Category: Commentary

SPENGE — Donald Trump will take office as President of the United States on January 20th. Christian Hänel from Spenge, who has been the President and CEO of a foundation in Washington since 2023, discusses the mood in the United States and the reasons for Trump’s reelection.

Your office is located just ten minutes from the White House, where Donald Trump is now moving back in. As the President & CEO of the US partner organization of the German Humboldt Foundation, what are your impressions of the mood in the United States? In Germany, there was talk that Trump was elected primarily for economic reasons. Do you agree with this assessment?

Christian Hänel: The overall economic data for the United States is excellent. We have full employment, growth rates that Germany can only dream of—on paper, the economy is almost in perfect shape. The per capita income in the “poorest” state, Mississippi, is still higher than in Germany. But in Germany, unlike here, many expenses for people’s basic needs such as education, healthcare, and job protection, are covered by the state.

Pandemic-induced inflation hit the United States hard, and prices for many goods and services remain high, even though inflation has significantly decreased. When the cost of eggs, butter, and milk for a family’s breakfast is more than $20, many Americans indeed face challenges.

“Price pressure is pervasive”

My family and I belong to the relatively privileged group here in the United States. Nevertheless, price pressure is everywhere because prices here are incredibly high. A weekend trip to New York City, for example, costs more than a ten-day trip from Germany to Denmark—which is far from cheap by EU standards—when you account for tolls, parking, hotel rooms, various “service charges,” and meals.

The economic policies of the Biden administration have significantly improved the situation, not least by reducing inflation to “normal” levels. No country’s economy has come out of the pandemic as well as that of the United States. However, the full effects of these economic successes haven’t yet reached the average person.

In Germany, most people cannot understand how someone like Trump, who behaves as he does and is also a convicted criminal, could be elected. Why didn’t this deter Americans from voting for him?

Hänel: Many voted for Trump not despite but, rather, because of his missteps, his boundary-crossing behavior, and his brash outbursts. These people accept all of this as a necessary way to “stir up” the “system”—a “system” in which they feel left out, their interests sidelined. As for Trump’s legal troubles, with each new investigation, the stubborn loyalty of his supporters has further solidified.

Before the election, there was only one trial that ended with a conviction. Trump was found guilty of paying hush money to a former porn actress with whom he allegedly had a one-night stand. Even staunch Trump opponents considered this case irrelevant compared to the investigations regarding his role in the storming of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, or his phone call with Georgia’s Secretary of State, where he urged him to “find” 11,000 votes for him after the 2020 election to win the state and its electoral votes.

I am curious to see how future generations of historians will evaluate the fact that over the last four years, the American legal system failed to deliver a judgment on these apparent abuses of the law by Donald Trump. Because time ran out before more legal proceedings could be opened, the defeated one became the reelected one.

Donald Trump has assembled an arch-conservative government. Do you see this as a threat to democracy in the United States?

Hänel: The designated Trump government is certainly not “arch conservative.” I consider this label to be very misleading. Conservatism aims to preserve traditions, protect what works, and prevent too much change. Trump wants the opposite. Like in 2016, he ran once again as a “disruptor” and got reelected. Trump is putting together a team that is unconditionally loyal, with whom he wants to dismantle structures and turn processes upside down. He wants to be a radical “change agent.”

“Trump could be a danger to the rule of law”
Breaking outdated thinking and behaviors is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself. However, there is a real risk: how much damage will be done to democratic structures and the rule-of-law? More crucially, how resilient are the mechanisms of separation of powers and democratic control over political decision-makers? Established institutions will certainly be put under immense pressure and stress. And the aggressive rhetoric accompanying the change initiatives fuels intense fear, certainly among the millions who did not vote for Trump.

How do you think Trump’s election will affect US-Germany relations?

Hänel: First, we must not forget that even under a President Kamala Harris, the pressure on Germany to take on more foreign policy responsibility would have also increased. The demand from Trump’s first term that Germany should invest at least 2 percent of its budget in defense did not originate with him. This goal had been set at a NATO summit during the Obama administration. Now, the President-elect Trump is demanding 5 percent from NATO partners. This number was pulled out of thin air. The British Foreign Secretary has already pointed out that this would also require the United States to invest more in defense.

Trump (successfully) follows the same pattern: He wants to shock, create uncertainty, and shake up the “system,” and, in the resulting chaos, position himself as a “strong leader,” setting the agenda and “governing through.”

“Trump’s policy is isolationist”

It’s also clear that the guiding principle of the Trump administration is “America First.” It’s important to understand that this is primarily directed inward, not outward. Trump’s recent alarming remarks about “reclaiming” the Panama Canal, the “taking over” of Greenland, and “uniting” with Canada may contradict this, but they also fit perfectly into the pattern of stirring up chaos. “America First” means, above all, that everything that is produced in and by America should benefit America and Americans. It also has isolationist traits, and isolationism is not a new phenomenon in American history. The United States entered World War II long after Germany had invaded Poland, and only when America itself was attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor.

What concerns me is the question of whether and to what extent the United States will continue to take on geopolitical responsibility in the confrontation with autocratic regimes worldwide. Generations of left-wing anti-Americans in Germany have repeatedly demanded that the United States stop playing the role of the “world’s policeman.” Now, this sentiment is shared by the US president-elect.

The US partner organization of the Humboldt Foundation, which you lead, promotes international scientific exchange by granting fellowships to young and established researchers who come to Germany for their research. How do you think Trump’s election will affect this work?

Hänel: The general expectation is that there will be significant tension in the relationship between Germany and the United States over the next four years. For our organization, this also provides opportunities. Our job is to promote and shape exchange and cooperation across the Atlantic. If everything went smoothly, what would our relevance be as bridge-builders and mediators?

When Donald Trump was first elected President, I was still at the Robert Bosch Foundation. We had a scholarship program for young American leaders who spent a year in Germany. The number of applicants skyrocketed in 2017 but normalized in the following years. I wouldn’t be surprised if we see similar trends this time around. It will also be interesting to see how the numbers of US-bound international scholarship recipients shape up—and whether many of these individuals opt to apply to other countries instead.

Im NW-Interview analysiert der in Spenge aufgewachsene und in den USA wohnende Amerika-Kenner Christian Hänel die Situation im Land kurz vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen.

Wie nimmst du aktuell die Stimmung im Land vor der Wahl wahr? Wie gespalten sind derzeit die USA?

Die USA sind nicht so tief “gespalten”, wie das allenthalben medial vermittelt wird. Ich komme durch meinen Job viel herum im Land. Bin zwischen den Küsten unterwegs, im Süden, im Mittleren Westen, auch abseits der Metropolen. Wirklich überall begegne ich typisch amerikanischer Gastfreundlichkeit und Hilfsbereitschaft. Nachbarn unterstützen sich gegenseitig, engagieren sich als Freiwillige in der Organisation ihrer communities, sind in Schulen, Kirchen, Sportvereinen etc. aktiv. Und das unabhängig von politischen Ansichten, Geschlecht, Alter, Hautfarbe oder Einkommen. Das ist die Realität, die echte Realität.

