Professor Kübler, the ETH Executive Board took the initiative to launch the discussion series "Debating Science Culture", which will unfold during the next two semesters at Collegium Helveticum. The subject of the series is the "self-examination" of science regarding "money, culture and quality". What is the reason behind this initiative?

Olaf Kübler: The theme is a sign of our times. ETH and the University of Zurich are placing the current academic year under the general sign of the "culture of science". This culture is a very valuable commodity, which must be nurtured and further developed. Since the 19th century, when the influence of scientific research – especially in the natural sciences – started to increase and become important, an intrinsic culture of objectivity and truthfulness has emerged . I see this culture as an inalienable inheritance of our civilisation; science cannot afford to ignore it. You realise, of course, that pressure to succeed has increased dramatically in recent years, whether in business, sport, in cultural management or science. One consequence of such pressure is that temptation also increases to employ dishonourable means. Research has not remained unaffected of it. The noble reputation of science has been threatened by a number of recent cases of research fraud.

"It is easier to behave correctly if a stable culture exists and norms are established.", says ETH President Olaf Kübler. large

One manifestation of science is the pressure to publish. Doesn't this inherent compulsion to be better and faster than the competition automatically lead to such unworthy behaviour?

Just as the keen journalist wants to land a coup, a scientist wants to be first with results in his area of research. I believe that strength of character shows itself under pressure. Nevertheless, it is easier to behave correctly if a stable culture exists and norms are established. It is therefore an important task of universities to develop precisely such a research culture. We asked a group of colleagues to formulate regulations for an ETH research culture. Above all, the group has developed a procedure protocol for ETH Zurich (1), which can be activated if grounds for suspicion arise. The regulations have been set down in a White Paper and are being sent to all researchers. Open questions on this issue will also be addressed in the coming discussion series " Debating Science Culture".

In a field as competitive as science, aren't all means justified – even dubious ones?

Scientists who gamble with the integrity of science endanger the entire system. That the system itself is impressively stable was in fact shown by a scientific transgression that took place at Bell Labs between 1998 and 2001 in the area of the physics of condensed matter. This case was investigated in an exemplary manner, fairly and scrupulously by a commission, set up for the purpose and headed by the Stanford Professor Malcolm Beasley. The Beasley Commission, as it came to be called, examined the facts diligently and concluded that the first named author was guilty of "scientific misconduct". The co-authors were explicitly declared “not guilty”. At the same time the commission pointed out that there was no established standard on the question of responsibility of co-authors, and that there was especially need for clarification of the role of the heads of groups.

Researchers work in a tension-rich domain, balancing demands from society, the economy, the media and their scientific workplace. (Illustration: Marisa Grassi) large

What is your own attitude towards the co-author question?

Only people who have made a substantial contribution should figure as authors on a published paper. Too often, it is common practice, even mandatory to include the name of the head of a group on a publication. This was obviously the case at Bell Labs. But when a lot is being published, it becomes a question of whether the researcher responsible has enough time to personally check and assess all the results.

The cited case from Bell Labs also had repercussions for ETH. The head of that group had, in the meantime been appointed as ETH Professor. What is ETH's reaction to this case?

We were guided by the Beasley Commission's report. The question at the centre of our ensuing discussions was how to deal with the responsibility of the head of the group after the event, retrospectively. To start with, we h to develop rules. In my opinion it would have been unethical to apply rules retroactively. We therefore decided to allow the scientist in question to to make a scientific restart.

On the one hand, the meaning of science for society is growing. On the other, critique abounds that research ignores society's needs and sometimes acts in an immoral manner and with too little respect for sustainability. Should the science culture take these criticisms into account?

It depends on the immediate consequences or effects of any scientific development. A physicist working on neutron stars, for example, can carry out more or less "pure" science, unencumbered. During my own years of study as a physicist I experienced at first hand the controversial debates on nuclear energy, especially the nuclear bomb. We have a similarly heated debate nowadays on genetic technology. Today, all scientists are aware that, in addition to the intended consequences, discoveries and developments may also result in negative effects.

You expect objectivity and truthfulness from researchers. Are there other criteria for you in a science culture?

Science must be intellectually compelling, exciting and meaningful. And I believe that science should stand in the service of society – even though often with necessary delays and not exclusively

Society expects certainty from science. Research is carried out, per se, on unknown territory. Shouldn't one ingredient of a science culture be to make non-knowledge and uncertainty more transparent to the public?

Yes, absolutely. The inherent character of science means that it advances by doubting and questioning. It cannot be an option to appear to be all-knowing vis-à-vis society. Perhaps social sciences can help the natural sciences to explain itself in better ways.

Science is not one coherent field but splintered into many disciplines, which sometimes do not communicate amongst themselves.Would a single science culture address be adequate?

Science has reached a point today where big themes can be addressed in a integrated manner by gathering the necessary knowledge around a single theme and working on all of its aspects in interchange with all relevantfacets. In this way, issues typically dealt with by the natural sciences quickly bring up sociological questions. But this also means that the criteria of objectivity and truthfulness must be applied to all partial aspects.

And if society rejects what research offers?

After all is said and done science is funded by society. If research does not meet with political support, scientists must cut their cloth accordingly.

Isn't there a danger that the term "science culture" will be misunderstood, that its standards are seen as limited to the world of research and not valid outside?

The best answer to that is to cite the chemist and Nobel laureate, John Polliani: "Science has a civilising effect because it puts truth above everything else, even above personal interests". This does not only apply to science but also to ethical standards that should apply to all areas of our lives. Admittedly, they are high-reaching standards.