and medium term. Nuclear fission is, at least, climate friendly and does not create any additional carbon dioxide. Almost all industrialised nations are building new power stations, which now house third-generation reactors, and some are carrying out intensive research into even more modern reactors. Germany has decided to abandon nuclear energy, proving that in this case it was not willing to be daring[1].
In general, it is clear that providing a clean, reliable source of energy will be one of the biggest challenges of the future. But where there is a problem there is also an opportunity; energy technology is and will remain one of the major growth markets.
Apart from its nuclear energy policy, Germany is one of the leading nations in energy research and power engineering. We must utilise and enhance our strengths in this field, which also includes applying environmental technologies. To do this we need new forms of cooperation between research, industry and politics. Again, we must dare to venture to the top!
So we must have the courage to work together to set priorities and to demand their implementation on a large scale, with the support of the necessary critical mass. David King, Chief Scientific Adviser to British Prime Minister Tony Blair, recently told me about a very powerful public-private partnership which has been initiated in the UK. The government and four energy companies, BP, E.ON UK, EDF and Shell, will share the costs for establishing a new Energy Technologies Institute. Over the next ten years a billion pounds sterling will be invested in the project, with half coming from the government and half from the private companies. The Energy Review Report 2006 tells us:
"The Energy Technologies Institute will bring a new level of focus, ambition and industrial collaboration to the UK's work in the field of energy science and engineering, and will exploit the UK's potential to be a world-leader in energy technologies."
It will focus on low-emissions technologies, not including nuclear technology. That means the spotlight is on efficient power generation, energy conservation and renewable energies. The institute will exist on a largely virtual basis. One of the participating institutions, public or private, will take charge of all coordination activities, and participation is decided in a competition to identify national centres of excellence.
What should prevent us from starting a similar initiative here in Germany? We already have experience with competitions to find centres of excellence. Given the difference in size between Germany and the UK, the budget should be at least two billion euros for a period of ten years, half coming from the public purse, primarily the federal government, and half from companies with a stake in energy issues.
In fact we can start the first round of discussions on this matter as soon as this event is over! All the major partners are represented here today: the Federal Minister for Research, top corporate representatives, and the heads of universities and non-university research institutes! This is the opportunity, especially given how busy everyone usually is. As Oscar Wilde said: "You should always give in to temptation. Who knows whether it will come again?"
The legal form of such an undertaking, by the way, should be shaped so as to allow the required corporate freedoms, in the name of improving global competitiveness.
Because if an Energy Institute is to be truly effective, rules and regulations must be kept to a minimum, and scientists and engineers should be given as much freedom as possible, including on allocation of funds for equipment and personnel.
So, what we need is:
- efficient and transparent decision-making structures, i.e. a modern, streamlined form of management;
- individual, performance-related levels of pay;
- autonomy and room for manoeuvre in all areas.
A project like this - let's call it the "Energy-land of the future" - would be a very ambitious undertaking, but why should that make us afraid to take it on? Have we become so terribly cautious that we no longer want to "think big"? It would still be a small project in comparison to putting a human being on the moon or Mars, but it would be an innovative project with regard to content, partners, structures and organisation; an exciting new and daring venture. We at the Helmholtz Association are ready to invest our experience in energy research, particularly through our Helmholtz Research Centres in Jülich und Karlsruhe.
This energy research and technology project could also serve as a positive example for other big projects, for example in the field of health.
Now for a change of scenery, ladies and gentlemen, but not for a change of topic - we move away from the aspect of research towards that of innovation. And I hope that I myself will be sufficiently innovative to do it justice, and that you will stay tuned in!
The American journalist and New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman travelled the world and saw what it was all about. He wrote a book about it called "The World is Flat". His message was that the internet, the international distribution of value added and the integration of emerging markets into the global economy herald the next stage of globalisation. The world is becoming a level playing field, he says, and in the future everyone will compete against everyone else. As a consequence he tells his children: "Do your homework, girls. The people in China and India want your jobs!"
We are all familiar with the situation by now: prosperity cannot be taken for granted; jobs are not generated from out of thin air; they can't be guaranteed for ever in a high-wage country like Germany. To read about it, we just have to open the newspaper on any day of the week.