Die virtuelle Realität sieht hingegen ganz anders aus. Sogenannte Soziale Medien mit ihren Algorithmen, die absurde Verschwörungstheorien befördern, säen Misstrauen und Hass. Genau diese negativen Emotionen adressieren extreme Politikerinnen und Politiker, verstärken sie, schüren Ängste bis hin zum Verfolgungswahn (“Die anderen wollen Euch die Freiheit nehmen, Euren Wohlstand, Eure Waffen!”). In Zeiten von umfassender Digitalisierung und atemberaubenden Fortschritten im Bereich der Künstlichen Intelligenz wird die Deutungshoheit der virtuellen Realität in der politischen Öffentlichkeit zunehmend größer.         

Die “klassischen Medien” könnten hier viel besser gegenwirken. Ein Beispiel: Die berühmte “Electoral Map” der USA, auf der die Bundesstaaten rot oder blau eingefärbt sind, je nachdem, ob hier die Republikaner oder die Demokraten die Mehrheit haben. Ich bin es ehrlich gesagt leid, dass wir hier alle täglich darauf starren—in Print, im TV, online. Denn diese Karte ist völlig irreführend. Der dünnbesiedelte Flächenstaat Montana beispielsweise (mit republikanischer Mehrheit) ist auf dieser Karte ein riesiges rotes Gebiet, das im Vergleich kleine Rhode Island dagegen (wo die Demokraten die Mehrheit haben) dagegen ein winziger blauer Fleck. Dabei leben in beiden Staaten fast exakt genau so viele (bzw. wenige) Menschen. Die Optik der Electoral Map erzählt aber eine ganz andere Geschichte.

Es ist die Rhetorik von den “red states” und den “blue states”, die eine Spaltung suggeriert, die so gar nicht besteht. Wir sollten eher von “purple states” sprechen, also “violetten” Staaten. Denn alle Bundesstaaten sind eine Mischung aus rot (Republikaner) und blau (Demokraten), und manchmal ist das daraus entstehende Violett eben rötlicher und manchmal bläulicher. Je nachdem, welche politische Farbe in der Mehrheit ist. Schauen wir uns die beiden größten Bundesstaaten an: Kalifornien und Texas. Auf der Electoral Map wirkt das rote Texas wie ein riesiges Bollwerk der Republikaner und das blaue Kalifornieren wie ein Imperium der Demokraten. Wenn man sich aber die Mühe macht, die tatsächlichen Wahlergebnisse anzuschauen, bietet sich ein ganz anderes Bild. 2020 haben in Texas 52,1% Donald Trump gewählt. Sehr, sehr viele Texanerinnen und Texaner, nämlich 46,5%, stimmten aber für Joe Biden. Und in Kalifornien, dem bevölkerungsreichsten Bundesstaat, der medial stets als “tiefblau” präsentiert wird, stimmten über 6 Millionen Wählerinnen und Wähler für Donald Trump.

Aufgrund des “winner takes all”-Prinzips in fast allen Bundesstaaten gehen alle electoral votes (Wahlmännerstimmen) eines Bundesstaates an den Kandidaten oder die Kandidatin, der/die mindestens eine Stimme Mehrheit hat. Und das unabhängig davon, wieviele Menschen in dem Staat leben (Ausnahmen sind hier lediglich Nebraska und Maine). Dieser Mechanismus wird dem Prinzip der repräsentativen Demokratie nur unzulänglich gerecht. Vor über zwei Jahrhunderten wurde dieses System eingeführt. Es ist nicht mehr zeitgemäß. Denn es führt dazu, dass zuweilen Kandidaten die Wahl gewinnen, die insgesamt, also USA-weit, weniger Stimmen geholt haben als ihr Gegenkandidat bzw. ihre Gegenkandidatin.

Kamala Harris hatte einen guten Start, schien zuletzt aber zu stagnieren. Hat sie Fehler gemacht? Wenn ja, welche?

Kamala Harris hat es seit Ende Juli auf beeindruckende Art und Weise geschafft, einem Rennen wieder Leben einzuhauchen, das schon gelaufen schien. Sie hat die Basis der demokratischen Partei (re-) mobilisiert und neue Rekorde in der Spendeneinwerbung aufgestellt. Ihre offizielle Nominierung auf der Democratic Convention im August in Chicago war ein perfekt inszeniertes Spektakel der positiven Botschaften, coolen Acts und mitreißenden Atmosphäre. Diese Wiederbelebung der Basis war für die Partei dringend notwendig. Denn es sind auch und vor allem die vielen, vielen freiwilligen Helferinnen und Helfer, die im amerikanischen Wahlkampf mitentscheidend sind. Im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes ziehen sie von Haus zu Haus und kämpfen um jede einzelne Stimme.

Im September folgte das einzige TV-Duell zwischen Harris und Trump. Ein glasklarer Sieg für Harris. Ihr ansonsten sehr TV-affiner Gegenkandidat ging der direkten Konfrontation seitdem konsequent aus dem Weg und lehnte das Angebot eines weiteren TV-Duells ab.

Im Oktober begeisterte Harris ausgesprochen große Menschenmengen auf zahlreichen festivalartigen Wahlkampfveranstaltungen. Gemeinsam mit prominenten Unterstützerinnen und Unterstützern wie Barack und Michelle Obama, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Willie Nelson, Oprah Winfrey etc. tourte sie durch das Land. Talor Swift schickte ihren Millionen Followerinnen und Followern eine leidenschaftliche Wahlempfehlung für Harris. Vor ein paar Tagen sprach Kamala Harris hier bei uns in Washington, DC vor über 70.000 begeisterten Menschen, auf der sogenannten Ellipse, zwischen Weißem Haus und Washington Monument. Das ist der Ort, an dem Donald Trump am 6. Januar 2021 seine Rede hielt, in der er seine Anhängerinnen und Anhänger aufforderte, zum Capitol zu marschieren.

Kamala Harris hat das Rennen um die Präsidentschaft wiederbelebt. Sie hat in kürzester Zeit die Menschen und die finanziellen Mittel mobilisiert, die es für die Demokraten brauchte, um wieder wettbewerbsfähig zu sein. Eine Stagnation oder bedeutende Fehler kann ich mit Blick auf die vergangenen drei Monate nicht erkennen.

Eine Frage, die viele Deutsche umtreibt: Wie ist es zu erklären, dass trotz seiner ganzen Fehltritte und Skandale (Verurteilung, rassistische Ausfälle, etc.)  viele US-Wähler Trump noch immer zum Präsidenten wählen würden? 

Der harte Kern der Trump-Anhängerschaft steht nicht trotz, sonden wegen seiner Fehltritte und Skandale zu ihm. Das ist wie ein Personenkult. Diese Wählerinnen und Wähler sehen in Trump den einzigen Vertreter ihrer Interessen, den einzigen Beschützer ihres “wahren” Amerikas (das vor allem “christlich”, weiß, und nationalistisch zu sein hat). Rassismus, Xenophobie und politische Gewalt werden in diesem harten Kern als Mittel zum Zweck toleriert.

Die Stimmen des harten Kerns allein würden nicht ausreichen, um die Wahl zu gewinnen. Es kommen Wählerinnen und Wähler hinzu, die die Ausfälle und Skandale Trumps nicht gutheißen—und dennoch für ihn stimmen. Diese Gruppe ist nicht klein und  durchaus heterogen. Statistisch sind diese Menschen vor allem im ländlichen Raum in der Mehrheit, aber sie leben selbstverständlich auch in den Metropolen, auch wenn es dort mehr Wählerinnen und Wähler der Demokraten gibt. Trump-Wählerinnen und -Wähler sind auch Kolleg/innen, Kommiliton/innnen, Mitarbeiter/innen, Verwandte, Vorgesetzte. Durchaus repräsentiv für verschiedene Bildungs-, Berufs- und Einkommensgruppen. Warum sie Trump wählen? Weil aus ihrer Sicht alles und jeder besser ist als etwas, das sie für “radikal links” halten. Und dieses alles und jeder ist—Trump.

