Professor George Leitmann: A Life of Bridging Continents and Championing Humanity

Christian Hänel

“I’ve decided not to sleep much anymore. Because this is not the time to be asleep,” Professor George Leitmann remarked to me on a sunny February afternoon in Northern California. When I met George, he was ninety-nine years old. Born in Austria in 1925, he fled from Nazi Germany at the age of fifteen, crossing the Atlantic and landing in New York City. His father did not make it; he perished in a concentration camp.

When George was nineteen, he enlisted in the US Army and returned to Europe. He was among the troops who liberated the Landsberg concentration camp, one of the eleven Dachau satellites. After the war, he served as an interrogator at the Nuremberg Trials at just twenty years old. He questioned high-ranking military figures such as General Heinz Guderian, former guards at concentration camps, and Margarete Himmler, the widow of Heinrich Himmler, the chief architect of the Holocaust.

Later, George went onto a distinguished career as a professor of engineering science at the University of California, Berkeley, specializing in optimal control and dynamic game theory. And he became a Humboldtian, researching, and forming lasting friendships in the country that had once murdered his father. For decades, George worked to foster transatlantic relations. He built intellectual and human bridges between Germany and the United States that continue to shape bilateral understanding to this day. Recognizing the need for a stronger organizational presence of Humboldt alumni in the United States, Leitmann became the founding president of the Alexander von Humboldt Association of America in the late 1980s.

At a time when the Cold War still cast a long shadow and US–German relations were rapidly evolving, George’s initiative was visionary. He understood that alumni of the Humboldt Foundation—individuals who had lived, researched, and taught in both countries—formed a vital reservoir of goodwill and mutual understanding. Under his leadership, the association created opportunities for continued scholarly exchange, fostered alumni networks across the United States, and laid the foundation for what would later become American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation: a professional and philanthropic organization devoted to advancing the transatlantic mission of the Humboldt Foundation.

George’s efforts were not merely administrative; they were deeply human. He believed that science and research could transcend political ideologies and national boundaries, and he embodied the principle that diplomacy does not belong solely to states—it can also belong to scientists, educators, and civil society. In this spirit, he mentored younger scholars, welcomed visiting researchers from Germany, and continued to advocate for the power of academic mobility long after his formal retirement. His work helped ensure that Humboldt alumni in the United States remained connected not only to Germany, but also to each other, creating a durable web of transatlantic relationships that has withstood political headwinds and shifting institutional landscapes.

Today, as we face rising tides of nationalism, populism, and suspicion of international cooperation, George’s life story resonates more than ever. At a time when political rhetoric often emphasizes division and isolation, his legacy reminds us that individual action—rooted in empathy, intellectual openness, and historical awareness—can foster connection across even the deepest divides. George Leitmann was not naïve about the challenges of our world; after all, he had lived through some of its darkest chapters. Yet he chose collaboration over cynicism, and bridge-building over bitterness. That choice is a testament both to his character and to his enduring contribution to transatlantic relations.

I had the privilege of sitting for hours with George at the small bistro in his senior residence in Berkeley. Gazing out the window, he sighed before turning to me with a look of concern. “I’m pessimistic,” he admitted. He saw parallels today to what he had witnessed before. Our free democracies, founded on the rule of law, are under threat—threatened from within. Democracies can turn into dictatorships. As we discussed this, we thought about both sides of the Atlantic.

George politely expressed frustration that few seemed willing to heed his warnings. “I think it’s psychological,” he reflected. “Everyone is consumed by their own little problems. People just want to be happy. They want to shield themselves from the unpleasant. Until it’s too late.”

During our conversation, we agreed on the importance of applying the lessons of the past to the present to ensure a peaceful, free, and sustainable future. “There is no collective guilt for a society over horrific actions in a dark past,” George asserted. “But there is a collective responsibility to keep that memory alive—so it doesn’t happen again.”

A few months later, on May 19th, George passed away—just days before his one-hundredth birthday.

In honoring Professor George Leitmann, we pay tribute not only to an outstanding scholar, but also to a role model for how a single life, with humility and perseverance, can help shape the course of international understanding. His example challenges us to look beyond our borders, to seek common purpose in shared knowledge, and to invest in the people-to-people relationships that underpin lasting peace. In a fractured world, his legacy remains whole—and wholly inspiring.

Tribute to George Leitmann – ISSUE NO. 20

Maintaining Scientific Progress in the Changing Research Landscape

Lee Ann Banaszak

Many Humboldtians have no doubt been concerned about recent directives from the federal government regarding science research. At Pennsylvania State University where I teach, for example, one of my colleagues was among hundreds nationwide to have an active research grant cancelled mid-research. Moreover, the ordered reduction of indirect cost rates to 15% for National Institutes of Health grants will result in a shortfall of over 40 million dollars in the Penn State budget if the current court-ordered pause is lifted. At many other universities, the shortfall is significantly higher. All of this has led many scientists to worry about the future of science in the United States, and many students are questioning if there is a future career to be had in scientific research. Will the recent directives halt the discovery of important new scientific insights, and what will be the impact on the production of future scientific knowledge?

My perspective on the future of scientific inquiry is colored by a colleague’s recent book on science, which emphasizes the internationalization of scientific inquiry. David Baker and Justin Powell’s book Global Mega-Science (Stanford University Press, 2024) examines the development of scientific knowledge over the twentieth and twenty first centuries and notes two different prevailing trends. Increases in government funding alone do not account for the great scientific innovation we see over that time period; rather, they argue that the rise in scientific discovery was aided by two other major shifts. The first was the emergence of the modern research university; the second was the explosion of international collaboration among scientists.

