Prof. Dr. Jens Hartmann

Jens Hartmann (22.06.2025)

In recent years, the world has been experiencing global polycrises, which can be understood as parallel, overlapping and interconnected crises. The resulting challenges and discourses for and with future generations also present lecturers at universities with special tasks: How passionate and directional can I be as a scientist? Can scientists and lecturers be impartial in a crisis-ridden world? Should one direct one's view towards goals that also pursue a "coalition of the reasonable" or rather keep the free decision of an option to be chosen open for everyone?

Should scientists be activists, openly campaigning against wrong decisions and delays caused by politics and Economics and should they even, according to T. Adorno, use the: "the strength to resist predetermined opinions and, as one with them, also existing institutions, everything merely legal that justifies its existence"? [1]

In contrast, the sociologist M. Schröder [2] recently demanded: "It is not good for science to try to pin it down to political goals, even if these are widely accepted by society. What is the alternative? An old-fashioned idea from Max Weber: ...freedom of value judgment. And: scientists should research how the world is, not use their authority to tell others how the world should be.

In my text, I examine the tension between value freedom and neutrality in ethically relevant topics for instructors in the sciences, such as climate change, energy provision, the role of chemistry in society or the reputation of science itself. In addition, some current university policy cases of border crossings at German and American universities will be discussed. An instructor's responsibility includes not only imparting fact-based knowledge, but also conscious
action. And also their own convictions, which should be represented to the students in a value-oriented, but not ideologically formative way.

1 Max Weber's freedom of value judgment and thinking with him today

Max Weber's well-known quote from his lecture Science as a profession is still valid today as a guideline: "But the real teacher will be very careful not to impose any opinion on him from the catheder, be it explicitly or by suggestion - for that is of course the most disloyal way of "letting the facts speak"" [3].

But why should we not actually do this? First of all, Weber states that academics have the freedom to teach: "[...] Now, one cannot demonstrate to anyone scientifically what his duty as an academic teacher is. One can only demand intellectual honesty from him: to recognize that establishing facts, determining mathematical or logical facts or the inner structure of cultural goods on the one hand, and on the other hand answering the question of the value of culture and its individual contents and how one should act within the cultural community and political associations - that these are both completely heterogeneous problems" [3].

However, Weber then clearly addresses the asymmetry between the instructors and their students and answers the above question: "If he [the lecturer] then goes on to ask why he should not treat both in the lecture hall, the answer is: because the prophet and the demagogue do not belong on the catheter of a lecture hall. Both the prophet and the demagogue are told to go out into the streets and speak publicly. There, that is, where criticism is possible. In the lecture hall, where you sit opposite your listeners, they have to be silent and the teacher has to speak, and I think it is irresponsible to take advantage of the fact that students have to attend a teacher's college for the sake of their advancement and that there is no one there to criticize him, not to be useful to the listeners with his knowledge and scientific experience, as is his task, but to stamp them according to his personal political views!" [3]

But can Weber's shielding of pure science from all subjective and political influences still be maintained in today's complex and problematic society? The American philosopher Wendy Brown emphasizes in her book Nihilistic Times - Thinking with Max Weber [4] that Weber is at "war" in his time. And not only is this actually the case (the book was written during the First World War), but he is also at "war" with all kinds of powers and currents in society: in addition to nationalists and militarists, these also include: "those who want to subject different points of view to a competitive struggle, which is a technique appropriate for markets but not for science." Furthermore, Weber is at "war" with the economists who propagate the superiority of capitalism, with the philosophers and social theorists of his time "who believe they can establish the validity of norms." Above all, according to Brown, he combats this as "an effect of the political, epistemological and existential conditions of his time." [4]

Weber's doctrine of value judgment emerged in his time, when truth was "decoupled from meaning and values". With all due respect for his clear definition of science, we should rethink these boundaries today. Especially in the education (and explicitly not only in ethics education) of a young generation, value neutrality is "in tension with the assumption that ethics education should be understood as a subject of values or as the subject of value education" [5]. The ethicist M. Kim, who particularly advocates in teacher training that "this includes above all basic values such as human dignity, freedom, equality, tolerance and justice". "Precisely because of the plurality of society and because of the challenges and conflicts that can arise from the diversity of lifestyles and religions, great importance is attached to the orientation of ethics lessons towards these democratic basic values of the ideologically neutral state as an expression of the liberal value basis of open societies. Racist or xenophobic attitudes and discrimination against people because of their gender or origin should therefore also be addressed in ethics lessons. For example, if a pupil says that women should not be equal to men, the lecturer must not remain neutral towards this view, but must defend the equality of women and men as an important value of democratic society. As a result, lecturers find themselves in a dilemmatic situation, as they have to reconcile two incompatible demands (neutrality requirement and value education) in ethics lessons" [5]. M. Heil also describes this situation in his article, summarizing the goals for trainee teaching staff [6]: "Prospective teachers must not only know the legal requirements for their future professional actions, they should also be aware of their own political stance and position, reflect on the political significance of their office and know and weigh up both political-theoretical and pedagogical reasons for and against disclosing their own point of view in class." And further: "They [the prospective teachers] should not only educate students to maturity, but also act critically and maturely themselves, thus requiring the described "strength to resist predetermined opinions and, in unison with this, also against existing institutions, against everything merely legal that justifies itself with its existence"." [6].

Weighing up one's own points of view and values, acknowledging facts and figures, and taking a reflective external view of learners is a challenge that should be discussed much more in academia. It is precisely the sighting of misconceptions and misbehavior, hesitant awkwardness and false activism that are currently not publicly illuminated; they often enough remain in the shadows of classrooms, lecture halls and laboratories. Another demand in the dilemma discussion must be the independence and autonomy of the lecturer, independent also of research partners, funding bodies, commercial enterprises or their own Boards of Management and Rectorships. However, this freedom in research and teaching should never cross the "red lines" defined by the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. These "red lines" will be discussed below. After October 7, 2023, the brutal and inhumane attack by Hamas on parts of southern Israel, there were also numerous, sometimes aggressive protest rallies at German universities, in which anti-Semitic slogans were publicly proclaimed and opposition to the freedom of Jews in Germany was voiced. The universities were not united in their response and often did not condemn the events consistently and clearly enough. One reason for this could be the dilemma mentioned here. For example, Die Zeit interviewed the rector of the FU Berlin, G. Ziegler [7]: "Universities seem at a loss as to how to reconcile the idea of academic freedom of thought with political red lines". Ziegler replied: "Of course we have an enormous responsibility and
are discussing how we can live up to it. This also includes our instructors making the Middle East conflict a topic, especially in teacher training courses." The question here, in the context of the topic, would be how these very instructors could practically free themselves from this dilemma between their own political convictions and dutiful neutrality.