Trump-Wählerinnen und Wähler empfinden es als Bedrohung von einer „radikalen Linken“, was von politisch “progressiven” Demokratinnen und Demokraten als notwendig und positiv betrachtet wird (z.B. humanitäre Hilfe für Flüchtlinge, Unterstützung von Einwanderung, rückwirkender Erlass von hohen Studiengebühren für Universitätsabsolventinnen und -absolventen aus Steuermitteln etc.). Sie empfinden es als eine Bedrohung ihrer Werte, ihres Wohlstands, ihres eigenen Lebensmodells. Und genau hier wirkt auch wieder das Gift der Sozialen Medien. In extrem rechten Meinungsblasen werden absurdeste Verschwörungstheorien salonfähig gemacht. So kam es dazu, dass ein einzelner, haarsträubender Social Media Post von hundeessenden Einwanderern in Springfield, Ohio, einen Weg ging, der bis vor ein Fernsehpublikum von über 67 Millionen Amerikanerinnen und Amerikanern führte, als sich Donald Trump im TV-Duell mit Kamala Harris darüber echauffierte, dass Migranten amerikanische Haustiere verspeisen würden.

Die Ausfälle und die gefährlichen Absurditäten der politischen Rechten (soweit rechts-links-Schemata im heutigen politischen Diskurs überhaupt noch passen) sind hinlänglich bekannt und diskutiert. Was vielleicht auch diskutiert werden sollte, sind die Fragwürdigkeiten auf der anderen Seite des politschen Spektrums. Für den nach eigener Einschätzung besonders  progressiven Teil der demokratischen Partei ist es beispielsweise gesellschaftlicher Fortschritt, wenn das Konzept von nicht mehr als zwei biologischen Geschlechtern ad acta gelegt wird und wenn das Wort “Mutter” durch “gebärende Person” ersetzt wird. Dies wirkt verunsichernd auf viele Menschen. Linke Meinungsblasen in den Sozialen Medien brandmarken diese Menschen als fortschrittsfeindlich und reaktionär. Und für diese Menschen ist damit im Zweiparteiensystem der USA Trump die einzige Alternative. Gegen den Zeitgeist, der im “alten weißen Mann” den Universalschuldigen für alle Übel sieht, wählen sie bewusst eben diesen.

Was würde es für Deutschland bedeuten, wenn Trump gewinnt? Was, wenn Harris gewinnt? Kann Deutschland wirtschaftlich und politisch weiter auf die USA als Partner setzen?

Egal, wer die Wahl gewinnt: Deutschland wird mehr außenpolitische Verantwortung übernehmen und seine eigenen Ziele klar formulieren und verfolgen müssen. Ob Harris oder Trump siegt, beide werden weiterhin substantielle Verteidigungsausgaben von Deutschland einfordern. Beruhigend ist sicherlich, dass der U.S. Congress im letzten Jahr relativ geräuschlos eine Gesetzesänderung verabschiedet hat, die einen Austritt der USA aus der NATO allein auf Geheiß des Präsidenten nicht mehr erlaubt.

Wirtschaftspolitisch werden sowohl Harris als auch Trump vor allem nationale Interessen in den Vordergrund stellen (so wie das auch schon Präsident Biden mit “Build America, Buy America” gemacht hat). Und die Exportnation Deutschland wird mit Blick auf ihre Beziehungen zu China unter Umständen zu schmerzhaften Entscheidungen gezwungen sein, egal wer die Präsidentschaftswahl gewinnt. Denn die US-amerikanische Chinastrategie ist unter Demokraten wie Republikanern deutlich robuster als die deutsche, im Austarieren zwischen Partnerschaft, Wettbewerb und Rivalität.

Aber machen wir uns nichts vor: Ob Harris oder Trump am Ende vorne liegt, das wird sehr unterschiedliche und sehr spürbare Auswirkungen auf das deutsch-amerikanische Verhältnis haben. Die Botschaft von Harris ist Zukunftshoffnung und Weltzugewandheit. Trumps Botschaft ist und bleibt America First. Harris steht für Pluralismus und Debatte. Trump steht für ein nationalistisches Amerika, in dem er als unantastbarer Anführer durchregiert. Harris und Trump verkörpern vollkommen gegensätzliche Visionen, Kommunikations- und Politikstile. Und diese werden das transatlantische Verhältnis in den kommenden vier Jahren ganz unterschiedlich prägen, je nachdem, wer gewinnt.

Was erwartest du, wenn Trump verlieren sollte? Wird es wieder Betrugsvorwürfe geben? Wie werden seine Anhänger reagieren?

Ein weiterer Aspekt des amerikanischen Wahlsystems, der nicht mehr zeitgemäß erscheint, ist die sehr lange Zeit des Prozesses: Vom Tag der Wahl des/der Präsidenten/in  am 5. November bis zur Amtseinführung am 20. Januar vergehen 11 (!) Wochen. In dieser Periode der “Transition” finden allerhand Ereignisse statt. Ereignisse, die bis zur letzten Präsidentschaftswahl lediglich zeremoniellen Charakter hatten—und so gut wie keinerlei mediale Berichterstattung fanden. Da kommen z.B. die Electors in den Bundesstaaten zur Stimmabgabe gemäß der Ergebnisse vom Wahltag zusammen, es zertifizieren die jeweiligen Gouverneure die Wahlergebnisse und schicken diese nach Washington, und schließlich bestätigt der Kongress in der Hauptstadt das Resultat. Seit den Wahlen 2020 ist klar: All diese eigentlich rituellen Wegmarken bieten Einfallstore für Anfechtung und Manipulation des Wahlergebnisses.

Sollte Trump verlieren, ist damit zu rechnen, dass er das Ergebnis nicht akzeptiert. Er hat ja auch bis heute nicht das Wahlergebnis von 2020 akzeptiert. Der harte Kern seiner Anhängerschaft wird ihm treu bleiben.

Christian Hänel ist seit Januar 2023 Geschäftsführer (President & CEO) der “American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation” (AFAvH) in Washington, DC, der gemeinnützigen amerikanischen Partnerorganisation der Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. Diese fördert Kooperationen zwischen internationalen und deutschen Forscherinnen und Forschern und unterstützt die sich daraus ergebenden wissenschaftlichen und kulturellen Verbindungen. Die wichtigste Ressource der AFAvH sind die Alumni, die ehemaligen Stipendiatinnen und Stipendiaten der Stiftung. Diese arbeiten als wichtige Vordenkerinnen und Vordenker weltweit  vernetzt an den relevanten Themen unserer Zeit, wie z.B. Erderwärmung, Energiesicherheit, öffentliche Gesundheit, technologischer Wandel, Künstliche Intelligenz. Weltweit gibt es über 30.000 Alumni, darunter 61 Nobelpreisträger und zwei ehemalige US-Energieminister. Etwa 6.000 Alumni leben und arbeiten in den USA.

