|
Inter-Research |
IR Home
Journals Home MEPS AME CR DAO ESEP ESR Search Subscribe Book Series EE Books Top Books ESEP Books Order EEIU Brochures (pdf format) Discussion Forums Home Research IR Research Institutions International Ecology Institute Eco-Ethics International Union Foundation Otto Kinne Foundation  | |
ESEP DISCUSSIONS FORUMS
Discussion Forums of Ethics in Science and Environmental Politics (ESEP) are initiated and edited by ESEP or EEIU staff. The forums address hot spots related to eco-ethics. As explained on Page 2 of the Brochure "Eco-Ethics International Union" (EEIU) under Concepts and Theses, eco-ethics includes essential parts of historical ethics. It represents a new, enlarged ethical concept (details: www.eeiu.org). ESEP Discussion Forums must observe editorial impartiality, especially since Forum contributions are usually not peer-reviewed. Only with a neutral editor can diverging evidence and perspective be adequately accommodated. The editor regulates the exchange of argument and counter-argument and protects fairness in the competition of ideas and opinions. Contributions to ESEP Forums are invited from all people interested; they must be brief and fair. They may be courageous but not aggressive. There is no place for Forum contributors who wish to put their own personal interests in the foreground and none for those who violate democratic principles. Please send contributions to ESEP Discussion Forum 1 in electronic form (Word or .rtf--'rich text format') to the ESEP Managing Editor (External Editors are currently being sought for the ESEP Forums).
ESEP DISCUSSION FORUM 1:Ethics in exercising political and administrative power in science
Initiator: Otto Kinne
Editor: ESEP Managing Editor
Further Contributions invited! Address to the Managing Editor.
CONTENTSInitiator's Foreword: Kinne O (2000) Contribution 1: Kinne O, The case of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland (2000) Contribution 2: Pandian TJ, The Biologische Anstalt Helgoland (2000)
Initiator's Foreword© Inter-Research
There is something special to an atmosphere of co-operative, secret and silent power abuse. Something that serves only few people making them happy and more powerful, but that is a disservice to many people making them unhappy and speechless. Unless protested and corrected, power abuse damages any society. I feel sad and sometimes lonely in such an atmosphere. Loss of confidence in fairness and justice can cause pain, often more than illness. But to give in without protest is likely to cause even more damage: harm to our conscience. And conscience is one of the highest values in our life, as is the courage to do what our conscience tells us, even if this is potentially detrimental to ourselves. I do not believe in saints — people wrongly assumed to be without failures — simply because human nature precludes the absence of failures. But I believe in people who try to reduce and correct failures and to fight injustice and power abuse. Science affects all aspects of human life. It is the most important instrument for planning and building the future of humanity. We wish and we need to know more about the world in which we live and we need to produce the knowledge required for keeping Planet Earth capable of sustaining the lives of our children. The world in which we live changes and so does its capacity to sustain life. Science accentuates and accelerates the changes. It has not only eyes to see and ears to hear; it also has fists to damage and destroy. This dualism of science parallels the dualism of human nature. Science and humanity cannot thrive without controlling forces: both need ethics. Life — including human life — has developed in ecosystems, and the continuation of life as we know it today still depends on intact ecosystems. The greatest danger to the intactness of ecosystems is our own species, Homo sapiens. Modern human societies can survive only with a new concept of ethics: eco-ethics (www.eeiu.org). Science is paid for by working people: the taxpayers. The ways in which taxpayer’s money is used are determined by persons who we society members have elected and who are responsible to us for ethical and correct use of the funds entrusted to them: politicians assisted by bureaucrats. Both exercise controlling powers over science, not least by money distribution. True: political and administrative decision makers usually rely on advice from scientists. But also true: decision makers can influence the result of the advice by the way they select and use their advisors and, as they proceed, they may encounter a variety of temptations to serve their own interests. In many cases the transformation of public money into science works well. As examples I mention here the US National Science Foundation and the German Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft. Both organisations have developed democratic structures and rules that guide them in their decisions and both draw from the knowledge of renowned experts, who are democratically elected for time-limited terms and carefully selected to cover defined areas of responsibility. Unfortunately, the number of cases appears to be increasing in which one-sided political (or personal) views enter the scene, especially where decisions on money distribution are made too far away from "front scientists" or too close to potentially