More drastic was the statement made by Harvard President Claudine Gay before the US Congress [8] when she was asked whether it was against university rules for students to call for the genocide of Jews. She said: "It depends on the context. The value of academic freedom is sacrosanct." One of several German anti-Semitism scandals in the academic world occurred in Halle: a visiting professor from the Max Planck Society apparently spread hate tirades against Israel. Nazi comparisons and open sympathy for Hamas terrorism were unmistakable messages from the Australian professor Ghassan Hage here in Germany [9]. The crossing of "red lines" becomes clear in the last two examples and urges us to take a stand: the protection of Jewish students and fellow citizens must be our responsibility, even 80 years later, especially in Germany but also in every democratic country.

Another case shows the contradictory nature of people when it comes to this dilemma. The philosopher Millay Hyatt takes up the case via her colleague Judith Burtler [10]: "In early March 2024, Judith Butler declared at an event in Paris that the Hamas attacks on October 7 last year were neither terrorist nor anti-Semitic, but a case of "armed resistance". She did not do this in a subordinate clause, but insisted that this choice of words for the "uprising" was "honest" and "historically correct"." The Jewish-American philosopher is actually known for a very critical stance on violence, in the book published in 2020: Die Macht der Gewaltlosigkeit. On the Ethical in the Political, she criticizes left-wing radical acts of 'self-defence' and advocates non-violent resistance to oppression and suffering. The example of her Jewish colleague Nancy Faser from New York shows how more differentiated political demands can have counter-effects that can also lead to "red lines" in academic life. Faser signed a letter 'Philosophy for Palestine' together with around 400 colleagues, in which they wanted to draw attention to the suffering of the people in the Gaza Strip and plead for openness to respectful controversy. As a result, she was stripped of her honorary Albert Magnus Professorship at the University of Cologne. Fraser explained that she did not understand why a university should have a political stance at all and also exclude undesirable opinions [11].

These and many other cases illustrate the problem of freedom of value judgment and the urgent message of Max Weber's message in a very comprehensible way: W. Brown takes this up in her already cited book: 'The policy-firing passion, judgment and enthusiasm for a different world should [according to Weber] disappear from science. Science strives for truth, politics haggles for power. Science is specialized, disembodied, detached from the world, politics is concerned with the big picture." [4].

On the other hand, Weber wants to protect instructors from the contradictions of a complex, confusing time (then as now) without the respective specialization of non-specialist knowledge. This would indeed mean that science should remain within its specialized spaces and methodological barriers. But what was certainly necessary 100 years ago to build up the "exploding" sciences can no longer be ignored in the modern age of science. Interdisciplinary and trans-disciplinary reflection is just as indispensable for solving complex and global problems (climate change, species extinction, poverty and pandemics) as the polarization and populist simplifications of local conflicts or simple human rights that are emerging on our doorstep. And the teacher's task at this time is to plunge into precisely this dilemma. As W. Brown points out: "Weber is certainly right that the teacher is obliged to convey facts to students, including what he calls "inconvenient facts... But factuality should also be on the student's curriculum, i.e. how facts come about and how they acquire legitimacy as facts...". [4]. Such facts must be examined in a social context with the students and a bridge built between scientific findings and social requirements. And the question: What exactly are scientific and technological achievements for if they do not aim to solve the fundamental conflicts and challenges of our time? "At a time when there is so much confusion and duplicity with regard to facts, science and truth, what could be more important than exploring with students how these things are constituted, are guaranteed, lose their permanence or become superfluous?" [4]

The German philosopher M. Gabriel defines the question of "...liberal pluralism...[as] not an ethically neutral starting position, thanks to which everyone can be happy in their own way, but an expression of a value judgment..."[12] in his book Der Mensch als Tier (Man as Animal) in the chapter Limits of Liberal Pluralism? Addressing the sciences, he continues: "Because value orientation is unavoidable and cannot be avoided in the name of legitimate liberal pluralism (since this in turn is based on values), it is incoherent to pretend that we can pursue value-free politics, so to speak, by following science and technically utilizing its results." In the same chapter, Gabriel then asks: "Why should it actually be a sensible human goal to do everything in our power to develop new technologies at an ever faster pace in order to create even more opportunities for consumption and to live even faster? If you think this makes sense, you can tell that you have become entangled in an ideology that is anything but ideologically neutral." In doing so, he is also deliberately targeting the designers of scientific and technological progress, which "today conceals the fact that it is achieving the opposite of what it is aiming for: while on the one hand, thanks to scientific progress, we know how close we are to self-inflicted extinction, this is being driven forward by a world view that measures overall social events by parameters such as economic growth..." [12].

In view of these facts - and the events surrounding climate change, species extinction, social injustice and the threat of world war can be seen as such - it is appropriate for scientists and technicians to take a stand. Prerequisites are that they strive to go beyond - quote from the VDI's Code of Ethics for Engineers [13] - "professional competence, including ethical, social, interdisciplinary and intercultural skills. They strive to acquire, maintain and improve these skills in the course of continuous personal development. Conflicting interests and ideas on technology assessment and design are discussed and weighed up in interdisciplinary, international and intercultural dialogues." The spaces for such discourses should be opened up more in the future so that such guidelines also offer good opportunities to address the dilemma in question.

2. scientific dilemmas and case studies

Reflecting on the dilemma formulated in the title leads us as instructors to a scientific dilemma that many philosophers have long pointed out. Scientific and technological achievements have mostly been enthusiastically implemented by Economics, accepted by society and celebrated as successes of progress and humanity. However, H. Jonas already recognized: "this positive feed-back of functional necessity and reward - in the dynamics of which pride in achievement is not to be forgotten - feeds the growing superiority of one side of human nature over all others, and inevitably at its expense"[14]. From these sentences, it is good to recognize our "entanglement" in the opposites of ought and can. The street artist Banksy puts it in words (and pictures) in his own way roughly as follows: "We know that we cannot solve our problems until capitalism with its growth mania collapses. But we can console ourselves with daily consumption. [15]. The only problem is that we are fueling this spiral of growth further and further. In his work The Implicated Subject (2019), M. Rothberg names various forms of "complicity": complicity (not only as an accessory, but also as one of the connections) and being "burdened" (e.g. as a beneficiary). "The beneficiary profits both from the historical suffering of others and from inequality in a present of global, neo-liberal capitalism" [16]. And it seems that instructors should educate about this beneficiary status as a fact, not as a given. Back to the dilemma, which could be described as the science dilemma: On the one hand: science should (as its duty) provide reliable cognition and knowledge with a transparent origin, but the transformation into society is in the hands of politics. And on the other hand: science has a responsibility towards society, it is about sustainable transformation and avoiding further planetary and social transgressions. In the face of upheavals (rethinking), conflicts, crises and uncertainties, we need discourse and a sensible struggle for good solutions for the future, especially now. This is no longer feasible without transdisciplinary cooperation and reflection. We must leave the ivory tower before it collapses. Science should allow contributions to society and thus also sensitize the next generation, but under certain prerequisites.

