This session was a panel discussion consisting of (from left to right in the figure below):

• Moderator Marion Schmidt
• Andreas Busch (Bayer Schering Pharma AG)
• Margret Wintermantel (Hochschulrektorenkonferenz)
• Matthias Kleiner (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft)
• Sabine Kunst (Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst)
• Jürgen Mlynek (Helmholtz-Gemeinschaft)
• Thomas Rachel (parliamentary state secretary)
• Helmut Schwarz (Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung)

The discussion started with the question if Germans abroad should really try to move back to Germany, given the current cuts in public budgets. The panelists Kunst and Wintermantel answered by emphasizing the financial problems but also raised awareness that the differences between the states must be kept in mind and that some states have more to provide for applicants than others.

DFG president Kleiner joked that all the money lost in the state-owned banks could now be invested in universities, because the banks don't exist any more, leaving money in the states to be invested. As previously in this meeting, Kleiner painted a rosy picture of the Excellence Initiative despite the seemingly meager funding of 1.8 billion in the first and 2.4 billion in the second phase.

Mlynek emphasized that the research institutions only thrive if the universities thrive because of the many collaborations the Helmoltz Association wth the universities. He recounted a recent trip to NYU and other east-cost universities and felt his experience with the German research system compared favorably with what he saw there. A recognized problem in Germany he mentioned was job security and planability for young researchers.

Schwarz also emphasized the chronic financial crisis of the German universities. He likened the current demands of politicians to asking the universities to compete in the Formula One with Trabies.

Predictably, Member of Parliament Rachel replied to these comments by again emphasizing the differences in the different states and that not all was so bad. He again reiterated how much money they managed to pump into the education budget despite the financial crisis and trends in other countries.

I get the impression that people are well aware they can't sell a rosy picture, but the panelists all attempted to convey a more nuanced picture tat not all is bad, or at least that people have tried their best to keep the situation of higher education and research in Germany from getting any worse.

After all this emphasis on the differences between the federal states the moderator asked if there is a possibilty for the federal state to found or buy universities. Rachel replied by speculating that this would not be possible under the German constitution. Kunst did not want to speculate if she would prefer the federal state to take over her university. After being pushed, she said she felt ambivalent and that the question was too difficult to answer. Wintermantel reiterated that she didn't care where the money came from, as long as they're funded properly (d'uh!). She recounted anxiety from er time as university prsident that heating costs would rise during her term, forcing her to cut professorships to pay the energy bills. Mlynek told us about Research Center Karlsruhe that is funded to one half by the state and to 50% by the federal government and pleaded to wait for the results of this experiment to come in. Kleiner reiterated that the rift in fundung between the federal government and the states is likely to increase in the immediate future, for a number of reasons. He also touted the same horn that the funding of the universities must keep pace with the federal research funds. Rachel capped this part of the discussion that it is politically very difficult, given the German federal system, to increase the funds in lockstep with the federal funds. He told us about more examples where federal research institutes collaborate with universities to compensate for the lack of funds at the universities.

Given the cuts in public funds, the representative of the industry, Busch, finally was asked if he can see increased attractiveness of industrial research for young scientists. He replied that the research funds in industry apparently parallel the public funds and therefore there wasn't necessarily a competitive advantage in industry. Rather, also in industry they need to work with less funds. However, instead of complaining one should rather think about focusing research more. In addition, he mentioned collaborations with public research as a way to find solutions with less funds. He recounted a few examples of successful public-industry cooperations which he thought could srve as models for future colaborations. Personally, I don't think it's a good idea to use public funds to support research which will increase the profits of multinational corporations, especially not those which already benefit from the basic biomedical research that is done in universities without any industrial funds or support at all.

In the Q&A session, I asked the only representative from scientific publishing/journalism, the moderator Marion Schmidt from Gruner+Jahr about the financial and other crises in the publishing industry and what that means for young scientists interested in a career in this business, but she declined to answer.