biased politicians, lobby-group representatives or egotistic science directors. These cases require critical attention. They are the subject of this ESEP Discussion Forum. The evaluation of the quality of science is a matter for qualified scientists. Among these, peer-reviewers and editors of major scientific journals play a central role. They must attempt to objectively assess the scientific merits of a submitted manuscript and decide on its acceptance or rejection. The pros and problems of the scientific peer-review system have been discussed in a MEPS Theme Section, published 1999 (Mar Ecol Prog Ser 192, p. 305-313; see also www.int-res.com). In view of the importance of this Theme Section for science in general, we have established the permanent MEPS Discussion Forum 2: "Peer-Review System" at www.int-res.com/forum/peer_review. The Editor of that Forum, Hans Ulrik Riisgard (fax: 0045 65 32 14 33; e-mail: hur@biology.ou.dk), invites contributions. Regrettably, there remains a lack of comparable instruments for attempting to objectively assess the proper use of money channelled into science. While the decisions of reviewers and editors may be openly criticised or directly challenged by authors, the decisions of "Science Ministers" and their administrators are often irrefutable and criticism is often politely but nevertheless bluntly rejected or even remains unanswered. No wonder then that the number of courageous protestors decreases and suspected or proven misuses of science money — sometimes for unethical political or personal ends — increase. Of course, politicians and bureaucrats may have other guidelines to follow than scientists, but the way they conduct their duties must follow general rules of ethics and correctness. We invite contributions to this Discussion Forum. Our aims are to • expose and discuss cases of power abuse, unethical behaviour, incorrectness, or inefficient use of financial resources • assist in introducing objective control criteria • correct misinterpretations or false allegations • contribute to defining and implementing improvements Next in importance to explaining to the general public the need for more financial support of science is the assurance that the money available will be put to good use observing principles of ethics, correctness and democratic decisions. © Inter-Research
Contribution 1The case of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland
International Ecology Institute, Nordbünte 23, 21385 Oldendorf/Luhe, Germany (Fax: + 49 4132/8883; e-mail: Kinne@int-res.com)
Editorial responsibility: Patricia Ann Fleming
Note: Prof. Fleming is no longer a member of the ESEP Editorial Board. Her comments concerning Forum contributions, however, have been retained as part of the valuable dialogue on this topic. — Editor's Note: As Editor of this Forum, I reside half-way across the globe at Creighton University in Omaha, Nebraska, USA, where I teach and write in environmental ethics. Until this Forum, I knew nothing about the case of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland. Ignorance is not proof of objectivity. I share my ignorance not so much as to establish, as Editor, my neutral voice on this issue, but because it shows the power of the electronic media to shrink our world and draw us into important controversies we know nothing about. As an ethicist, in reading Contribution 1, I ask 'what are the ethical issues'? This is always, in my experience, the first and most difficult task. I find Dr. Kinne's transplant metaphor particularly enlightening. He says 'Nobody can transplant the merits achieved by a given institution and its staff to another institution without loss and damage — certainly to the transplant, possibly also to the recipient.' Ethical issues abound in transplantation, whether one is considering human organ transplantation or transplantation in a more generic sense. The issues begin with questions of necessity of the transplant, the good to be achieved by the transplant (and whether intention holds any moral value when a double effect results), whether the loss and damage to both transplant and recipient (particularly, the loss of autonomy) is outweighed by the benefits reaped, the ethically appropriate role of third parties, and (in the case of human transplantation) whether informed consent should exist between the donor and the recipient. If transplantation is a fait accompli, the moral view shifts to what form of being is ethically justified for the transplant and recipient. One must ask, 'Is cohabitation and compromise morally preferred over usurpation?' One's answer would depend, in part, on whether morally-justified utilitarian goals can be achieved alongside the preservation of a certain degree of autonomy. If the readers will use their moral imagination in reading this forum, and analogically extend their moral concerns for transplantation in its varied forms to the case of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland, they will begin to see the key ethical issues involved. It should not be forgotten that ESEP is devoted to examining practical ethical concerns facing the environment in their political context. The discussion below will draw the reader into such a context. We invite all those who are confronted with similar problems and all those who see things differently to participate in this discussion.