My theses here would be:

1. "Red lines", such as deliberately negating the contents of Germany's constitution or the humanistic idea of freedom, should never be crossed by instructors out of a sense of personal responsibility and responsibility towards their students.
2. As lecturers, scientists and engineers should always be ideologically independent of financial or funding bodies and thus free to form their own opinions and not be concerned with their own ideological or material advantages. However, out of a sense of responsibility, they should take a stand in their field and point out possible solutions as well as the wrong paths.
3. In discussions and interactions between instructors and students, opinions should be exchanged in a discourse-ethical manner, taking into account a possible consensus, a clear demarcation of the "red lines" described under i. and the general freedom of opinion.
4. Lecturers should be impartial and not discuss private inclinations or dislikes for or against parties or political institutions in the public space of the university. This in no way excludes the possibility of committed political work and voluntary work in the private public sphere.

These theses will now be discussed in more detail using general and specific case studies.

Case 1: Climate change and environmental pollution

According to a university study by the DZHW [17], 31% of those surveyed stated that it should be permissible to dispute climate change. This high figure among scientists is surprising and shows that the consensus among experts is increasingly being critically credited, especially the anthropogenic contribution to climate change. Obviously, the current situation is too much for the majority of
humanity, especially the fact that the prosperity we have achieved can only be maintained through change. Climate protection is being played off against growth and prosperity, without taking into account the fact that quick solutions in climate protection could only mitigate climate change after a long delay. Many of us recognize climate change as a danger, but see no possibilities for change and look idly, but not wrongly, at politics or the general hesitation or inaction of politicians. The task of science and especially of lecturers should be to provide constant and diverse scientific education and communication and to push for action through facts. Climate researcher S. Ramstorf emphasizes: "The social responsibility of science is not limited to direct policy advice, but consists above all in participating in the broad social discourse. It is not limited to warning of dangers, but also includes the search for ways out of a crisis" [18]. He therefore advocates a kind of activism, but not for ideological influence or the maintenance of power, but for radical thinking about solutions for the good of society. In addition, lecturers should represent a concept of nature that does not allow for a separation or opposition between humans and nature, but rather includes humans in the concept of nature. The increasingly digital world as a parallel world must not lead to us humans becoming increasingly alienated from nature, as this would make us no longer aware of the many losses of its diversity and would no longer provide us with any motivation to vehemently protect this nature as the basis of our lives. The philosopher J. Habermas wrote in his treatise Technology and Science: "The alternative to existing technology, the design concept of nature as the antagonist instead of the object, refers to an alternative structure of action: to symbolically mediated interaction as opposed to purposeful rational action"[19].

Case 2: Energy generation and digitalization

The path taken in Germany, away from fossil fuels and towards renewable energies, began around the year 2000 and will only be successful in the long term for future climate targets if it can be continued consistently. A return to nuclear power is politically blocked and would probably not solve our current energy price problems in the medium term. Especially not when you consider the risk of possible nuclear contamination and the danger to entire generations of people. However, this view is different in many countries. What answers should instructors give to this? According to the authors H. Kurtze and A. Macaluso [20], the possibility of exerting technological and political influence, e.g. in a subject such as physical technologies, would not be permissible, but technical education about the generation processes of solar and nuclear energy, pointing out the need for emission-free energy in order to achieve climate targets and highlighting their consequences would be. Ideological influence, on the other hand, would not be permissible; the fact-based consequences would speak for themselves. Quotes from social scientists such as H. Rosa in his essay on social energy would round off the debate in any case: "Modern society is a high-energy society [...] in the year just ended, the associated global CO2 emissions have already reached a record level, although at the same time the production of renewable energies has increased enormously. We are not using this energy to change the world for the better, but to maintain existing systems, social functions and institutions" [21].
Energy demand will at least double in the coming years, yet the energy produced will still not be enough to meet our ever-growing needs. We are exhausting ourselves and are a long way from theories of availability; that regenerative energies will soon provide us with much more energy than we need. This slogan often propagated by scientists conceals our problem with all resources: demand will be high simply due to the consistent application of artificial intelligence and other digital technologies. Unlike in natural or thermodynamically voluntary processes, we are unable to "release" or store energy on a large scale. Electromobility and heating/air conditioning systems as well as the aforementioned digital processes require all our reserves, as rebound effects consume these in no time at all, for even more consumer goods and the release of other resources. Ways of saving energy and reducing individual energy requirements must also be treated and discussed as an ideology-free solution option. Spaces within teaching could be created for this in particular in courses such as engineering ethics or scientific ethics or sustainability.

Case 3: Chemistry and dual effects

With regard to the planetary boundaries, the loss of biodiversity, the increase in biogeochemical material flows and cycles and the rising number of new synthetic substances have grown far beyond the risk range [22]. The authors K.G. Steinhäuser and M. Große-Ophoff state: "Since 1950, chemical production has increased 50-fold. This amount is expected to triple again by 2050. An estimated 350,000 different chemicals are produced worldwide" [22].
In view of these facts, new challenges are arising for chemistry as well as a rethink in dealing with energy provision, resources and areas of use. In addition to substance and data management, safety regulations and precautionary measures, lecturers should also clearly address the handling and reduction of critical substances. In addition to gases with global warming and ozone depletion potential, these include above all those substances that are poorly degraded in the environment (PFAS) or can alter it (endocrine disruptors) or even pose a health risk, such as the pesticide glyphosate. The clear appeal to chemists would be to reduce the production and release of these harmful substances, especially those whose side effects have been scientifically proven or are suspected as a precautionary measure. To knowingly negate this stop would be an immoral fact and must be ethically labeled as such. In addition, many groups of substances are overrepresented and their reduction in number or substitution with biodegradable natural products should be prioritized. In their text The Code of Ethics for Chemists between Moral Values and Local Reality, Steiner and Buhmann [23] point out gaps between moral intentions and actual facts and refer to various codes of ethics in chemistry. Recent activities of the GDCh and a planning group show the need to integrate these guidelines into regular university education [24].

