The Journal Impact Factor was invented to help librarians with the decision what journals to subscribe or unsubscribe to. In short, this indicator is helpful for certain application fields, but it is also misused, thereby leading to problematic results. JUnQ: The iFQ also surveys scientists about their satisfaction with their personal situation and the shape, in which science is.
Can you outline how the German scientific community perceives itself? Hornbostel: We just completed an extensive survey among German professors, which included several issues of current science policy. I can summarize the results roughly as follows: German scientists from nearly all disciplines consider themselves to be competitive on an international level and a majority thinks that the funding conditions for research projects are very good.
German scientists are in general not averse to rivalry and competition for public attention, money, and publications. However, we noticed a certain weariness concerning the numerous application-based funding procedures. Throughout all disciplines, scientists criticize the increasing scarcity of regular funding. Hornbostel: This is not easy to determine as there were not many systematic surveys in earlier years.
Fortunately, the Allensbach Institute conducted surveys among German faculty members in the s and s. For example, we noticed a shift in perception regarding the question if money always accumulates in the hands of the same people. In this respect, scientists are now more critical than they were thirty years ago. Hornbostel: It is obvious that they result from an increasing focus on performance and competition in the German scientific system. Since the s, the gap between regular funding and external funding has widened significantly.
Today, it is almost impossible to do research without external application-based funding, while in the s the level of regular funding was significantly higher. JUnQ: A key issue in the public debate regarding competition in science is the Excellence Initiative. Hornbostel: The iFQ is evaluating the Excellence Initiative and has collected a lot of data on this issue. The picture we get is a little paradoxical. On the one hand, the Excellence Initiative was one of the great endeavors in recent years.
In many interviews at different universities, we always hear the same message that things got going, not only due to additional money, but because of the novel idea to compete for prestigious titles that are perceived by the public. Outdated structures were abandoned, new structures emerged that often crossed sectional boundaries, and many novel concepts were given a try. In short, the Excellence.
Initiative generated momentum in the German universities. On the other hand, we surveyed professors on the question whether this concept of funding is suited to push research in Germany forward. In this regard, the impression is rather negative. In almost no scientific field, the Excellence Initiative is considered to be a promising funding concept. Maybe, the truth lies in the middle. That is, the Excellence Initiative is unsuitable as a permanent institution, but in its historical setting, it was important and helpful.
This ranges from interdisciplinary contacts and new forms of organization to enhanced recruiting procedures and novel forms of support for young scientists. For example, graduate schools have emerged.
Such new concepts did not only lead to changes in very short time periods, but they also created enthusiasm for experiments. This unideological eagerness for experiment is something new to the German scientific system and something very positive. Professor Hornbostel interview. Verfuehrt der allgegenwaertige Publikationsdruck Wissenschaftler zu Unehrlichkeit?
May 23rd, 5. April 13th, by Prof. Siegfried Hunklinger , Ombudsman of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft,. When: Listen to the full Interview in German. In , one of the biggest cases of scientific misconduct in the history of medicine was detected. Eberhard Hildt, co-worker of the esteemed cancer researchers Friedhelm Hermann and Marion Brach, turned to his former Ph.
He had noted obvious irregularities in his new lab that could only be due to fraudulent behaviour.
At the end, it turned out that in 94 publications Hermann and Brach had committed forgery. As a reaction to the scandal, the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft issued a commission on professional self regulation in science. One of them is Siegfried Hunklinger. Being a former professor for physics at Karl-Ruprecht University, Heidelberg, he held the office of an ombudsman from until May During his visit in Mainz, we talked to Prof.
Hunklinger about his work as an ombudsman and about recent developments in scientific conduct. What does an Ombudsman do? Hunklinger: Scientists may contact the Ombudsman if they are involved in a dispute con- cerning good scientific practice. When someone comes to us with a problem, we try to do justice to both sides.
We do not judge, instead we mediate. Hunklinger: First, we ask the whistleblower, who contacted us with a complaint, to describe the issue in written form. This already helps us to understand what the issue is about. However, there is always an opposite party, the accused person, whom we also interview. The truth often lies between both views. Usually, we can solve many problems on the basis of the two written statements because we understand what the problem is and on whom to put the bigger portion of the blame, if it is even appropriate to speak of blame.