(1) IntroductionFounded in 1892 as Königliche Biologische Anstalt auf Helgoland (Royal Biological Institution on Helgoland), the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland (BAH) was financed and carried by the government of Germany up to the year 1998. The BAH is Germany's oldest and world-wide most renowned marine biological research facility. Generations of zoologists, botanists and microbiologists have conducted research, taught, and studied at the BAH, inspired by the rich local marine fauna and flora and by the unique working conditions at the BAH's island facilities on Helgoland and Sylt. Over the years, BAH staff and guest scientists have contributed essentials to our knowledge of life in oceans and coastal waters, especially in the North Sea. Many of their papers were printed in the publication organ of the BAH, the "Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen". BAH staff have advised and assisted thousands of guest scientists from mainland and overseas centres of learning and research, taught tens of thousands of students and provided a variety of services to institutions located away from the sea. Details on the history of the BAH have been the subject of numerous original publications. General historical events were summarized by Werner (1993) for the period from 1892 to 1945, and by Hagmeier (1998) for 1945 to 1998. These publications record the achievements of staff members and guest scientists, the problems and difficulties encountered, and they highlight the overall development of the BAH into a leading world-centre of marine biology in the 1970's and 1980's. The distinguished history of the BAH contrasts sharply with what has happened to this institution since 1998 under a new sponsor (Träger): The Stiftung Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung (Foundation AWI). Originally I intended not to get involved in this recent BAH epoch, because I believe that, as retired BAH director, I should keep my hands off affairs concerning "my" former institute and because I am fully engaged in building up new fields of activity in Oldendorf/Luhe which I can handle in spite of my severe hearing handicap. However, things have developed in a way which no longer permits me to keep quiet. The most recent epoch of the BAH is characterised by a progressive loss of institutional identity, disintegration and dissolution of BAH structures, take-over practises by the Institute AWI and by changes in functions and forces that had fuelled the BAH's success. Based on the facts available to me and on insights matured during 22 years of being BAH director (1962 to 1984) I describe and analyse recent events that are decisive for the future of the BAH. My topic has broad significance. It exemplifies a general problem: the use of temporarily granted power without losing sight of overall responsibilities; the search for fair compromises between individual gains and general needs. (2) Comments on the new research program of the Foundation AWISeveral decisions of the AWI Direktorium, which in effect transfer BAH structures and staff into the AWI Institute, were officially justified by the need to reorganise the research program after it was decided that the BAH should be integrated into the Foundation AWI. I welcome this decision, agree with the need to reorganise the Foundation's research program accordingly, and I certainly do not underestimate the problems caused by the joining of the BAH. However, take-over manoeuvres should not be a part of solving such problems. I am unaware of a single case where research program reorganisation was furthered by one partner eating up the other. The intention of the Contract (Document 1) which regulates the integration of the BAH into the Foundation AWI — signed by the federal government of Germany and the Direktorium of the Foundation AWI — was to accommodate two institutes under the roof of the Foundation: the AWI Institute and the BAH Institute. One logical consequence could have been to form a primarily physically-oriented institute, AWI, and a primarily biologically-oriented institute, BAH, transferring Foundation scientists working in marine physics into the AWI Institute and scientists working in marine biology/ecology into the BAH Institute. Such research-field oriented reorganisation would also have paved the way for the possible later integration of additional institutes into the Foundation. It thus would have made the Foundation a powerful new instrument for furthering marine science in general. Instead, the reorganisation of the Foundations research program turned out to be primarily a one-way exercise using the BAH as disposition material for strengthening the Institute AWI — in my opinion a rather transparent and unethical manoeuvre unworthy of the otherwise respected leadership of the Foundation AWI. Of course, the AWI-Direktorium argument — that the "real" (eigentliche) BAH continues to exist on Helgoland — is incorrect. It is consistent with the above mentioned one-way exercise. For many years the BAH had consisted of three parts, the Central Institute in Hamburg, the Marine Station on Helgoland and the Littoral Station on Sylt. It is this BAH that was meant in the Contract, and it is this BAH that joined the Foundation. ( How about the "real" AWI Institute?) (3) The essence of my topicThe essence of my topic is not the impending disappearance of the original Biologische Anstalt Helgoland from the scene of science per se. Scientific institutions — including famous ones — have often disappeared. They disappeared when they failed to measure up to expectations, when they were no longer needed, or when important new tasks could be financed only via replacements. None of this applies to the BAH. My topic is the central question: Why is the BAH dismantled? An institution whose future support does not require additional financial funding, which is well-performing and still-needed? In searching for answers, I attribute the reason to the failures of three groups of people:
I deplore the disregard of the legally and scientifically sound Contract and of the achievement and dedication of generations of scientists who can no longer speak for themselves. They have, often under difficult conditions, laboriously built up the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland and its high international reputation. I am sure they would cry out in dismay could they see what is now happening and protest with vigour against the present developments. Nobody can transplant the merits achieved by a given institution and its staff to another institution without loss and damage — certainly to the transplant, possibly also to the recipient.