4th case: A warning to science: the case of Carole Hooven

The evolutionary biologist Carole Hooven from Harvard University was asked by a presenter on the US channel Fox what she thought of a trend in the training of doctors: namely that professors at medical faculties were instructed to avoid the terms "male" and "female". Even "pregnant woman" can result in a student complaint [25]. 'Pregnant person' is recommended: this way, a biological woman who is expecting a child but identifies as a man does not feel discriminated against. Carole Hooven said into the microphone that she thought the language regulation was a mistake. From a biological point of view, there are two genders - male and female. The terms are valuable and we should not bow to pressure from ideologues. However, she also said that with knowledge of the biological facts, you can still treat others with respect. You should, she said, "respect a person's gender identity and use their preferred pronouns". But this was not heard by colleagues and students at Harvard, who made Hooven's life unbearable in the weeks that followed. Hooven was called transphobic on Twitter and vilified in internal emails for her "harmful" remarks. Heads of other departments turned on her. Friends dropped her. All of this is well documented. In the end, her only option was to resign. The emotional charging of academic topics damages her reputation and is not free of Weber's "demagogic aims". The lawyer and philosopher F. Rostalski [26], author of the book Die vulnerable Gesellschaft, explains in an article in Die Zeit: "Many people tend to charge their moral standpoint, be it on war or the climate, to such an extent that they make it part of their personality. If someone then argues against this, it is no longer interpreted as factual, but as a direct attack on their own person." And: "So they are immediately on an emotional level and can only respond on an emotional level. And that is a problem, because it denies discourse" [26].

Conclusion: Instructors have a great responsibility towards society, their students and their own convictions, especially in times of global polycrises. This leads them to weigh up their own experiences and viewpoints against socially relevant value judgments in terms of solving existential problems. Lecturers should be able to provide good and courageous guidance for their students if they are value-oriented and yet impartial, if they are independent of ideological trenches and loyal to the constitution, and if they also critically examine certain topics in their subject area. They have it in their hands to present the choice of socially relevant options in a reasonable way by means of facts, logical conclusions and the questioning of professionally targeted goals. In today's complex world, this could be of particular value.

Literature:
[1] T. Adorno [1969] 2003, Kritik. In: R. Tiedemann (ed.): Gesammelte Schriften: Kulturkritik und Gesellschaft I/II. Berlin: Suhrkamp, pp. 785-793p. 785).
[2] M. Schröder; Wissenschaftler dürfen keine Aktivisten sein, Die Zeit 13, March 21, 2024
[3] Max Weber, Wissenschaft als Beruf (1917) published in: German History Intersections,"><https: germanhistory-intersections.org de wissen-und-bildung ghis:document-159>;</https:>[25.11.2024].
[4] Wendy Brown, Nihilistic Times - Thinking with Max Weber, Suhrkamp 2023 Ch. Weber and Us (pp. 139-166)
[5] M. Kim: What is value-neutral ethics education? - A brief introduction to the problems of the neutrality requirement and value neutrality, In: Kim, M.; Gutmann, T.; Friedrich, J.; Neef, K. (eds.): Werte im Ethikunterricht. An den Grenzen der Wertneutralität, Barbara Budrich 2021, pp. 7-15.
[6] M. Heil, Die Forderung nach Neutralität von Lehrkräften als Entpolitisierung des Lehramts heiEDUCATION Journal 7 2021, 113
[7] From: Die Zeit 54 (2023) 35.
[8] Y. Mounk; Sie sabotieren sich selbst, Die Zeit 3 (2024) 31.
[9] https://www.tagesspiegel.de/wissen/antisemitismus-skandal-in-halle-professor-der-max-planck-gesellschaft-verbreitet-offenbar-hass-tiraden-gegen-israel-11158744.html
[10] M. Hyatt, PhiloMag on March 22, 2024: https://www.philomag.de
[11] Interview in: Die Zeit 16 (2024) 46.
[12] M. Gabriel Der Mensch als Tier; Ullstein 2022, 2.Teil: Der Sinn des (Über)Lebens; Kap. Grenzen des liberalen Pluralismus? pp. 175-183
[13] VDI-Kodex: Ethische Grundsätze des Ingenieurberufes (2021). https://www.vdi.de/themen/ethische-grundsaetze
[14] H. Jonas, Das Prinzip Verantwortung, Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Suhrkarnp Verlag, Frankfurt/M. 1984, pp. 31-38
[15] Banksy: "We can't do anything to change the world until capitalism crumbles. In the meantime we should all go shopping to consol ouerselves" Exhibition in Magdeburg (2024)
[16] M. Rothberg: The Implicated Subject- Beyond Victims and Perpetrators; Stanford University Press (2019)
[17] University Study of the German University Center for Science Research 2024 https://metadata.fdz.dzhw.eu/public/files/data-packages/stu-scs2023$/attachments/scs2023_MethodReport_en.pdf
[18] S. Ramstorf: Sagen, was wir kommen sehn, Die Zeit 27 (2020) 9.
[19] J. Habermas: Wissenschaft und Technik als Ideologie; S, 57; Suhrkamp-Verlag (1973)
[20] H. Kurtze, A. Macaluso; Möglichkeiten zur technologisch-politischen Beeinflussung im Fach Physikalische Technologien; Poster innerhalb des Seminars Ingenieurethik an der Hochschule Anhalt (2022)
[21] H. Rosa: Was ist soziale Energie? Die Zeit 3 (2024 )47.
[22] K.G. Steinhäuser, M. Große-Ophoff, Entlang planetarer Grenzen, Nachr. Chem. 70 (2022) 28-31.
[23] A. A. Bumann, O. M. Steiner; The Code of Ethics for Chemists between Moral Values and Local Reality; Chimia 78 (2024) 601-605.
[24] H.G. Weinig: Ethik in der Chemie, Nachr. Chem. 72 (2024) 86-87.
[25] J. Dudziak, Es ist ein Schock, ich muss mein ganzes Leben neu ordnen, Zeitmagazin 11 (2024) 36-42. and : https://www.nzz.ch/feuilleton/harvard-warum-evolutionsbiologin-carole-hooven-die-uni-verliess-ld.1777481
[26] F. Rostalski; Es gibt keine demokratiegefährdendenden Diskurse; Die Welt, March 20, 2024.

Jens Hartmann (2021)

Viruses have existed for billions of years. The question of whether viruses are living beings at all is a controversial one: Viruses do not have a metabolism and cannot reproduce independently. However, viruses also have one characteristic of living beings: they have the ability to evolve genetically - for example through mutations that allow them to adapt. And as soon as their blueprint is incorporated into the DNA of a host cell, they become part of a living system. So, are they border crossers of life, inanimate bioparticles or microorganisms? Viruses are at least part of life [1][2].