Next, we propose a solution. For instance, if the authorship of a publication is controversial, one can add further authors or change the acknowledgment. In many cases, an agreement is achieved in this way. If this does not work, we summon both parties to a hearing. Sometimes it helps just to talk to each other.
This kind of mediation also often leads to an agreement. The third case is the most unpleasant: Data are evidently counterfeited or manipulated. This is beyond our means. We will inform the appropriate institutions, for example the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft or the Max-Planck-Gesellschaft. These institutions are in charge of imposing sanctions, we only mediate. Hunklinger: There are approximately 50 to 60 cases per year. Most of them concern dis- putes over the authorship of publications.
Besides that, there are plagiarism allegations, counterfeits, and disputes with journal publishers. Mobbing is noteworthy as well. Higher positions often put pressure on people that are not liked for any reasons. This can cause severe misconduct. JUnQ: If one looks at the great scientific scandals like the ones involving Jan-Hendrik Schoen and Hwang Woo-suk, one question comes to the mind: Why do scientists do this and what drives them? Do you have an answer to this question? Hunklinger: No, actually not. Concerning Schoen, I can understand him a little bit.
He was at the beginning of his career and wanted to reach the top. The path he pursued was fantastic. If people had not realized the fraud, he would have become director of a Max-Planck institute and things would have turned out well for him. Concerning Hwang, I do not understand him.
How can they be prevented in future? Are there any early warning signals? In what way was the Germany of unique? Did do similar violations of medical ethics happen elsewhere? Where is the line between a doctor's responsibility to an individual and responsibility to society? Where are the limits of ethical research? Did does the German medical profession have too little respect for the human being? How can we increase this respect through medical teaching?
What are the essential elements of a good relationship between the medical profession and the state? Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide.
Sign In or Create an Account. Sign In. Advanced Search. Article Navigation. Close mobile search navigation Article Navigation. Volume Article Contents. Active participation. The Fourth Reich. Oxford Academic. Google Scholar. Cite Citation. Permissions Icon Permissions. Involuntary euthanasia The NS euthanasia programme secretly started in specialized medical departments in References 1. Haeckel E. Kater MH. Doctors under Hitler.
The Science - Der Weg zum Reich-Werden on rapyzure.tk Paperback; Publisher: Börsenmedien AG; Language: German; ISBN Die Wissenschaft Vom Reichwerden (German Edition) [Wallace D Wattles, Gunter W war "The Science of Getting Rich" (Die Wissenschaft vom Reichwerden) von um ganz normalen Menschen einen Weg zu eigenem Reichtum zu zeigen.
Binding K, Hoche A. Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebeswerten Lebens. Verlag Felix Meine: Leipzig, Gesetz zum Schutze des deutschen Blutes und der deutschen Ehe vom 15 September Ziel und Weg. Rothmaler Ch. Kleine Notizen. Int Med Bull. Die deutschen Gynaekologen und die NS-Vergangenheit. Zeitung, 31 Aug Lemme HJ.
Arzt und Rechtswahrer. Dtsch Med Wschr. Landschaftsverband Rheinland ed. Folgen der Ausgrenzung. Windau R. Frankfurt: Marbuse, Proctor R: Nazi doctors, racial medicine, and human experimentation. Oxford: Oxford University Press, , pp. Hoedeman P. Hitler or Hippocrates, medical experiments and euthanasia in the Third Reich. Sussex, UK: Book Guild, Baden Baden, Breggin PR. Psychiatry's role in the holocaust. Int J Risk Safety Med. Wild K. As cited in ref Bar on D: The legacy of silence. Cambridge Mass: Harvard University Press, Alexander L. Medical science under dictatorship.