(4) Acknowledgements of the performance of the BAH and search for a more appropriate sponsorshipOver the years, there have been numerous acknowledgements of the excellent work conducted by the BAH. Below I refer to two examples.
The preferred solution suggested by the Council was to accommodate the BAH as an independent institute of the "Blaue Liste" (German research institutions financed 50% by the Federal Government, 50% by the States). An integration into the Foundation AWI was recommended as a "second-best" solution. (5) First violation of the ContractSoon after the Contract of 1997 was signed the Central BAH Institute (Zentrale) was forced to move from Hamburg to the Foundation AWI in Bremerhaven. This politically motivated decision violated the Contract. The dislocation was unnecessary on scientific and administrative grounds. It was socially destructive, caused much harm to BAH staff and their families, and cost the taxpayer considerable extra money (see below). There are numerous examples of close co-operation in science and administration without co-habitation. In these days of fax and e-mail, distances disappear. I consider the dislocation and dissolution of the Central BAH Institute groundless and contraproductive. The real reasons behind the scene require objective, critical investigation. Possible reasons have been outlined in an article (Document 2) printed in the journal "The Tax Payer" (Der Steuerzahler) a renowned German publication. The author of that article estimates the costs of the unnecessary move from Hamburg to Bremerhaven at DM 50 Million! This sum must be provided by taxpayers who had already paid for the original building. The author criticises the loss of special research facilities which now must be built anew in Bremerhaven and which cannot be used by the new occupant of the Zentrale. (The Central BAH Institute was planned by BAH staff. After much discussion and detailed inspections the plans were approved by the German government. The aim was to accommodate BAH Director and Administration and to serve specific scientific BAH needs that can be better addressed on the mainland near a large university than on Helgoland and Sylt). The author of the 'Tax Payer article' asks why, from the point of view of financial and research considerations, a politically wrong decision was made? The author implies that political egotism and shady political dealings (Seilschaften) constitute the real reasons. Whatever the real reasons: they carried more weight in the eyes of the decision makers than the Contract, they wasted of a lot of money, and they damaged the integrity of the BAH — not to speak of the injustice and harm done to the BAH staff in Hamburg. The information available suggests that political interests have washed aside responsibility and rationality. The full text of the article (in German) is reprinted in Document 2.