However, the genetic ability of many viruses to constantly and aimlessly form mutations does not mean that viruses have a specific purpose. Viruses are concerned with their own life insurance; this fragment of life wants to live on consistently. And if it can do so, there is only one host nearby. So the question is not what sense does the existence of the virus make, but what sense do overpopulations on our planet make in which the virus could multiply quickly and efficiently. Is the habitat of a species limited, is life there possibly weakened by its environment (confinement of a mass holding) or lack of food? Then there would be good opportunities for viruses to drive their exponential growth. Even accepting that a not inconsiderable proportion of their hosts might even die. There are a number of examples of this in the animal kingdom alone: Pig and bird epidemics...and predicted bat flu. "It was in 2003 when a serious infectious disease suddenly triggered a global epidemic: SARS. Severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS for short, was caused by a completely new type of virus from the coronavirus family. Coronaviruses are particularly common in bats, but do not cause any symptoms there. In 2011, Prof. Dr. Christian Drosten from the then Institute of Virology at the University Hospital Bonn explained that these viruses had not yet appeared as pathogens of severe respiratory infections, which kill up to ten percent of all infected people [3]. And in 2012, a risk analysis was commissioned by the Robert Koch Institute (RKI) in collaboration with the German Bundestag: "The scenario describes an unusual epidemic based on the spread of a novel pathogen. This was based on the hypothetical pathogen "Modi-SARS", which nevertheless has realistic characteristics. The choice of a SARS-like virus was based on the fact that the natural variant quickly pushed very different healthcare systems to their limits in 2003. The past has already shown that pathogens with novel properties that trigger a serious epidemic event can emerge suddenly (e.g. SARS coronavirus (CoV), H5N1 influenza virus, chikungunya virus, HIV). Using simplified assumptions, the hypothetical course of a pandemic in Germany was modeled for this modi-SARS virus, which is both nationally relevant and plausible" [4]. Further down, the communication summarizes: "...the special thing about this event is that, firstly, it affects the entire area of Germany and all population groups to the same extent, and secondly, it occurs over a very long period of time. If such a pandemic were to occur over a period
of three years, three separate waves with immensely high numbers of victims and serious effects on different areas of protection could be expected"[4].

The danger of such a SARS pandemic has therefore been known for many years. A head start that we humans have only been able to partially exploit. Although the first researchers started early on to find mechanisms to combat the virus as a vaccine, the dangerousness and versatility of the virus was initially underestimated or not discovered. Hardly any virus can infect almost all cells of the human body like SARS-CoV-2, whether nerve cells, the respiratory tract, heart vessels or intestinal cells [5]. The virus is currently unsurpassed in its versatility! The fact that these viruses also cause mild courses of disease means that they can infect many host organisms for a long time and remain undetected.

The Ebola virus, on the other hand, is more contagious and far more deadly. The resulting disease (Ebola fever) usually always leads to severe courses that immediately prevent the mobility of those infected. Further transmissibility therefore appears to be more limited than with SARS-CoV-2. The high lethality of the hosts also means that Ebola viruses are less likely to spread.

There are a variety of possible mechanisms and effects of viruses, provided there is proximity to a potential host. Ultimately, this virus will also remain on this planet forever due to its immense growth and mutation behavior. And, as viruses were and are companions of life and evolution, the next virus is already waiting for us!

And just like the current virus, it is possible that further viruses will spare no area of the world, no class or social stratum. The virus makes no distinction between people. Direct damage (illness, death) or indirect damage (consequences for society and Economics) is borne more or less by all people, all countries on this planet. Isolation is hardly possible anymore due to globalization and mobility requirements, which is strongly reminiscent of Beck's thesis of the risk society in which we live. "In the advanced modern age, the social production of wealth is systematically accompanied by the social production of risks. Accordingly, the distribution problems and conflicts of the society of scarcity are overlaid by the problems and conflicts arising from the production, definition and distribution of scientifically and technologically produced risks. There is a "shift from the logic of wealth distribution [...] to the logic of risk distribution" [6].

Even though Beck initially based his 1986 thesis primarily on the risks of scientific and technological progress (at that time: Chernobyl), these developments can be applied to current social and ecological problems. Climate change and the rapid increase in the world's population are the results of this stage of the risk society and culminate in ecological and pandemic disasters, which do not appear to be preventable even through the safety and impact assessment of science. Humans themselves are now becoming a risk in themselves, reproducing on such a massive scale and leaving a larger ecological footprint than any other higher living being on this planet. Instead of striving for a perfect world, there are now good prerequisites for risks such as new diseases, epidemics and plagues, rapid species extinction, global distribution wars and food problems. Precisely what seemed to have been overcome in the 21st century and was supposed to pave the way to the "kingdom of the gods" through Biotechnology
digitalization and artificial intelligence is now turning into a rebound of existential proportions [7].

Viruses are a part of life, a part of nature. They have no plan and they will not wipe out humanity. They are doing what they have always done; just their part in an evolution that started with humans and whose development they synergistically accompany. The humility of humans before nature and the natural balances on Earth, which were more perfect than on any planet in the universe so far, should concern us now more than ever and make us think: What will happen when this pandemic seems to have been overcome and the clouds of the many hard and soft shutdowns have cleared? Only then will we see the full extent of the pandemic! Will things then continue as before?

[1] M. Vieweg, March 20, 2020; wissenschaft.de: www.wissenschaft.de/gesundheit-medizin/sind-viren-lebendig/
[2] U. Bahnsen, A. Sentker; Nach den Regeln der Natur, Die Zeit 4 (2021) 39-40.
[3] www.gesundheitsforschung-bmbf.de/de/gefahrliche-eindringlinge-droht-nach-der-schweine-und-vogelgrippe-in-zukunft-eine-3200.php
[4] Drucksache 17/12051 - 6 - Deutscher Bundestag - 17. Wahlperiode (2012).
[5] A. Mende; Der ganze Körper ist betroffen; Pharm. Ztg. 165 (2020) 26-33.
[6] U. Beck: Risikogesellschaft. On the way to a different modernity. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt a. M. 1986.
[7] Y. Harari, Homo Deus, C.H. Beck-Verlag (2017).