N Engl J Med. Berger RL. Nazi science—the Dachau hypothermia experiments. Mitscherlich A, Mielke F. Doctors of infamy. New York: H. Schuman, Expansionspolitik und Arztverbrechen. Lifton RJ. The Nazi doctors. Boston Mass: Basic Books, Scharffenberg J. Purge of German-Jewish doctors. Mausbach H, Mausbach-Bromberger B. Ernst E. Gerst Th. A leading medical school seriously damaged: Vienna Ann Int Med. Liste von Professoren der Medizin und von medizinischen Forschern, die von der Hitler-Regierung als minderwertig beurlaubt, in den Ruhestand versetzt oder verhaftet wurden.
Bittner G. Berlin: Rotbuch Verlag, Werle K-P. MD Thesis, Kiel, Careful: unpretentiousness can be a weapon! One of the secrets of the success of Angela Merkel is that she knows how to deal with vain men. Angela Merkel is a patient hunter of courting mountain cocks. With the patience of an angel, she waits for her moment. German politics was entering a new era. She has them for her cereal. The two men despised Merkel, and the sentiment was reciprocated. During the campaign, Fischer said in private talks that Merkel was incapable of doing the job.
Through most of the campaign, the C. Merkel had made two near-fatal mistakes. Second, many of her advisers were free-market proponents who advocated changes to the tax code and to labor policies which went far beyond what German voters would accept. Merkel, looking shell-shocked and haggard, was almost mute. Many viewers thought he was drunk. Indeed, the C. And I promise we will not turn the democratic rules upside down. Those who know Merkel say that she is as lively and funny in private as she is publicly soporific—a split in self-presentation that she learned as a young East German.
Through her spokesman, Merkel, who gives few interviews—almost always to German publications, and all anodyne—declined to speak to me. In off-the-record conversations with German journalists, she replays entire conversations with other world leaders, performing wicked imitations. Do you do things like that? Nor is she above embarrassing her minions. Throughout her Chancellorship, Merkel has stayed as close as possible to German public opinion.
Kornblum, the former Ambassador, once asked a Merkel adviser about her long-term view. But Germany remains so traumatized by the grand ideologies of its past that a politics of no ideas has a comforting allure. To Merkel, the crisis confirmed that grand visions can be dangerous. Kohl, who thought in historical terms, had tied Germany to a European currency without a political union that could make it work. Germany had by far the strongest economy in Europe, with a manufacturing base and robust exports that benefitted from the weakening of the euro.
Throughout the crisis, Merkel buried herself in the economic details and refused to get out in front of what German voters—who tended to regard the Greeks as spendthrift and lazy—would accept, even if delaying prolonged the ordeal and, at key moments from late through the summer of , threatened the euro itself.
No vision at all. In exchange, the countries of southern Europe submitted to strict budget rules and E. Merkel realized that she could not allow the euro-zone crisis to capsize the project of European unity. The euro was saved, but at the price of ruinous austerity policies and high unemployment. The German economy has slowed this year, while European growth is anemic. Nevertheless, Germany remains committed to a balanced budget in , its first since , and is standing in the way of a euro-zone monetary policy of stimulating growth by buying up debt.
In recent weeks, with global markets falling, a divide has opened between Merkel and other European leaders. After , Merkel had to mute her free-market thinking at home in order to preserve her political viability. Instead, she exported the ideas to the rest of the Continent, applying them with no apparent regard for macroeconomic conditions, as if the virtues of thrift and discipline constituted the mission of a resurgent Germany in Europe. Merkel is obsessed with demography and economic competitiveness.
She loves reading charts. In September, one of her senior aides showed me a stack of them that the Chancellor had just been examining; they showed the relative performance of different European economies across a variety of indicators. In unit-labor costs, he pointed out, Germany lies well below the euro-zone average. But the population of Germany—the largest of any nation in Europe—is stagnant and aging. Completely complacent. It makes Germans acutely uneasy that their country is too strong while Europe is too weak, but Merkel never discusses the problem.
Joschka Fischer—who has praised Merkel on other issues—criticizes this silence. The two world leaders with whom Merkel has her most important and complex relationships are Obama, who has won her reluctant respect, and Putin, who has earned her deep distrust.
When the Wall fell, Putin was a K. He used his fluent German and a pistol to keep a crowd of East Germans from storming the K. After decades of war, destruction, and occupation, German-Russian relations returned to the friendlier dynamic that had prevailed before the twentieth century. Two hundred thousand Russian citizens live in Germany, and Russia has extensive connections inside the German business community and in the Social Democratic Party.