Vor seiner Tätigkeit in Washington hat Hänel viele Jahre an der Schnittstelle von Corporate Citizenship (unternehmerischer Verantwortung) und Philanthropie gearbeitet und in der unternehmensverbundenen Robert Bosch Stiftung in Stuttgart vor allem die internationalen Strategien und Programme der Stiftung, sowie die Themen Zukunftsfragen und Stiftungsentwicklung verantwortet.

Der 51-Jährige ist in Bielefeld geboren, in Spenge aufgewachsen und lebt mit seiner Frau und den zwei Töchtern in der Nähe von Washington, DC. Er studierte Geschichte und Wirtschaftswissenschaften an der Universität Bielefeld und an der Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD.

This perspective was originally published in Science & Diplomacy, available here.

New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy was written during a “golden age” of science diplomacy that lasted almost four decades following the US-China Science and Technology Agreement in 1979. That era has ended abruptly, and we are now witnessing dramatic changes in geopolitics combined with disruptions from the pandemic, rapid technological change, economic competition with tariffs and sanctions, climate change, uncontrolled migration, political polarization, and wars. For science diplomacy practitioners in the United States to contribute to overcoming these enormous challenges will require persistent effort, new strategies, and clear priorities.

My priorities for science diplomacy focus on advancing the US national interest, but many also serve the global interest and the worldwide advancement of science and technology (S&T). In attending to these priorities, American governmental and non-governmental organizations can play a critical role in restoring public trust in S&T as enablers of peace, prosperity, and security.

Advise on nuclear weapons arms control

Nuclear weapons are an existential threat for humanity and the planet. This new era with nuclear saber rattling and rejection of arms control treaties is as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It is highly likely that nuclear weapon states, including the United States, will modernize and strengthen their nuclear arsenals and other advanced weapons to deter nuclear attack given new alliances of hostile nuclear states, the aggressive behavior of autocratic leaders, and the growth in the number of countries seeking nuclear weapons. Non-governmental security dialogues between American scientific experts and those in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea should be encouraged. They can help inform diplomatic negotiations as has occurred in the past.

Accelerate international scientific collaboration in fundamental research and attract STEM talent from around the world

If the United States is to remain the world leader in science, technology, and innovation, it must robustly fund its own research enterprise, collaborate internationally in fundamental scientific research, and attract smart, creative people for education, research, and innovation in the US. These attributes can be sustained with policies that set the right balance between openness and security in research.

Increase collaboration with allied nations on emerging technology

One benefit of this new era is greater political support among allied democracies for increased funding of collaboration and joint research in scientific fields relevant for emerging technologies. Specific areas for emphasis include AI for advancing fundamental science, joint research and development on critical technologies, science and security dialogues, and “tech-diplomacy.” While there are limits to cooperation even among allies due to economic competition and domestic political concerns, the emphasis on moving faster together to enhance collective security and diplomacy is a powerful stimulus for democratic governments.

Increase foresight analysis and dialogue

Discussions with many nations on the implications of rapid scientific and technological developments is vital to help realize potential benefits as well as to help mitigate potential threats coming from their applications, including misinformation, disruption, and warfare. Scientific communities can collaborate bilaterally and multilaterally on foresight analysis to better understand potential threats and benefits of advanced technologies. These collaborations can augment similar work carried out by government intelligence, security, and research funding agencies. While scientists cannot predict the future, the top experts in a field have a head start on envisioning what the future might bring.

Expand engagement with states in competition and conflict with the United States

It is necessary to engage scientific leaders in nations viewed as being in competition or conflict with the United States to advance areas of mutual benefit and to serve as important channels of communication. Maintaining ongoing dialogue between scientific leaders in the United States and China is especially important. Bilateral engagements by scientific, engineering, and medical academies and professional societies are now occurring. They address global challenges as well as the latest advances in scientific knowledge. Programs that enable future scientific leaders to interact are equally valuable.

Lead on science and technology for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The United States should increase support for national and international action plans and roadmaps to use science, technology, and innovation to accelerate progress on all seventeen of the SDGs. Special attention should be given to those that have the greatest potential in the near-term to mitigate existential threats and reduce human suffering.  These include climate action, affordable clean energy, pandemic preparedness, and peace negotiations to aid civilians affected by conflicts and natural disasters. The national STI for SDGs roadmaps proposed by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) and under development by six pilot countries illustrate how roadmaps can stimulate action to realize aspirational goals. Other governmental and non-governmental organizations can use roadmaps to help develop consensus and make progress through concrete actions.

Increase support for emerging countries

US diplomacy would significantly benefit with more government funding to help emerging countries strengthen their national ecosystems for science, technology, innovation, science policy, science advising, and science diplomacy. Work carried out by international non-governmental organizations, like the International Network for Governmental Science Advice, the InterAcademy Partnership, and the International Science Council, as well as by some national governments, scientific institutions, and philanthropies, are making real contributions. The United States’ non-governmental scientific organizations are eager to do more. They are contributing as much as they can using mostly their own funds and fund-raising, as is the case with assisting Ukraine. More US government funding to support the US scientific community to strengthen science-policy-society interfaces around the world could help restore the reputation of US science diplomacy to the prominent level it achieved during the golden era.

Protect the global commons

Increasing global dialogues on the peaceful uses and management of increasingly contested international commons, including the atmosphere, outer space, polar regions, and oceans, are key areas for science diplomacy in the new era. More engagement of foreign ministries with scientific experts is necessary to build consensus on how to manage these areas for the benefit of all.

Empower diverse actors

The United States should encourage its scientific and engineering societies, non-governmental organizations, universities, civil society groups, subnational governments, and private companies to develop their own roadmaps and partnerships using science diplomacy to help advance their goals. International partnerships and roadmaps are an effective approach to stimulate public and private institutions to learn from similar institutions in other countries and to take actions together.

Epilogue

An important task for the future is how to empower the next generation of scientists and science diplomats with the tools of science diplomacy to help overcome the challenges of this new era. Increasing the collaboration of science communities with government actors and the number of scientifically trained people working in government is critical.

To learn more about my work, click here.

Humboldtians and the Changing Arctic

Betsy Baker (BUKA 1991)

Humboldtians work across diverse disciplines and geographies on cutting edge scientific and policy matters. Combining these varied approaches is precisely what will help expand our understanding of the multiple changes facing the Arctic in 2024 and beyond. Arctic amplification, which tops the list of those changes, refers to the Arctic warming three to four times faster than the rest of the world in recent decades. Arctic or polar amplification is a “robust fact” supported by observed measurements, climate models, and paleoclimate proxy records.

This essay aspires simply to 1) introduce a small number of issues associated with Arctic change and 2) prompt you to consider and share whether and how your work relates to it. Input from beyond the circle of Arctic science is especially welcome, as the field would benefit from viewing these challenges from a fresh perspective.

The cascading changes associated with Arctic warming have serious consequences for the world’s oceans, atmosphere, and ecosystems: from slowing ocean circulation and thawing permafrost to changed hydrology, terrestrial landscapes, and species habitats, to precarious energy and food security and increased access to an ice-diminished Arctic and its resources. The implications of these changes are not only scientific but cultural, socioeconomic, and geopolitical.