(6) Second violation of the ContractA BAH facility for the better part of two thirds of a century, the Wadden Sea Station (Wattenmeerstation) in List on Sylt has recently been taken away from its mother institution by the Direktorium of the Foundation AWI. In fact, scientists working at the Wattenmeerstation of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland have been ordered to publish their scientific papers under the heading Alfred-Wegener-Institute für Polar- und Meeresforschung, Wattenmeerstation Sylt. All scientific institutes live from the publications of their scientists. If these are ordered to publish under a different name the original institute dies. I asked the responsible Ministry in Bonn and the Direktorium of the Foundation AWI in Bremerhaven to explain to me the reason for such Contract violation. I received no answer. However, on March 27, 2000 I was informed by another source that the AWI-Direktorium had ordered publications by scientists of the Wattenmeer Station to appear — without the addition "Foundation" (Stiftung) — under the institutional name "Alfred-Wegener-Institut" in order to "guarantee uniform records in the Citation Index"; in other words, in order to underline the importance of the AWI Institute by presenting a longer list of 'own' publications. Why such emphasis on quantity? Is it not quality that counts? And why all this in favour of the AWI Institute but against the BAH Institute? According to my knowledge the present leader of the Wattenmeerstation welcomes a break-away from the BAH — reportedly in the hope of advantages for his own career. Whatever the reasons for such an additional step in dismantling the institutional identity and integrity of the BAH, such a procedure must be named what it is: unethical. The break-away of the Wattenmeerstation from the BAH should not be tolerated by political, scientific and administrative personalities or agencies responsible for science in Germany. Surprisingly, in its letter of 30.09.1999 addressed to me the Foundations' Scientific Council still refers to "the two Institutes AWI and BAH" within the Foundation AWI and considers "that the Institute BAH includes the locations Helgoland and Sylt". While correct in terms of the Contract, these statements do not conform with the present reality (see above).
(7) Continued interference with the integrity and independence of the BAHThere are a number of additional attempts to fully absorb the BAH — wherever possible directly into the AWI Institute.* Such attempts are facilitated by the
*If successful, this would not be the first case in which the AWI Institute has absorbed another institute. Several years ago the world-wide renowned Institut für Meeresforschung Bremerhaven has so completely disappeared in the AWI Institute as if it had never existed. The benefit for the AWI Institute: widening of its field of competence.).
parallelism between the names Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung and Stiftung Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung. While both are different entities now, even the federal Ministry of Education and Research in Bonn (Bundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung) — which holds the main responsibility for both AWI and BAH — occasionally mixes them up. Thus in its letter to me of 26.06.1999 the Bundesministerium confuses the Director of the AWI Institute with the "Direktor" of the Foundation AWI. I wrote to the Ministry on 11.08.1999 asking how can the same person be both Director of the Foundation and Director of an Institute carried by the Foundation? I received no answer. All BAH scientists including those of the Marine Station (Meeresstation) on Helgoland must now correspond with their scientific partners around the world under the AWI e-mail. Why? Even in institutions much smaller than the Foundation AWI, different research groups have their own e-mail. Such individualization enhances "die Selbständigkeit, die Leistungsbereitschaft und die Arbeitsfreude der Institusanghörigen" which, in its recent publication (4 May, 1999), the Foundation AWI has declared to represent principles of its new structure. The BAH publication Helgoländer Meeresuntersuchungen (latest name of a journal of long standing) was devoted primarily to reporting research results of BAH staff and guest scientists, as well as publishing the proceedings of Helgoland Symposia. Recently, it has become "a journal of the Foundation Alfred-Wegener-Institute for Polar and Marine Research", renamed "Helgoland Marine Reseach". The journal covers research originating from both inside and outside of the Foundation. It has two copyright-holders: the commercial publisher Springer Verlag and the governmentally supported Foundation AWI.
(8) Politics and Science: some general considerationsIt is not possible to do full justice to our topic without some general considerations. Since I had no access to details I shall restrict myself to essentials.
