By Regina Schwendener

With the support of the ETH Executive Board the Collegium Helveticum (CH) launched the series "Debating Science Culture", a "high-level" discourse of "great societal political relevance", wrote Professor Peter Rieder, interim head of the CH in this year's spring issue of Meridian. The organisers hoped for an audience that included not only people involved in research and other members of academe but also politicians, people from industry, the public at large as well as students. But the latter were mostly absent, and members of the Executive Board rarely found time to participate. The issues addressed at the eleven evening events included the consequences of research, scientific fraud, ethical responsibilities and funding for research. Clearly, all themes of interest at ETH. But were they the right themes?

Barbara Orland, scientist at the CH, counters: "What was the expected level of interest? Who formulated it?" And answers the question herself, "Personally, I don't think an average of 150 participants is 'a few', when one takes into account the wealth of other events on offer that coincided with ours. What is disappointing, though, is that so few students participated."

Deferential debates

In his report Reto Wilhelm notes, "The setting in this lecture room is not conducive to dialogue [...] or was the aimed-for level too high and so often prevented the issue from being dealt with in a controversial mode?" It is true that participants often gained insights and access to stimulating areas of thought. But they were often lost in their own thoughts. The panels discussing the themes treated one another with great deference, taking the explosive potential out of the theme at issue, digressed and brought forth arguments as though they hadn't heard what had gone before," writes Wilhelm.

The wider public did not seem to be represented at the debates, thinks Professor Jürg Fröhlich, who participated on a number of occasions. "The dialogue that did take place was limited to a very narrow "class" of people. Nonetheless, the basic idea of a debating series strikes me as a good one and I enjoyed participating. But I'm not convinced that the chosen format was a good one," says the physicist. "The event was without any sort of precedent," says Barbara Orland, "so there were no expectations that could be disappointed." At the same time, it transpires that the formulation of the themes was important in so far as controversies were anticipated that did not always appeal to the participants. The issues also sometimes lacked topicality.

Was the format right?

The event itself was hardly controversial, but the point of a debating series was repeatedly questioned. Asked to comment, Gerd Folkers, head designate of the Collegium Helveticum, who moderated the series, says, "Those who question the point of such an event without having even taken part are invited to do something else or something better. We are prepared to learn. The series ran for a year. Yet in that time I heard hardly any constructive criticism or suggestions for a better format. On the contrary; what reached me was that the format was generally perceived as 'staged' but refreshing."

In his talk Jürg Fröhlich addressed the issue of "ethical responsibility – only for specialists or everyone's responsibility?". This is an issue, properly centred in the Humanities, which can look back on 2500 years of history. Fröhlich says, "I find it unserious when one totally ignores this history and argues from an emotional point of view – as most of the participants seemed to be doing in this debate. This led to a discussion generally stressing rather marginal points and central aspects of the question fell by the wayside." Barbara Orland thinks that "one can't talk about dialogue taking place in most of the debates. Mostly, statements were delivered but questions were rarely discussed and participants often spoke at cross purposes." She says that this lies in the nature of communication. Everyone forges links between expressed opinions and their own associations, and express themselves accordingly.

The conclusion of the "Debating Science Culture" series: Konrad Schily, founder of the private university Witten/Herdecke, appeals to universities to use their influence to include social responsibility in their fields of competence. large

And what is planned for the future? The themes under discussion need to be pursued. They will be, assures Gerd Folkers, but under a different format. He is not yet prepared to say what the new format will be. Barbara Orland is convinced that it is worthwhile to keep this kind of event, albeit not as a regularly occurring event, but as an ad hoc possibility to table contiguous issues that hold the promise of further development.

"Not covered in sackcloth and ashes"

Jürg Fröhlich says, "In the long run I fully support an intensification of the dialogue between universities and scientists, on the one side, and the public at large on the other. We have to experiment a little with the shape and style of this dialogue in order to find an appropriate one. And we must not neglect to take into account the qualities of a conventional lecturer-auditory situation." We also have to ask ourselves how to transmit civil courage and awareness of responsibility to our young people and encourage their natural originality, says Fröhlich. And he concludes, "We can't do this by covering ourselves in sackcloth and ashes."