Over decades as a professor of international ocean and environmental law, I have been fortunate to work closely with natural and social scientists from around the world in seeking solutions to environmental and cultural challenges arising from Arctic change. On any given day, my inbox here in Alaska includes reports and inquiries ranging from indigenous knowledge and ecosystem expertise, to how changes in lipid content up and down the marine food web affect fish and marine mammal abundance, movement, and vitality, to diplomatic discussions on maritime boundaries in the Arctic, to the reduction of sulfur content in shipping fuel for improved air quality in coastal Arctic villages that abut increasingly busy shipping lanes. We worry about the breakdown in pan-Arctic scientific collaboration with—and the safety of—our Russian colleagues since Russia’s unprovoked further invasion of Ukraine, and the growing data gaps resulting from the inability to work across terrestrial borders and maritime boundaries in the Arctic. These are just a few of the many interconnected issues my colleagues and I work on.

In the dozen years that my own work has focused on the Arctic, the biggest and most promising change in the broader research community relates to Indigenous Knowledge. What began as a gradual shift from outright skepticism in the Western scientific community a decade ago is now widespread acknowledgment that Indigenous Knowledge provides essential insights and expertise for addressing Arctic issues. Indigenous colleagues and organizations have led the way with persistent advocacy and relationship building, consistently participating in scientific meetings and using platforms such as the Arctic Council, where they have formal participation rights, to demonstrate how critical their input is to informed Arctic policy. Today, most pan-Arctic research organizations and many governmental bodies have official policies to promote co-produced research that draws on Indigenous and other knowledge. A concrete and legally binding example from international law is the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement. Groundbreaking in many other ways, it also includes Indigenous Knowledge holders in the body charged with developing the scientific program for the parties to the agreement.

To assist in preparing this essay, American Friends of AvH helped me identify fellow US-based Humboldtians who work on Arctic issues, including Dr. Julie Brigham-Grette, a distinguished arctic marine and terrestrial paleoclimatologist—and skilled climate communicator—who chaired the US National Academies Polar Research Board for many years. Piper Foster Wilder, a sister German Chancellor Fellowship alumna, is founder and CEO of 60Hertz, whose software streamlines the maintenance of energy assets, especially for the microgrids that are essential in a state like Alaska that has no centralized power grid, let alone roads to connect most of our villages. Several other Humboldtians working on issues relevant to, even if not directly based in the Arctic, are associated with one of the world’s premier polar research institutes known as AWI: the Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung in Potsdam, Germany. AWI’s now aging research icebreaker, the R/V Polarstern was the backbone of MOSAiC, a historic multi-year research program in the Arctic Ocean that for the first time gathered ship-borne observations year-round, even in the relentlessly dark polar winter.  The work of Humboldtian Dr. Alexandra Jahn, who directs the Polar and Paleoclimate modeling group at the University of Colorado, and participates in the multinational ship based Synoptic Arctic Survey, returns us to the starting point of this essay: both modeling and paleoclimatology confirm the existence of Arctic amplification.

If this short excursion through a sampling of challenges arising from Arctic change taps into your interests, or omits you or other Humboldtians in the field, please contact me to consider how we might amplify our knowledge in service of addressing those challenges.

Alexander von Humboldt was a German naturalist and explorer whose primary focus was on scientific exploration and research.

Alexander von Humboldt was also a science diplomat whose work had significant international implications. He fostered international cooperation through collaborations with scientists and scholars in the countries he visited and established political connections and exchanged knowledge across borders. Humboldt’s insights profoundly influenced political decisions related to trade, agriculture, and environmental conservation and his work embodies current definitions of science diplomacy, such as that of Nina V. Federoff, former Science and Technology Advisor to the US Secretary of State:

Science diplomacy is the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address the common problems facing […] humanity and to build constructive international partnerships.

Today, science diplomacy is more important than ever. Our societies face challenges that affect everyone on the planet—global warming, public health, and international security, to name just a few. At the same time, rhetoric—and policies—on de-globalization, re-nationalization, and de-coupling have entered the political and societal mainstreams. Such “de-s” and “re-s” are poison for scientific progress. After all, climate change does not stop at the border between a democracy and an autocracy, and viruses do not care about the political views of their hosts. If we want to tackle global challenges, we cannot afford to think and act in regional spheres.

Our world needs leaders who drive scientific exchange and research collaboration across borders, and across sectors, be they in academia, the private sector or non-profit sphere, or the public or philanthropic sectors. We need science diplomats, and we have many in our global network—30,000 Humboldtians. When it comes to science diplomacy, Humboldtians have been there, done that. In addition to being experts in their relevant fields, they all are experienced practitioners of international exchange and collaboration.

The mission of American Friends of AvH is to cultivate the network within the network, that is, the community of US-based Humboldtians. We aim to engage these almost 6,000 brilliant minds and influential voices as much as possible. The list of our activities since the beginning of this year keeps growing. We have engaged on topics such as AI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the future of US-Chinese science and research exchange, cancer research, and so on. Our approach is always transatlantic, our perspective is always global.

We are also building strategic partnerships with other like-minded organizations to further elevate our brand recognition and impact on both sides of the Atlantic. Since I began outreach efforts around the United States, we have received substantial interest from potential partners. This is largely due to the fact that we bring a great asset to any partnership—our network of almost 6,000 Humboldtians. This is a network that extends across the United States–beyond the beltway, between the coasts, from the North to the South.

American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation aspires to be a driving force in international science and research exchange and collaboration. To achieve this, we rely on our Humboldtians as experts, speakers, co-developers, advisors, and partners—and as science diplomats.

Please get in touch if you would like to work with us in tackling the most urgent global challenges of today. We look forward to sharing more about our upcoming programs and initiatives. Exciting things are on the horizon, such as programs on sustainable AI, neuroscience and robotics, historical memory in international relations, fake news and deteriorating trust in science, and more. Next spring, we plan to co-shape the Johns Hopkins University Science Diplomacy Summit 2024 in Washington, DC. We invite you to collaborate with us on that, and on all our other programs. Because the time for science diplomacy is now. And this is the time for US Humboldtians to shine.

My name is Sandra Rebok. I am a historian and began my career with my research on Alexander von Humboldt almost 30 years ago. My long experience in Humboldtian scholarship started as a student in Paris; from there I followed Humboldt’s path to Madrid, while drawing my attention to his ties to Spain. This research then took me to many of the places Humboldt himself visited on his American expedition (1799-1804), from the Canary Islands to Washington and Philadelphia, where he ended his five-year expedition, and where the focus of my work now turned to his connection to the young republic of the United States, and its third President, Thomas Jefferson, in particular. During all these years I have been fascinated by Humboldt’s thoughtful, balanced, and knowledgeable analysis of the different worlds he experienced, even if this included a critical eye, based on both his own observations and the readings of the work of others. It is his ability to describe the causes and consequences of the situations he observed in a rather scientific manner, beyond dogmata or the ideological currents of his time, and to foresee future developments, along with recommendations know how to promote or else mitigate them. Currently, I continue my research in California—the place where Humboldt never actually happened to set foot on, although he expressed this desire to do so from the very beginning of his expedition.

Today, however, our approaches to Humboldt do not seem to always follow his own example—they sometimes relate more to what we want to see in the famous Prussian. A rather delicate topic where this can be observed is Humboldt’s nearness to political circles, which has indeed led to an array of criticism and misinterpretations: while some saw him as ideological leader of the independence movement in Spanish America, others took him as being yet another colonial explorer; while some interpretations saw in him an agent for the Spanish Crown, others criticize him for acting as a spy for Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet. If we like to better understand the ways he navigated through the rough seas of diplomacy and strategy though, it might be helpful to look at it through the lenses of science diplomacy, a concept that recently is getting much attention: Humboldt knew that he needed to go beyond discussions within scholarly circles, if he sought to turn his science into applicable knowledge and connect with the needs of society. To this aim he had to reach out to the political power and further scientific and technological progress through a skillful connection of both worlds. And vice versa, Humboldt needed to be willing to advance diplomatic objectives through the universal world of science. In doing so he served as a science adviser for foreign policy objectives to the Prussian crown, he actively established contact with politicians to facilitate international scientific cooperation and create large-scale science projects. In other words, Humboldt was in a position to passionately make things happen, by connecting people, ideas, and nations.