Normally, the creation of a new scientific institute is a consequence of scientific need. In contrast, the AWI Institute was set up as a consequence of political will. Germany, rich in terms of money, is poor in terms of resources. These abound in polar regions. In order to gain internationally approved admission to these regions and their resources, a country must become a member of an international treaty and make a contribution to polar research. The Federal Republic of Germany joined the international treaty in 1979 and in 1980 set up AWI, an institute organised in the form of a foundation and given the task of focusing on scientific investigations in polar regions. German politicians channelled huge amounts of public money into building up AWI-Institute facilities and made positions available for appointing staff. Problems occurred later. While financial funds were set aside quickly, the ecological costs of the envisioned large-scale exploitations became apparent only after some time; they turned out to be much higher than expected. In fact, on ethical grounds they are not justifiable. Life in the Arctic and Antarctic is as diverse and abundant as it is sensitive and vulnerable to human impact. The politicians responsible feared negative consequences, not least due to actions of "environmental protectionists." On top of all that, the quality of the scientific results obtained by the AWI Institute, especially in the realm of ecology, did not, in the critical eyes of experts, compare favourably with results obtained in non-polar waters by other researchers which, in addition, used up much less money. (The financial aspect of the expert judgements fails, however, to take into account the fact that polar research requires higher funds because Arctic conditions are very difficult to master). The people responsible began to search for means of covering up what was about to be openly criticised as a remarkable over-use of taxpayer money. Their solution? Search for possibilities to widen the scientific program of the AWI Institute. The chance to absorb the Institut für Meeresforschung Bremerhaven apparently presented a welcome opportunity.
The reasons for the creation of the BAH (Königliche Biologische Anstalt auf Helgoland) were to accommodate the interests of (a) renowned researchers and German scientists in general, especially mainland zoologists and botanists who wished to have research facilities close to a sea area characterised by the highest diversity and abundance of marine life within the boundaries of Germany, and (b) fishermen who wished to have scientific advice and support for their activities. In addition, Germany wanted to follow the trend started by other European countries which had set up marine stations that provided a variety of services for mainland institutions, especially universities. For details please consult the careful historical documentation by Werner (1993). Problems occurred after the Second World War. Prussia and thus the Prussian Culture Ministry — the original sponsor of the BAH — had ceased to exist and there was no new sponsor in sight which could legally and financially continue to support the BAH. Details of ensuing problems have been addressed by Hagmeier (1993) whose father was a former BAH Director and whose own experience and insight as a BAH staff member add special value to his report. Finally, the German federal Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry became sponsor of the BAH. From the beginning, the new "marriage" of politics and science was characterised by basic discrepancies between the legal possibilities of the sponsor and the scope (Aufgabenbereich) of the BAH which had remained essentially unchanged. The new sponsor could formally support research only if it aimed primarily at advising the Minister, but it had no authority for financing basic research and teaching. These were part of the competence of the States (Länder). The discrepancies persisted for many years. Naturally, they led to confrontations between politics and science and, in addition, to criticism from the federal Finance Ministry and the federal Audit Office (Bundesrechnungshof). However, the overall situation was characterised by much good will and the firm determination to find workable compromises in spite of seemingly unbridgeable difficulties. I consider the resulting success exemplary for what can be achieved if both sides do not lose sight of a major responsibility: to serve science. More recently, several solutions have been worked out in an attempt to overcome the differences in competence between the federal government and the state governments, with the aim to acquiring capabilities for sponsoring large science units (Grossforschung), and with the intention of avoiding detrimental direct influences of bureaucrats on science, i.e. of providing as much freedom for creative activities as possible. One of these solutions is a foundation.