But, as a former East German, Merkel has few illusions about Putin. Never trust this guy.
Detesting would be too much emotion. As the dog approached and sniffed her, Merkel froze, visibly frightened.
Russia has nothing, no successful politics or economy. All they have is this. In early , when President George W. She remained careful to balance European unity, the alliance with America, German business interests, and continued engagement with Russia. Kaiser Wilhelm I is supposed to have remarked that only Bismarck, who tied Germany to a set of countervailing alliances, could juggle four or five balls.
When, this past March, Russia annexed Crimea and incited a separatist war in eastern Ukraine, it fell to Merkel to succeed where earlier German leaders had catastrophically failed. The Russian aggression in Ukraine stunned the history-haunted, rule-upholding Germans. The moral that many Germans drew was to tread carefully—small fires could quickly turn into conflagrations. In early polls, a plurality of Germans wanted Merkel to take a middle position between the West and Russia. Petersburg, a month after Russia annexed Crimea.
Merkel, true to form, did nothing to try to close the divide. For most Germans, the crisis inspired a combination of indifference and anxiety.
Ukraine was talked about, if at all, as a far-off place, barely a part of Europe not as the victim of huge German crimes in the Second World War. Germans resented having their beautiful sleep disturbed. For this, they wish the U. If Russia wants Ukraine, which not so many people have sympathy with, let them have it. A sense of responsibility for the past demands that Germany do nothing in the present. Germans and Russians are bound together by such terrible memories that any suggestion of conflict leads straight to the unthinkable.
During the negotiations, he and his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Gubenko, shared their stories. Naumann, who was born in , lost his father a year later, at the Battle of Stalingrad. Gubenko was also born in , and his father was also killed in action. Merkel takes a characteristically unsentimental view of Russia. Publicly, she said little, waiting for Russian misbehavior to bring the German public around. She needed to keep her coalition in the Bundestag on board, including the more pro-Russian Social Democrats.
For sanctions to bite, Europe had to remain united. Merkel also needed to keep open her channel to Putin. Even after the E. Above all, she tries to understand how he thinks. Then I have to deal with those views, and this can also trigger something new.
When eight members of a European observer group, including four Germans, were taken hostage by pro-Russian separatists in April—practically a casus belli, had they been Americans—the German government simply asked Putin to work for their release. Merkel was playing the game that had been successful for her in German politics: waiting for her adversary to self-destruct. In May, after Ukrainian separatists organized a widely denounced referendum, the official Russian statement was more positive than the stance that Merkel believed she and Putin had agreed on in advance.
She cancelled their call for the following week—she had been misled, and wanted him to sense her anger. On June 6th, in Normandy, Merkel and Putin met for the first time since the crisis began, along with Obama, Hollande, Cameron, and Petro Poroshenko, the newly elected President of Ukraine, to commemorate the seventieth anniversary of D Day.
In the optics of power, she was winning. Later, before lunch, Merkel orchestrated a brief conversation between Putin and Poroshenko. That is very, very strange. The final ball Merkel has to keep in the air is the American one. Her opinion of Barack Obama has risen as his popularity has declined. In July, , as a Presidential candidate, Obama wanted to speak at the Brandenburg Gate, in Berlin—the historic heart of the city, a location reserved for heads of state and government, not U. Merkel rebuffed the request, so instead Obama spoke about European-American unity at the Victory Column, in the Tiergarten, before two hundred thousand delirious fans—a crowd Merkel could never have mustered, let alone mesmerized.
According to Stern , her favorite joke ends with Obama walking on water. As she got to know Obama better, though, she came to appreciate more the ways in which they were alike—analytical, cautious, dry-humored, remote. Obama is the antithesis of the swaggering leaders whom Merkel specializes in eating for breakfast. The sight of separatist fighters looting the belongings of dead passengers who had been shot out of the sky hit Germans more personally than months of ugly fighting among Ukrainians had. The idea of maintaining equidistance between Russia and the West on Ukraine vanished.