Hasso Plattner, your colleague, Mr Kagermann, and the founder of SAP, said recently in the journal Wirtschaftswoche that "businesses only grow if they're massively innovative." So it is not enough to be merely good, if someone else somewhere else has already developed something better.
How are other countries dealing with the challenges of globalisation? What role does innovation play there?
Let's take the case of the "usual suspect", the United States. In summer 2005, the US Senate asked the National Academies to answer the following questions:
"What are the top ten actions, in priority order, that federal policy makers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st century? (What strategy, with several concrete steps, could be used to implement each of those actions?)"
Consequently, the National Academies quickly established a commission, under the presidency of a business executive, with 20 top-flight members who are leading figures in major companies and large research facilities, and in some cases Nobel Prize winners. Within ten weeks (again the number ten!) the commission produced a ten-page (ten!) report with the poetic title "Rising Above the Gathering Storm - Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future". It is a paper I can recommend to you in good conscience, both for its content and for its length.
The Commission identified two (the number two!) major challenges. I quote them here:
1. creating high-quality jobs for Americans, and
2. responding to the nation's need for clean, affordable, and reliable energy.
The government's reaction came promptly. In February 2006, just a few months after the commission handed in its report, the White House issued two (two!) documents, each with a foreword by the US President. One paper was called "American Competitiveness Initiative - Leading the World in Innovation" and the other was the "Advanced Energy Initiative". Both documents included "action items" and information on who had agreed to provide financial backing.
Why am I telling you about this in such detail? For various reasons, some of which support what I said before and which contain new aspects of relevance for Acatech.
- Energy is a central R&D topic across the globe. In places like the United States and the UK it is seen as a major national challenge. Those countries are not limping aimlessly from conference to conference, they are doing something about the energy problem! They are setting up public-private partnerships to tackle the issue. We can see that they truly are daring to embark on a new venture!
- Countries like the US and the UK are taking a clear leading stance as far as innovations are concerned. They are aiming for the top!
- The economy, science and politics are pulling together and making prompt, clear and concrete proposals for how to strengthen their nations' international competitiveness and are taking quick action to implement these proposals. They believe in the maxim "Together we are strong!" This is a healthy form of patriotism, people taking responsibility for their fellow citizens.
We do not have to copy the strategies of other countries precisely, but we should not close our eyes to them. Germany is still one of the leading industrial nations. Our strengths include well-educated people and an excellent infrastructure. I could add many other positive aspects such as the High-Tech Strategy or the Initiative for Excellence. Additional leverage is given to us through the research union Wissenschaft/Wirtschaft [Science/Industry], which you, dear Minister, brought into being. And that is why I believe that anything they can do, we can do just as well. We just have to want to.
That raises the question:
Are we not able to be as innovative as we want to be? If that is so then we have to create the right conditions to offer more room for manoeuvre. The onus for achieving this lies with our politicians.
And the question:
Do we not want to be as innovative as we can? If that is so then we have to initiate a change of attitude. Politicians can only be of some help here, we must all get involved.
Allow me to conclude, ladies and gentlemen. "Daring to innovate" is the daring topic of today's Acatech function. Mr Milberg, it is a very good thing that this nationwide Council for Technical Sciences exists, and it is a very good thing that you are its President and founder. You are the very embodiment of research and realisation, science and entrepreneurship. You are innovation incarnate and the inspiration for the achievements of Acatech. You deserve the thanks of all present!
One more thing: National Academies can provide useful recommendations for social development, as my American example demonstrated. We need to get round to founding such a National Academy here in Germany!
To return to the mountain-climbing metaphor I used at the start: they say that the air at the top of a mountain refreshes the mind. New vistas open up, as well as new insights which help intrepid explorers orientate themselves. But anyone who ventures up to such lofty heights knows that there are many obstacles to overcome: sheer cliffs, impassable clefts. The obstacles that face us are climate change, fuel shortages and other grand challenges. We have to have the self-confidence and courage to master them. We can only cross the inhospitable terrain and reach the summit if we really put our minds to it.
Germany can reach the top! Let's go adventuring! Thank you for your attention!
[1]To avoid misunderstanding: personally I consider this decision a dubious one. Germany must certainly maintain and expand its knowledge of reactor safety and waste disposal. This is of particular relevance to the Helmholtz Research Centre in Karlsruhe.