With his outstanding social skills, Humboldt was indeed the ideal science diplomat: he was frequently described as extremely charismatic, a blessed character with great charm. He tended to be at the center of all social gatherings he attended, where he entertained other guests with his wealth of knowledge and his farsighted analysis. This is where he was at his best: as a catalyst for developments, as a source of inspiration or model to follow for others, and in a position that connected the concerns of different worlds. This is a point where he can serve as a source of inspiration for us today.

On January 1, 2016, something extraordinary happened: the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) came into force. The whole world had agreed on seventeen goals for all–ranging from No Poverty and Climate Action to Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Some found these goals too ambitious; for others, the goals were not ambitious enough. However, the whole world committed to them and that in itself was remarkable.

The United Nations also agreed on 2030 as the deadline for achieving all seventeen goals. Now in spring 2023, we find ourselves in the second half of the SDG challenge and it does not look like we are winning. No country is on track to achieve the ambitious goals set in 2016. A global pandemic and rising geopolitical tensions have blocked progress, re-set political priorities, and messed up the game plan—if there ever was one.

Have we failed to rise to the challenge? It’s too early to tell. We still have almost seven years left to turn things around. Key indicators across the board (carbon emissions, income gaps, new military conflicts, among others) show that we are lagging behind our ambitions. If this were a game of American football, we would be behind by more than just a field goal. We need to pick up the pace and adjust our strategy.

Every organization buying into the SDGs has to take stock and review: Where are we only “talking the talk?” And where do we need to do more of “walking the walk?” This is also true for American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. As an organization, we are trying to follow in the footsteps of Alexander von Humboldt—and those are enormous shoes to fill. Indeed, Humboldt would have had the perfect mindset for achieving a comprehensive and varied set of goals like the SDGs. He did not believe in borders—neither between disciplines, nor between cultures. He recognized and uncovered the complex interdependencies of the world and drew pragmatic conclusions. Such a cross-disciplinary and holistic mindset would be very helpful in tackling the SDGs and operationalizing them in the form of impactful actions.

To stay with the SDG game metaphor, American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is a tiny player on a huge global field. We are a small organization but what we do have is a large network of almost 6,000 American Humboldtians. These Humboldtians are alumni of the foundation’s various fellowship programs that have been in place since 1953. They comprise almost 6,000 brilliant minds and influential voices in their respective fields—from science and public policy to the social sciences and humanities—with the additional benefit of an international mindset. Together with our Humboldtians, American Friends of AvH aims to create tangible impact when it comes to tackling the pressing issues our world is facing. Together with the members of the US Humboldt alumni network, we want to contribute as much as we possibly can to achieving the SDGs.

Early into the second half of the SDG challenge, we need to review and adjust our strategy and not remain confined in our cozy science bubble. We have to reach out—across sectors, and across cultural, political, and societal boundaries—just like Alexander von Humboldt did two hundred years ago.

Our main asset is our network of Humboldtians and our expertise is platform building. We know how to connect organizations and people to work toward common goals. Now we wish to create new platforms with new partners. Our deepest connections traditionally have been with the science community and the next logical step is to partner with actors in other sectors as well, such as philanthropies and private-sector companies. Such partnerships will allow us to pool resources and increase impact in the spirit of SDG #17: Partnerships for the Goals. To start, we need to identify the things we have in common with foundations and businesses, and there is likely to be plenty of common ground. One important effect of the SDGs is their unifying effect on different players. After all, the goal of making the world a better place transcends sectors and industries.

Reaching out across sectors is the right approach for generating sustainable impact. For American Friends of AvH, as a platform-builder with an excellent network, it has the potential to create new and exciting platforms and synergies. Current economic and societal trends are working in our favor. Sustainability (either as defined in the SDGs or with ESG criteria) is playing an ever more important role for companies—global corporations and SMEs alike. Investors and consumers increasingly make their decisions dependent on how a company is not only “talking the talk,” but also “walking the walk” on sustainability. Good corporate citizenship is key to good business, and corporate citizenship needs platforms that showcase concrete, authentic, and impactful sustainability efforts. American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation stands ready to both provide and co-develop these platforms together with our partners. These can take the shape of dialogues, exchange initiatives, workshops, studies, and public outreach events. American Friends of AvH has the experience, the creativity, and the network to make it happen.

We invite everyone who shares our vision to pool resources with us and co-create impactful platforms and initiatives for solving issues ranging from affordable and clean energy and gender equality to quality education. Let’s join forces and double down on our efforts to make the second half of the SDG challenge a success and, by extension, make the world a better place.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz had been in office just short of three months when he called for a fundamental shift in German foreign and security policy, a change that would move Germany away from its post-World War II pacifistic leanings. This Zeitenwende* was prompted by the Russian invasion of Ukraine, with Germany adopting a more realistic approach to the Russian threat, reinforcing its allied institutions and relationships, and reconstructing the Bundeswehr to meet the new threats to the democratic order in Ukraine and Europe.

The ramifications of the Zeitenwende are substantial and move Germany away from the “structural pacifism” that had been a key component of German political culture—in its approach to military decisions, political positions, and budget/economic allocation across traditional parties. Pacifism permeated German society until the pivotal 1994 major decision by the Karlsruhe Constitutional Court to lift the German interpretation on the use the armed forces beyond NATO boundaries. The first conflict outside of NATO Europe that Germany participated in was when Tornados flew in support of Kosovo independence. The Green Party, in particular Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, made this possible by declaring that a lesson from World War II is not “Nie wieder Krieg” but “Nie wieder Auschwitz.” [Not “never again war,” but “never again Auschwitz.”] In 2003 Germany stepped outside European territorial borders for the first time and joined the international coalition in Afghanistan in the War on Terror against the al-Qaeda terrorists who had attacked the World Trade Center, Pentagon, and caused a third plane to crash in Pennsylvania. With annual Parliamentary approval, the German Bundeswehr remained in Afghanistan throughout the conflict and until 2015 when coalition forces assumed an advisory role. Those forces remained even as many others departed until the mass evacuation of all remaining forces began in August 2021.

This is not to ignore earlier shifts at official levels. For example, the Russian annexation of Crimea in 2014 signaled a turn in official attitudes toward Putin. German President Joachim Gauck and Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen gave speeches at the Munich Security Conference calling for Germany to assume greater responsibility internationally. Foreign Minister Frank Walter Steinmeier reached out domestically using the web to reach the younger generations and broad public. Although Chancellor Merkel did not publicly echo their remarks, the general tenor of official sentiment had begun to shift, albeit often unexpectedly. While participating in Afghanistan, Germany did not participate with the US force in Iraq in 2003 or in NATO’s operation in Libya 2011.