Jens Hartmann (2020)

Never before has there been such a polarizing dynamic in our society. The SARS-CoV-2 virus is not only shaking up our healthcare system, it is breaking society into pieces and exposing our weaknesses with crises. We are not talking about our immune system, but about our thoughts and actions in times of an unbelievably fast-moving pandemic. A year ago, restrictions of this kind were unimaginable: face masks, accommodation bans, restaurant and theater closures or the paralysis of entire industries. Or a notification app for millions of people. And yet: the average person sees the measures as sensible and apparently remains optimistic: there will be a vaccine and thus the "draining" of the viral threat. However, this flame of optimism will have to be fed with oxygen for a long time to come.

Meanwhile, so-called lateral thinkers are chanting through the cities as if the nightmare of the spring shutdown never happened. The fact that they are carrying pictures of scientists and politicians in prison garb has something chilling about it and is reminiscent of the "dark years" of National Socialism, experienced by our fathers and grandfathers.

1. The trivialization of the virus and the negation of scientific facts are dangerous, but can still be explained by a lack of education.
   
   
2. Disregarding the fates of seriously ill people with their consequential damage and ignoring the thousands of deaths is a step backwards in civilization and a moral decline that has emerged from a driven growth society without limits.
   
   
3. The fact that the general public (media, politics) has neither a clear understanding of science nor a respectful and appropriate way of dealing with the dead (except that their number is mentioned every day like the daily temperature) shows that we have nothing to oppose (1) and (2), not even the defense of our own values.
   
   
4. The fact that fellow human beings want politicians and scientists to be locked up is an abnormal and undemocratic state of affairs. There has been no outcry from society as a whole about these patterns of behavior, nor about the intolerable accusations that our police are right-wing and racist! Where is the courage and solidarity towards those who defend our constitution on a daily basis?
   
   
5. The fact that publicists and journalists are now also adding fuel to the fire by wanting to talk up a broad opinion offensive in order to give a stage to those who are supposedly being silenced by the consensus of reason simply means that the consensus of scientists themselves is rejecting scientific predictions. Incidentally, this is also the case with climate change!
   
   
6. There was no profound personal responsibility on the part of the population because the state obviously had such a firm grip on the role of leader and driver of the pandemic that it was generally relied upon - even though the liberals' daily outcry for civil liberties constantly called this very role into question.

Instead of pouring billions of euros into Economics business models that no longer have a future, the state should now invest these funds primarily in its reconstruction, education and environmental protection. Particular importance must be attached to our young people, some of whom think more progressively than we assume, in the spirit of the philosopher Ernst Bloch (1885-1977): "The concept of progress is one of the most dear and important to us. For this reason, the concept of progress must always be observed and examined in terms of its social purpose, i.e. what it is for, because it can be misused and perverted in an almost colonial-ideological way."

J. Hartmann (2020)

The shutdown and its consequences stimulate our thinking. We have witnessed a paralysis of public life and Economics never experienced since the Second World War. The processing of this unreal event now gives free rein to the democratic diversity of opinions: populists and conspiracy theorists, existentially affected people, COVID-19 sufferers and risk groups, vaccination critics, ambassadors of the socially disadvantaged, scientists and journalists, philosophers and doctors. In a healthy democracy, people argue. While emergency doctors and their staff were briefly applauded as systemically relevant saviors, the displeasure of many people is directed at scientists and their theories. Reputable journalists, for example, have issued a warning to scientists: don't preach, do research [1]. Others try to differentiate between scientists. Only scientists conducting research are allowed to make public statements, the others are "naked" and should remain silent [2].

The background to the debates is a general uncertainty in science and society about the next steps towards an ecological and economic turnaround: Away from abuse and exploitation of the earth, humans, peoples and other animals. Towards sustainability, stability instead of growth and moral care. Most of us are entangled subjects. According to Rothberg, all those who live in power relations into which they were born and whose injustice they contribute to and benefit from through their daily actions are considered entangled [3]. This does not make us individually guilty, but it does mean that our thoughts about a new order increasingly run in circles. Why?

One propagated goal is to create innovations to protect the climate and feed the world and is clearly aimed at science [4]. You must conduct successful research! However, almost everyone sees the self-marked limits that have long since opened up to the realization of innovations. No argument without a counter-argument, no progress achieved without new, usually insurmountable barriers. E-mobility only with rare earths, hydrogen from water only with high efficiency and sustainable packaging with new resource consumption. If we then reach the target, the rebound effect will kick in. Energy savings through innovation will be given away for an even more comfortable life. And the further expansion of new infrastructure in the form of charging stations, hydrogen storage facilities and power lines. All of this is necessary and planned, but has it been thought through? Or are these new goals just leading us into a further spiral of technical and digital "upgrading", combined with even more intensive exploitation of nature? And then there are the critics of the theory of anthropogenic climate change [5]. As "true climate activists", they complain that a comprehensive turnaround is not even necessary and that the activism of the entangled subjects is the real danger.

If there is a way out of all these dilemmas, then it could be the - not new - realization that we have been living beyond our means! We have been living beyond our means! What we need now is less consumption and energy consumption, less meat production and less packaging, and - yes - less chemicals. These challenges really must be tackled by society as a whole and morally, and cannot be addressed without the sciences! While the first change in chemistry's image from problem-causer to problem-solver has been completed with appreciation, science must now prove that it can significantly reduce its resources and create the basis for long-lasting products and their support through to recycling. With this in mind, chemists should sharpen up the motto of their professional community, the German Chemical Society (GDCh), "We discover chemistry for a better world", in order to define what this better world should actually look like. Better in the sense of even more comfort, freedom and quantity or better in the sense of a pleasurable renunciation of material possessions, mobility and status symbols?

Chemists should also draw clearer lines here and allow deconstruction in order to effectively curb the rebound effects. There are many upcoming projects that should finally be implemented against Economics profit interests, including the discontinuation of the production of substances that are at least controversial in terms of health or ecology. In addition, science needs to allow a stronger internal ethical discourse in order to successfully face up to increasing criticism of science from society. This internal deficiency is currently leading to external irritation and the spread of crude theories from an increasingly denialist community. The scientific consensus is thus increasingly being ignored, making it more difficult to implement the urgently needed economic and ecological turnaround.

[1] Thea Dorn: Nicht predigen sollt ihr, sondern forschen, Die Zeit 24 (2020)
[2] Martin Spiewak and Jan Schweitzer: Der Widerspruchsgeist, Die Zeit 31 (2020)
[3] Michael Rothberg: The Implicated Subject (2019)
[4] Hans-Jürgen Quadbeck-Seeger: Nachr. Chem. 68 (2020)
[5] ChemFacts 4 future incl. comments (GDCh website, 2020).

