Success seemed to fall into his lap. In the years between 1988 and 2001 the scientific community greeted with amazement the spectacular results of a young German physicist, Jan Hendrik Schön, in the field of superconductivity, and his huge publication output. Reward and recognition were not lacking. Schön was awarded numerous prestigious prizes, among others the Otto-Klung-Weberbank-Prize. Just 32 years old, a position as director of a Max-Planck-Institute was in sight and rumours of a Nobel Prize began to circulate. Then, in summer 2002, the downfall. The scientist who had become a celebrity faced accusations of fraud. A scientific commission of experts pronounced a verdict of "scientific misconduct" in numerous cases. The physicist was reprimanded (not, however, his co-authors) and dismissed.

Moral-free analysis

It was not this specific case that Ulrike Felt, an Austrian Science Researcher and Doctor of Physics, chose as the subject of her inaugural lecture at the Collegium Helveticum, where she is a guest for the summer semester, but the conditions of a scientific environment that made a scandal of these proportions possible. Over the past years, Felt has devoted her research to the role of futurist expectations in cutting-edge scientific research, especially in the area of high-temperature super conductors. Starting in the mid-80s this area has attracted a high level of widespread interest from the media, businesses, and the politics of research, because of its promise to deliver efficient power transmission and faster electronic circuits with a practically loss-free flow of energy in certain materials at relatively high temperatures.

How was it possible that a scientist could deceive his peers and remain undetected over a period of many years while, step by step, climbing the scientific Olympus? In her - admittedly as yet incomplete - analysis, Felt distances herself very quickly from the moral dimension of the act. Pointing the finger at "the good, the bad and the ugly" would obscure the view of the system-dependent components of this phenomenon, says Felt. Let it be said here that this was disputed by scientists in the discussion that followed Felt's lecture. Human weaknesses, it was said, such as the tendency to cheat, are ubiquitous and not specific to science. And the research system was defended with the claim that it is impossible for scientific fraud to remain undetected in the long run.

Media arouse expectations

To return to the subject of the lecture: Felt began by questioning the role of the media, especially that of two scientific journals "Science" and "Nature". Felt considers that these two publications, which are read worldwide and are the best-known science publications, fill a problematic double role. On the one hand, they serve as a platform for the publication of research results, while on the other, they also contain commentary. By means of the latter, says Felt, they play a big part in determining the scientific "climate". The dual nature of these publications nurtures the readiness to be non-critical. "Science", for instance, declared nanotechnology to be the breakthrough of 2001, thus awakening expectations that were subsequently absorbed by the scientific community. Today, the media, including the mass media, are attractive places for researchers to publicise their work. Their omnipresence turns the media into "Factories for Futurist Scenarios" and, as such, influence science itself to a degree that can hardly be overstated.

A critical look at research entities: Ulrike Felt, Viennese Science Researcher and current guest of the Collegium Helveticum. large

Believing in genie

Felt went on to turn a magnifying glass on the mechanisms of scientific entities themselves. The integrity of a young researcher does not necessarily depend on the quality of his or her publications, but also on the knack of establishing and positioning themselves within a relatively formalised and status-oriented scientific entity.

Publications in distinguished journals, the acquisition of certain prizes and the attention of the mass media did not seem to sharpen the colleagues' critical faculties regarding a researcher's work. Paradoxically, such recognition opened the doors to irrationality. In connection with the cited case, Felt detects a tenacious belief in "the genie". Felt also questions the role of the referees in the refereeing system. The case in question demonstrates that the scientific monitoring mechanisms are not above suspicion.

Grey areas in everyday laboratory life

Felt goes on to say that in spite of apparently clear rules for scientific research, a closer look reveals grey areas and uncertainties on central questions of facts, evidence and argument. Although laboratory manuals and explicit rules exist on a scientist's treatment of raw data or on procedures that must be followed, these are sometimes merely implicit.

At what point, for example, can a researcher judge something to be an anomaly, a blip or a fluke, and thus feel justified in leaving it off the list of data being analysed? Precisely here, in seemingly global research, strong national differences can be identified. In Germany, for instance, all authors of a paper are deemed equally responsible, while in the USA different degrees of responsibility are assigned to data producers and contributors of other parts of a paper.

Persuasion by promises

In research politics, and, therefore, also in research financing, Felt sees a problematical move towards market forces, even a mixing of conflicting interests. Awareness of possible future uses is far stronger today than in the past and is harnessed to rally support for certain projects - persuasion by promises, as Felt calls it. "New technologies are a central economic factor", says Felt. It is clear that political choices as to which fields of science should be given priority - such as that given to nanotechnology in the EU - are made today with a view to future applications.

It is naive to believe that researchers today are the "solitary gentlemen" of the 17th century, answerable to none and nothing. Futurist scenarios were always the motors of research - and always will be. Nevertheless, in our own age where science, the media, the economy and politics have become inextricably entwined, new and powerful constellations have come into being. They are difficult to control, as Felt affirms, but they decide which futurist scenarios will be put on the agenda and which will not be. It behoves researchers with opens eyes and critical judgement to at least be aware of this situation.