The Zeitenwende represents a number of challenges for Germany—three of the most pressing are global, regional, and operational. Whether Scholz would have given his February speech to the Bundestag without Putin’s invasion of Ukraine three days earlier is debatable, but the speech was crystal clear—Germany would support Ukraine and those NATO members and allies in defending against an invasion. There was no question about his conviction that the attack by Russia on Ukraine required Germany to reconfigure its relations with Russia, particularly in the energy sector, where the Germans were in danger of becoming energy dependent on the Nord Stream pipelines, including after the Nord Stream 1 “repair” that began in mid-July. In spite of many who insisted that Nord Stream 1 might not even resume deliveries thereafter, it did so, albeit at only 40% and at this point has dropped to a mere 20% of past capacity. As of this writing, it remains highly unlikely also that Nord Stream 2 will even be activated. The public debate over the impact for the coming German winter has been considerable across family dinner tables and has even grown fierce among experts and professionals over the expected economic costs by winter. Only days after Nord Stream 1 reopened, Russia’s Gazprom announced the need for additional technical repairs to one or more turbines.

A Black Sea grain agreement, negotiated in Istanbul by UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres with the assistance of Turkey, appeared to offer relief from the Russian Black Sea blockade on shipments of globally needed Ukrainian grain, particularly to regions in the Middle East and Africa. The agreement appeared to be a successful step forward in reversing dwindling grain supplies. But unexpectedly thereafter, Odesa was presumably hit with Russian missiles, an action indicating the difficulties of dealing with Russia. In this time frame, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov joined President Putin and others in underlining Russian intentions to annex larger areas in the war. Germany is now resolved to wean itself off Russian gas/energy resources, enforce existing sanctions, ban many Russian natural resources and steel trade, and even take sharp measures that could impact populations, not only in Germany but around the globe.

Second, while former finance minister Scholz’s demeanor is typically cautious—often raising criticism from the German and European publics—his decisions and follow-up have become significant in German contributions to Ukraine’s defense against Russia. Germany is solidly behind the NATO decision not to introduce troops on the ground given the chance of heightening the conflict with Russia. Furthermore, the Chancellor has made clear the importance of assisting the NATO alliance in its efforts to halt Russian attacks and reassure Ukraine of allied unity with equipment and funding assistance. In addition, Scholz joined the French, Italian, and Romanian heads of state to support Ukrainian (and Moldovan) candidacy for EU membership. This would begin the EU accession process and subsequent long-term benefits that come with membership. Most recently, at the conclusion of the G7 summit in southern Germany, host Olaf Scholz announced plans for the group to explore with the European Commission a future Marshall Plan similar to the successful plan provided to Germany after World War II, a move that could unify international as well as European institutions after the conflict.

In a third shift, the increasingly poor quality of the Bundeswehr has underscored a growing threat to Germany’s ability to defend itself and its allies if attacked (NATO, Article 5). As the conflict in Ukraine has intensified a sense of threat from the East, Scholz has—despite being seen to be slow to act, but determined—fulfilled his promises to Ukraine. As Russia has moved into the Donbas and Odesa regions (potentially even broaching Moldova), threatened nuclear use, and strengthened Russian forces on the ground and in the Black Sea, the Chancellor asserted that the military equipment Germany is sending would be able to “to protect an entire major city from Russian air attacks.” 

In accordance with this newly announced Zeitenwende for Germany, Scholz has pledged Euro 100B ($106B—in the form of a special investment fund specifically for a modernization of the Bundeswehr) and will now meet the NATO 2014 summit pledge in Wales of a 2% or higher percent of GDP allocated to defense spending. The short-term financial consequences have raised sharp public debate over moving from light to “heavy” weapons and equipment, including 15+ million rounds of ammunition, 100,000 grenades, and over 5,000 anti-tank mines. Initial Panzerhaubitze 2000 (“heavy” equipment) arrived the end of June, as Germany announced it would supply Ukraine with IRIS-T air defense systems as well as tracking radar that can detect mortars and Howitzers. The latter have proven highly lethal to Ukrainian civilians as well as the military. HIMARS—High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems—are planned by German defense for Ukraine to reinforce these earlier deliveries. On July 18, Germany delivered the first three Gepard (“Cheetah”) anti-aircraft tanks to Ukraine—three months after they were promised—and was encouraged to accelerate future deliveries despite worries about Putin’s reaction. Scholz was criticized for the long delay. At its recent summit, the Alliance expanded the NATO Response Force (NRF) from 40,000 to 300,000, to which the Bundeswehr will contribute 15,000 (with 3-5000 German troops stationed in Lithuania). These force increases are expected to be difficult to raise and train in the necessary time frame, not to mention equipping the expanded force to meet the even short-term, not to mention long-term needs.

In sum, over the past five months, Chancellor Scholz has demonstrated the gradual, but new direction on which he has embarked. His efforts not only reflect a dramatic shift in German-Russian security, economic, and political relations, but they also have potential impact on the stability of democratic regimes in Europe and beyond. The challenge will be substantial, but as he commented in his Bundestag speech held in special session last February: “We will have to invest more in the security of our country to protect our freedom and democracy. This is a major national undertaking.” 

* Zeitenwende has been variously translated as “watershed,” “historical turning point,” and numerous other terms in the literature.

 Gale A. Mattox is a member of the Board of Directors of American Friends of AvH and directs the Foreign & Security Policy Program at the American Institute for Contemporary German Studies. This essay does not reflect the views of any governmental or organizational affiliation held by the author.

The Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is known for its generous support for research, undertaken by scholars at the very pinnacle of their disciplines, at top universities and research institutes across the globe. Such research has led to treatments for deadly diseases, methods to address climate change, policies to combat social inequality, as well as interventions in many other acute problems facing humanity. Research at this level is of great value to society, and the Foundation’s resources are wisely spent. But it is also worth stepping back to think about the value of research conducted at the lowest levels of the university hierarchy: undergraduate research.

At Amherst College, where I serve as Provost and Dean of the Faculty, promoting undergraduate research is one of our top priorities. Amherst College, one of the premier liberal arts colleges in the United States, enrolls approximately 1850 undergraduates. We do not have graduate students. We have almost no post- doctoral researchers (a few science professors use external funding to hire post- docs), and only a very few lab or other technicians. Put otherwise, there is virtually none of the personnel associated with big science or other teams working on large- scale, cutting-edge research questions. Similarly, with one small exception, the college has no research centers focused on social policy or area studies characteristic of research universities. And yet we invest millions of dollars every year into funding undergraduate research opportunities. Moreover, many faculty members devote considerable time to mentoring research students. Why, you might ask, is an undergraduate institution providing so many resources to research experiences for its students?

While pursuing knowledge for knowledge’s sake is an excellent educational ideal, most research on campus has more practical purposes. Undergraduate research supports professors’ projects; many of the papers published by our science faculty include student co-authors. Similarly, faculty-led undergraduate research in the humanities and social sciences has resulted in co-authored books and articles published in peer-reviewed venues. The college also provides funding to small numbers of recent graduates so that they can revise their senior honors work for submission to scholarly publications. For students planning to pursue an academic career, research experiences—especially peer-reviewed scholarly publications—are invaluable in the graduate school application process. Moreover, two decades ago, the chemist and Nobel Prize laureate Thomas R. Cech showed that the research training received at liberal arts colleges led to an overrepresentation of such students in the ranks of research scientists. These are all terrific outcomes for students doing undergraduate research. But they are not the primary reason for why we focus so heavily on supporting it.