Heike Westermann, Jens Hartmann

In the TV talk show with Markus Lanz (17.03.2020) on the topic of the coronavirus, Harald Welzer [1] praised the progress of civilization with regard to the treatment of the "weak" in our society in his closing statement and argued that, surprisingly, today's societies would accept considerable restrictions and personal losses for the benefit of these "weak" people. He referred to past wars, the Shoah in times of National Socialism, euthanasia, unjust regimes such as those of Mao Zedong and other dictators and their mass murders in the history of mankind.

These unprecedented crimes indeed show the darkest side of human civilization, and thus stand outside of everything that should be called civilization. This does not necessarily mean, however, that it could never happen again.

The statement that our civilizations today are prepared to endure restrictions for the benefit of the "weak" is not convincingly significant.
Doubts have arisen, and not just since we have known that the homeless cannot stay at home in times of pandemic and are no longer given a place to stay or a meal, while the government opens up a trillion-dollar rescue package.

There are thousands of carers and nurses who, out of a deeply felt altruism in their professional activities, have now lost the illusion that personal altruism is also social altruism. Experience has shown that disability, illness, frailty, dying and death are increasingly being eliminated from our field of vision in our "event society". Illness and death are (if at all) only accompanied by the closest of relatives and death in this country takes place in clinics and care facilities or, in the best case, in a hospice.
Just a few decades ago, nurses were still involved in determining the amount of time spent with each patient, but now this is strictly regulated by the facilities and health insurance companies. This profit-oriented system consistently excludes sufficient time for attention, conversation and care.

And yet it seems that our society has become profoundly humane, because illness, infirmity and poverty are very rarely seen in public in our country. Suffering and death take place outside our field of vision. Carers and (co-)suffering relatives are included in this. Another aspect is the homeless, who are increasingly being driven out of city centers. What we don't see doesn't happen? These "cosmetics" embellish the overall image of our society, but are of little use to the "weak".

The suppression of illness, disability and death is also evident in our increasingly collapsing care system and the constant "badmouthing" of care and health professions in our society and our media landscape. Our
seemingly caring health and care system is gradually deteriorating into a purely economically oriented and ethically highly precarious system, in which the patient is already evaluated in the emergency room for his economic value for the respective institution.

For these reasons, our healthcare system is increasingly suffering from a steadily dwindling "manpower". After all, who would choose a profession that is underpaid, poorly recognized, gruelling and at risk of burnout? And yet so indescribably systemically relevant, as the crisis has shown! Aren't the increasing attacks on rescue workers, the refusal to use rescue lanes and the posting of accident victims on Instagram also evidence that illness, disability, suffering and death are not "socially acceptable", but at best photogenic?

In this respect, there is at least reason to doubt the "Welzer thesis" that we really live in a much more humane society today, even if our constitution and that of many countries around the world are based on humane rules. Yes, we have left barbaric wars, hunger and mass murder behind us (at least in the western world). But we produce weapons without scruples, which fuel wars outside our "comfort zone" in the truest sense of the word and enjoy the profits from these conflicts, which are almost invisible to us. We only become uneasy when the displaced people of these conflicts appear on the borders of our "comfort zones". More empathy for the "weak"? It is not known that the EU has brought even one sick child out of the cold mud of this winter from Lesbos into our humane "comfort zone". And even with the coronavirus pandemic, the altruism of our civil society still leaves plenty of room for improvement. It's inconceivable that police officers are being coughed on in the course of their work...!

"Civilization, however, can [...] never be understood as anything other than the transformation of the world for the benefit of mankind. He civilizes it and himself, i.e. he makes it and himself useful for his purposes in order to be able to live better" [2].

The hope for civilizational progress, for example after surviving a virus pandemic like this one, would lie in a sustainable increase in empathy, reason and altruism as values that should be added to a meritocracy. On the other hand, "carrying on like this" using only the means of the digital revolution, including mainly "online" communications and permissive data sharing, will lead us into further human crises.

[1] H. Welzer (born 1958) is a prominent German sociologist and publicist.
[2] R. H. France; Welt, Erde und Menschheit; Ullstein Verlag Berlin (1928).

J. Hartmann, H. Westermann

An ecological turnaround in growth is not progress per se. However, it would be absolutely necessary in order not to use up the earth's resources completely and to curb the final overexploitation of nature. It must therefore be possible to inspire people with this consensus of reason, even though their degree of freedom must be restricted. A dilemma that is currently being felt in society, especially in politics: climate packages are being put together on the assumption that innovation in technology and science as well as stronger growth in the Economics through digitalization should buy us time to delay a drastic ecological turnaround.

The authors of this article are convinced that we will not have enough time to take sensible steps now. In Kant's sense: "no theory entitles him to assume that the world as a whole is always progressing for the better, but pure practical reason, which dogmatically commands us to act according to such a hypothesis".¹
The concept of progress is shaped by science and technology, the speed of our will and actions is the driving force. The last 100 years of human civilization have been a constant race for scientific and technological benefits for the part of humanity that could afford them. At the latest due to the development in Asia since 1945, it is precisely this part of humanity that is becoming ever larger, with resources and areas remaining the same, as well as existing physical laws on earth. "Basically, technological progress is preventing us from adapting our way of life to the limited resources on earth. "² A collapse is imminent.

Example of progress and mobility

In Germany, the energy transition from 2000 onwards was an important step, also with regard to electric mobility: the establishment of renewable energies forms the basis of an ecological transition. At the same time, our energy footprint of 125 kWh per person per day is far too high. Even with the calculated optimal expansion of renewable energies in Germany, this footprint cannot be ^covered3. Politicians always emphasize the economic compatibility of an ecological turnaround and rule out hard rules (laws) and bans, while propagating taxes as the regulatory element. On October 17, 2019, the Bundestag voted on a speed limit on Germany's ^motorways4. While a narrow majority (56%) of the population was in favor of a speed limit, the Green Party's proposal was clearly rejected in parliament. This meant that an important signal that society so badly needed was not given: the symbolic starting signal for the dismantling of a privilege and sensible restrictions in the interests of conserving resources, reducing emissions and ensuring people's safety. The linguistic choice of justification seems particularly worrying: "total surveillance of our freeways", "ideological demand", "paternalism of citizens". This shows the lack of responsibility of those in power to take the lead in reducing growth, while suggesting a rejection of a modern transport policy and an adherence to economic interests with the killer argument of job security.