(9) SummaryConsidering its political significance and costly research activities, the Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung was given the status of a foundation. At that time there was no intention for this foundation to carry additional institutes. Hence the later decision to accommodate the BAH under the roof of the Foundation should have been paralleled by a decision to re-organise the Foundation accordingly. That this was not done is a major cause of the problems presently encountered.The "fathers" of the Contract expected that the leadership of the AWI Institute would be able and willing to accommodate a second institute at its side (an institute without a formally appointed and fully authorised Director!) Of course, such ability and willingness would have been fundamental requirements for working out balanced compromises. However, from the beginning, the inequality of the power of the two sides precluded fair problem solutions. These could have been achieved only in the event that the more powerful side had been able to muster a considerable degree of self-constraint. This turned out not to be the case. I have pointed out to the German Minister of Education and Research that, in my opinion, the present developments fatally damage the BAH. This globally renowned institution will die — unless the Ministry intervenes. If not, there can be no doubt about who is ultimately responsible for the unfortunate fate of the Biologische Anstalt Helgoland — an institution that has grown over more than a century of hard work and internationally acknowledged success and that for thousands of scientists in all parts of the world has become a symbol of German achievement in marine research. LITERATURE CITED Hagmeier E (1998) Aus der Geschichte der Biologischen Anstalt Helgoland (BAH) ab 1945. Helgoländer Meeresunters 52:1-106 Werner P (1993) Die Gründung der Königlichen Anstalt auf Helgoland und ihre Geschichte bis 1945. Helgoländer Meeresunters 47:1-182 DOCUMENTS
Contribution 2The Biologische Anstalt HelgolandMadurai Kamaraj University, Madurai, 625 021 India (e-mail: tjpandi@pronet.net.in)
Editorial responsibility: Patricia Ann Fleming Note: Prof. Fleming is no longer a member of the ESEP Editorial Board. Her comments concerning Forum contributions, however, have been retained as part of the valuable dialogue on this topic. — ESEP Managing Editor
Editor's Note: This submission continues the above discussion initiated by Professor Otto Kinne. It represents the views of a researcher who describes himself as "emotionally attached to 'meine alte Liebe' the BAH." Does this self-description negate his views, or prevent him from viewing the situation with the BAH objectively? This would depend entirely on one's epistemological understanding of "objectivity." In recent years, philosophers of science have suggested that scientists "come clean" regarding the contextual and constitutive values that inform their activities. Objectivity, then, becomes understood within the context of the value-laden activity of science. To admit to an emotional investment, as Professor T. J. Pandian does below, is to clarify the values with which one precedes. Objectivity becomes a function of inter-subjective agreement among a community of scientific inquirers. Before such agreement can be reached, on strictly scientific matters or on matters such as the scientific-political matter discussed here, the conditions for "undistorted" communication (Habermas) must be made available to the community of inquirers. This Internet forum, open to all who wish to participate, advances these conditions. I encourage submissions in response to both Professor Otto Kinne (above) and Professor Pandian (below).
During the years 1966-67, I spent very fruitful days of my early research career at the Meeresstation, Biologische Anstalt Helgoland (BAH), successfully completing 'meine Doktorarbeit' under the supervision of Prof. Dr. O. Kinne and was awarded the doctoral degree by the Universitat Kiel in 1968. My very first publication, based on my Indian research work from the BAH, became a Citation Classic and has been a corner stone for all my professional success (including the coveted Bhatnagar Prize and National Professorship) in India. Therefore, I am emotionally attached to 'meine alte Liebe' the BAH. It was a painful experience for me to read the article of Prof. Kinne on the unfortunate dismantling of the BAH. But I read it again and again, carefully and objectively. I completely agree with Prof. Kinne that the sponsor Stiftung Alfred-Wegener Institut für Polar Forschung (AWI) has unjustifiably and unethically broken the contract and is in the process of unduly assimilating the historically renowned BAH. As an old Indian scientific beneficiary of the BAH, I appeal and look forward to the immediate intervention of the Honourable Minister for Education and Research, Germany to save and restore the glory and independence of the internationally renowned BAH. It is not clear to me why a treaty should necessarily involve the establishment of AWI for Polar Forschung in Germany. India has its own research station at the Antartic for polar research. The Ministry of Science and Technology, Government of India, through its Department of Ocean Development, New Delhi, sponsor the research activities of the Indian Antartic station. Institutions like the National Institute of Oceanography (NIO), Goa, and National Institute of Ocean Technology, Chennai neither sponsor nor maintain the research activities of the Indian Antartic Research Station. 'Germany, rich in terms of money, is poor in terms of resources.' Unfortunately, India is not rich in terms of either money or resources. However, the Department of Ocean Development, New Delhi has an 'open door policy' of selecting and sponsoring any good Antartic research programme by a capable Indian scientist(s) from any Indian institutions like the Universities (under the sponsorship of the Ministry of Education), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute (under the sponsorship of the Indian Council of Agricultural Research), Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (under the sponsorship of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research) and so on. Therefore, an open door policy like that of India may help Germany to resolve the problem between AWI and BAH, instead of AWI unethically dismantling and assimilating an established world-renowned institution.
|
| |
 |
Copyright © 2005; Inter-Research
Webmaster: webmaster@int-res.com |