Instead, we believe that research experience offers unparalleled educational benefits: skills developed in the research process are precisely those skills that will benefit students in any line of work. Research begins with identifying a worthy problem. There are so many topics than can be researched, but why is one issue more important, more pressing than another? How does one know why one research project is more important than another? Researchers must be discerning— and then must be persuasive about why their topics should be addressed.

Research also involves posing open-ended questions. A good research problem has no potted or clear-cut “right” answer. Student researchers, like their older counterparts, can easily find themselves pursuing lines of inquiry that turn out to be dead ends. When that happens, they must come up with alternative paths of inquiry; this process takes grit, determination, patience, and creativity. Research also often fosters interdisciplinary thinking. Good researchers do not place boundaries on inquiry; drawing from different perspectives may illuminate a problem in ways not seen previously. Research fosters flexible, critical thinking skills, as well as personal qualities needed for problem solving.

Beyond critical thinking, student researchers hone their presentation skills. Like more seasoned researchers, undergraduates in every discipline have to write about what they find precisely and persuasively, and often even eloquently. At Amherst College, research students are trained in public speaking so that they can orally present their research findings at student conferences or poster sessions. Students also learn to present their research in visually attractive ways; they thus learn computer design and other visual tools so that their research can better capture an audience’s attention.

Research may involve working in teams. While this is particularly true in the sciences, at Amherst we have had student research teams in the humanities and social science disciplines. Ideally, those teams are a heterogeneous group with regard to identities—race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, and so on. In science labs, students across class years also work together; more advanced students train younger students in lab techniques. It is often said that the best, most productive teams involve individuals with different identities who thus each bring different lenses to a problem. Listening, understanding, and questioning respectfully are skills that must be learned. So, too, is negotiation around who will do what for the team. In our world, students who have developed the skills of working across differences will be that much more valuable in the workplace.

There are a number of other, less tangible but exceedingly important benefits of undergraduate student research. The literature on student success in college suggests the importance of “belonging,” especially for low-income, first-generation, or otherwise often marginalized communities of students. Even one strong relationship with a faculty or staff member can have an immeasurable impact on their success in college. How better to foster this result than to have students working directly with a faculty member on research, the heart of the academic mission? Similarly, forging friendships with other students greatly improves the college experience. Friendships developed during shared research experiences— just as those that occur through participation in sports teams or volunteer activities —often endure. Indeed, bonding over shared intellectual passions provides a strong basis for continuing friendship, especially in cases when there are otherwise overt identity differences.

And finally, when students do research, they own it. No one else knows the subject as they do, no one else can speak about it the way they can. Engaging in research makes students “experts.” The confidence and self-knowledge gained from achieving this is often palpable; students mature through the research process. That, in turn, leads to all sorts of benefits, not the least of which is that students always have a ready-made topic for conversation or for a job interview. “So tell me,” the interviewer asks, “about this research that you have listed on your CV….”

Faculty and others who are in a position to offer undergraduate research opportunities should consider how they can strengthen those experiences. You might assign a research project in a regular undergraduate course, or offer a research methods course. You might encourage senior thesis writing. Hire undergraduates—or more undergraduates—to work in your lab or join your research team. Work with your administration to create cohort-based programs that prepare students for research. Advocate for more funding for research opportunities, not least by offering to speak with donors about the importance of undergraduate research.

Most of all, we should all take pride in leading efforts to support undergraduate research. No doubt it has its challenges—it demands a special kind of teaching and commitment. But its rewards are great. By investing in undergraduate research we are strengthening the capacity of the next generation to be effective problem solvers in society.

As a practicing academic physician at a tertiary care medical center in Northern California, I have directly experienced the changes and challenges that the Covid-19 pandemic has brought to healthcare and to scientific discourse. Few people in medicine ever thought that the world would again face a global pandemic on the scale of the 1918 Spanish Flu. We were taught and believed that the last great “plague” was a disease of the past, before the age of antibiotics and anti-viral agents, ventilators, and advanced healthcare. However, we did not consider the possibility of a novel viral agent running amok across the world.

Would Covid-19 be as deadly as SARS1? Do we have enough equipment and bed capacity? Fear permeated our mindset. When my local area was the first in the United States to go into lockdown in March 2020, the science behind our decisions was incomplete. As my hospital began to navigate the unknown of healthcare delivery with an undetectable, highly infectious agent spreading throughout the community, we began to approach our clinical responsibilities with a different mindset, rules, and approach to patient care (e.g., personal protective equipment, diligent cleaning, and handwashing).

Our experience was not unique, as hospitals in many countries implemented similar changes to healthcare policies. Then we watched in disbelief as hospitals were overrun by Covid in Seattle, New York, and Italy and wondered if we were next. But the horror of those images were nothing compared to the shock that would come over the ensuing 18 months. Despite the development of rapid testing (so we could at least know if our patients were infected) and new therapies (e.g., convalescent plasma and monoclonal antibodies), we all awaited the creation of vaccines. As we in healthcare knew, masking and social distancing would only hold back the virus for so long.

Thankfully, multiple vaccines were developed, tested, and approved with record speed. Our prayers were answered, or so we thought. However, we watched a new horror show, the politicization of healthcare over vaccines and masks, the rise of anti-science sentiment, and the selfishness of individuals. Healthcare workers across the world were called heroes for selflessly facing the virus early in its course, but now we have been asked to continue to work in a world of variant viruses, to care for those who will not take the simple steps to get the vaccine or at least mask up. We are beyond exhausted and yet we must continue watching as Covid takes over more hospitals, leading to rationing and, in some cases, denial of care for non-Covid patients.

Within the US, the pandemic has led to the early retirement of nurses in large numbers and movement of nurses to other hospitals seeking better pay, thus further limiting patient care. I am sure similar changes to the workforce have occurred globally, or have they? The great differences among states for salary and nurse–patient staffing ratios has started a much-needed conversation about these issues and a demand for national standards. I am curious if such discussions are occurring in other countries with socialized healthcare systems.

A shortage of nurses and doctors in the United States was already predicted, but the pandemic has hastened the process. Within the United States, medical licensing is done at the state level, limiting movement of personnel. Despite similar training for doctors and nurses across the globe, acceptance of foreign graduates in the United States is hampered by arcane rules. If we are to fight more global pandemics in the future, movement of trained professionals between countries should be a priority for discussion between countries and may be necessary to ensure that we have adequate levels of healthcare staff.

Equally concerning has been the rise of anti-science and anti-intellectualism, even among our most educated. The inability of the general population to utilize critical thinking skills to assess data is not due to a lack of science education, but to a lack of teaching of those skills. Everyone is not an expert in everything, and the lack of trust in true expert opinion has only prolonged the pandemic for everyone. Social media has played a disproportionate role in creating the current situation. Healthcare workers have gone from being heroes to being pariahs in many communities and states for simply speaking truth about the effectiveness of masks and vaccines.

Despite what may appear to be a gloomy outlook, I believe that we will rise above the pandemic. Scientists, nurses, and physicians will continue to work under challenging conditions to improve patient care and find new treatments. But we need to consider why we are where we are, and what steps we need to take now so that we don’t repeat them again. It is now time to discuss increasing, not decreasing, scientific and medical cooperation between countries. More importantly, we need to address the lack of critical thinking skills among our populations and maybe change our educational system in the process.

Cooperation between countries is crucial for being prepared for any crisis and it is for this reason that I am involved with the Humboldt Network. I look forward to our future engagement and conversations.

Timothy Angelotti, AFAvH Board member