The expansion of transport networks could even be propagated as growth, but only if cars with senselessly high consumption are removed from the cities and rural connections are actually established. The advantages of digitalization could be used here to transport more people in fewer cars. On the other hand, the sole substitution of cars with fossil fuels by electric cars would be the wrong approach. This would lead us into new dependencies with old problems. The expansion of the necessary infrastructure and the production, charging and recycling of batteries would lead to a gigantic consumption of resources without reducing traffic jams and accidents and avoiding dependencies on developing countries, including their morally reprehensible exploitation. Here, too, 20 years have been wasted, during which, for example, hybrid drive technology has been made ready for series production as a transitional technology and plans for hydrogen drives have lain in scientists' drawers.

Scaling back growth and traditions

Scientists have long pointed out that exponential growth has been observed in nature, for example in the growth of bacterial cultures or tumors, i.e. in primitive or pathological processes that ultimately fail due to their own ^dynamics5.

The solution would therefore be to dismantle growth in the economic and ecological sense and to halt social decline on the basis of the traditional ways of life of a rational industrial civilization. "[...] since we owe the order of our society to the handing down of rules, ... all progress must be based on tradition. "⁶ Appropriate lifestyles such as thrift and recycling, regional production and short transport routes, fair trade, long-lasting products and slowing down our lives could be linked to the technical achievements of progress such as digitalization, Mechanical Engineering and Biotechnology, excluding the maximization of success and including ecological and moral criteria. Nobody wants to go back to stove heating or dial telephones. The majority, on the other hand, are calling for an end to unethical factory farming.

The authors discuss the role of engineering technology today, including concepts for sustainable Agriculture, alternatives to plastic packaging, hydrogen technologies and_{CO2 sorption} and its use. It is precisely now that engineering technology will be called upon, as the ecological framework conditions must become more concrete and therefore innovations even more focused and inventive.

However, the authors argue that the decisive factor will be the extent to which people see an ecological turnaround of reduction and economy as an opportunity and a gain, without continuing the current mental polarization and retreating into their own ego relationship: "Continuing to build on the civilizational project means dismantling the wrong development paths. And the most wrong of all is to continue to desocialize the social form of life of the human species. "⁷ A planned halt to growth and the renunciation of predatory luxury could bring us a significant benefit: a deceleration of life with the hope of a mutual convergence of basic interests. This prospect of a good life in harmony with nature must be communicated as a hope in order to dispel the fears of those who idolize the old concept of progress through growth.

1 I. Kant; On the Progress of Metaphysics since Leibnitz and Wolf, 1791.

2 A. Ernst; Center of Environmental System Research at the University of Kassel, in: Was kann der Deutsche Ingenieur?
in M. Jauer, Die Zeit 41 2018, 15-17.

3 C. Holler, J. Gaukel; Renewable Energies, UIT Cambridge, 2019.

4 https://www.abgeordnetenwatch.de/bundestag/abstimmungen/tempolimit-auf-deutschen-autobahnen (17.10.2019)

5 J. Grahl (2010); wachstumsruecknahme.qsdf.org/wachstumskritik.html (07.11.2019)

6 F. A. von Hayek; Recht, Gesetz und Freiheit (1979) , Mohr-Siebeck, Tübingen 2003

7 H. Welzer; Everything could be different, Fischer-Verlag, 2019.

The formulation and implementation of ethical principles and values will become increasingly important in the training of engineers in the life sciences (life science engineering) in the future. The accelerating growth society with its technology drivers Biotechnology and digitalization is currently creating a technological and socio-political leap in our society that has never been seen before. New production processes, networking of processes, providers and data as well as increasing digitalization strategies will quickly dominate the market without any real social reflection taking place. A social market economy will therefore have little chance of asserting itself. Society lacks truthful information, moral guidelines and, above all, the ability to assert itself. Take, for example, the way the German car industry deals with its misconduct.

This is also the case in the life science engineering sector, the engineering sciences related to nutrition and health. Numerous case studies on genetic engineering, pharmaceutical research, food quality or the handling of resources and the environment occasionally reveal misguided developments and reports, inconsistent action, a lack of transparency and concealment of the real problems. This discredits groups of people, companies or entire industries. And obscure all the activities of those who achieve real improvements in the respective industries in terms of morality and sustainability.

Interdisciplinary thinking and impact assessment as well as the sustainable implementation of progressive ideas with a high level of responsibility are at the heart of a new way of thinking about values in life science engineering as a subfield of engineering ethics. "Tools" are presented to morally support engineering decisions, above all technology (impact) assessments, risk analyses and preventive measures for human health, animal rights and sustainable environmental conservation. Advanced strategies often have to be examined for compatibility criteria and new framework conditions created.

In a society that continues to grow and is driven by technology, there is a need for rules, deceleration measures and moral boundaries in order to secure our existence on this earth in the long term. Technological problem-solving must be accompanied by timely research into concerns. Example: in addition to the technological hotspots of artificial intelligence, 3D organ printing, gene therapies, smart sensors and homes, etc., the future of the healthcare industry should focus on the dignity of people to live a self-determined life.

At our department, we train students who will later work in the fields of life science engineering. And as engineers! They will be the ones who determine processes and products in the Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical Engineering and Food Technology sectors. Not so much in research as in day-to-day production, development and quality control. This is a very special responsibility! These are products that are ingested or come into contact with humans or animals on a daily basis as active ingredients, nutrients, supplements, additives and personal (body) protection products. The weal and woe of these substances is largely dependent on their purity and identity. Information about these products is also of great importance for customers, patients and consumers! The origin of raw material data, animal ethical principles in their husbandry and killing, sustainable production + disposal and environmental protection are behind these products. These values are not actually new, every modern person wants to act ethically!¹ But new technological conditions and possibilities (such as gene therapies or automation of human actions) must lead to new ways of thinking about values, especially new strategies and ideas to maintain values in the "balancing act" between morality and profit! We want to be successful and good! But that is exactly what we are not at the moment! Due to the constant growth society, processes and actions keep getting out of moral control.

This is also an appeal to the next young generation to initiate change. This in turn requires this generation to engage intensively and honestly with reality: Ethics creates unease towards thinking more deeply about the consequences of our actions2. And: we need guidance on our path to a new way of thinking about values: we must succeed in developing a comprehensive ethics of consequences through more communication and discourse between experts and laypeople. We should recognize that this is not a bulwark against our interests, but a railing for the path of a new generation of successful engineers who are satisfied with their professional image.

¹ Using case studies from the fields of Biotechnology, Food Technology, Pharmaceutical Engineering and General Engineering, students in Engineering Ethics discuss the pros and cons of decisions and provide their own ideas for solutions.

2 Martin Lendi (2003) www.research-collection.ethz.ch/bitstream/handle/20.500.11850/147811/eth-26888-01.pdf