Baker and Powell argue that university settings have not always been the focus of scientific research.  It was only in the 1940s and 50s that most authors of scientific publications were affiliated with a university, and it was not until the late 1980s that universities began to dominate the research enterprise (Baker and Powell 2024: 37).  Linking research and education within the university makes sense because student learning is enhanced by the research enterprise. Students who study with active researchers learn the process of inquiry, which can lead to important skills—like lifelong learning—that prepares them to thrive amid fast-paced technological and scientific innovation. What is less widely appreciated is that undergraduate education has also facilitated research by supporting scientific infrastructure. Unfortunately, the synergy between research and teaching is already under stress, with declining public funding for undergraduate education and the long-predicted decrease in the number of college age Americans.

The second shift, toward international collaboration, is well known to alumni of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. Baker and Powell note that scientific progress has benefited from multi-country research teams and global collaboration. Such international collaborations are not new; indeed, Alexander von Humboldt himself was a member of multiple international learned societies that shared research results and information. But far more than in Humboldt’s time, today’s scientific inquiry is often spearheaded by multi-country teams like the IceCube Neutrino Collaboration, discussed in Baker and Powell’s book, which brings together researchers from over a dozen countries. International collaboration is increasing even in the social sciences, fields that in 1960 had been dominated by single investigator projects.

How exactly the proposed reductions in US government–sponsored research will impact international collaboration remains unclear. It is also too early to tell whether financial austerity policies at major research universities will have downstream consequences for international collaboration. But international collaboration has many sources of support that both predate the rise of global megascience and also do not solely rely on one country. This suggests that while recent events feel cataclysmic, there are other sources of support for the transnational scientific cooperation that can help the US scientific community. These sources can be found in networks and programs like those facilitated by the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Given the current circumstances, now is the time to cultivate and deepen transnational connections with your counterparts across the Atlantic (and around the globe). It is also a great time to encourage junior scholars to develop more transnational connections by applying for Alexander von Humboldt Foundation fellowships. But we also need to strengthen our global scientific communities. In Humboldt’s day, scientific associations of independent researchers across countries played important roles in scientific endeavors beyond the communication of scientific findings and networks of knowledge.  Scientific societies worked hard to raise and disseminate funding for research and actively engaged both politicians and the public on the importance of scientific research. Although international collaborations cannot alleviate all the threats to science, global connections within the scientific community and transnational activism in support of science might dampen the precipitous changes that occur in any single nation.

 

The Humboldt Network in Action – ISSUE NO. 19

Strata Winter 2024

Science Diplomacy Priorities for the United States 2025–2030

This perspective was originally published in Science & Diplomacy, available here.

New Frontiers in Science Diplomacy was written during a “golden age” of science diplomacy that lasted almost four decades following the US-China Science and Technology Agreement in 1979. That era has ended abruptly, and we are now witnessing dramatic changes in geopolitics combined with disruptions from the pandemic, rapid technological change, economic competition with tariffs and sanctions, climate change, uncontrolled migration, political polarization, and wars. For science diplomacy practitioners in the United States to contribute to overcoming these enormous challenges will require persistent effort, new strategies, and clear priorities.

My priorities for science diplomacy focus on advancing the US national interest, but many also serve the global interest and the worldwide advancement of science and technology (S&T). In attending to these priorities, American governmental and non-governmental organizations can play a critical role in restoring public trust in S&T as enablers of peace, prosperity, and security.

Advise on nuclear weapons arms control

Nuclear weapons are an existential threat for humanity and the planet. This new era with nuclear saber rattling and rejection of arms control treaties is as dangerous as the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. It is highly likely that nuclear weapon states, including the United States, will modernize and strengthen their nuclear arsenals and other advanced weapons to deter nuclear attack given new alliances of hostile nuclear states, the aggressive behavior of autocratic leaders, and the growth in the number of countries seeking nuclear weapons. Non-governmental security dialogues between American scientific experts and those in countries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea should be encouraged. They can help inform diplomatic negotiations as has occurred in the past.

Accelerate international scientific collaboration in fundamental research and attract STEM talent from around the world

If the United States is to remain the world leader in science, technology, and innovation, it must robustly fund its own research enterprise, collaborate internationally in fundamental scientific research, and attract smart, creative people for education, research, and innovation in the US. These attributes can be sustained with policies that set the right balance between openness and security in research.

Increase collaboration with allied nations on emerging technology

One benefit of this new era is greater political support among allied democracies for increased funding of collaboration and joint research in scientific fields relevant for emerging technologies. Specific areas for emphasis include AI for advancing fundamental science, joint research and development on critical technologies, science and security dialogues, and “tech-diplomacy.” While there are limits to cooperation even among allies due to economic competition and domestic political concerns, the emphasis on moving faster together to enhance collective security and diplomacy is a powerful stimulus for democratic governments.

Increase foresight analysis and dialogue

Discussions with many nations on the implications of rapid scientific and technological developments is vital to help realize potential benefits as well as to help mitigate potential threats coming from their applications, including misinformation, disruption, and warfare. Scientific communities can collaborate bilaterally and multilaterally on foresight analysis to better understand potential threats and benefits of advanced technologies. These collaborations can augment similar work carried out by government intelligence, security, and research funding agencies. While scientists cannot predict the future, the top experts in a field have a head start on envisioning what the future might bring.

Expand engagement with states in competition and conflict with the United States

It is necessary to engage scientific leaders in nations viewed as being in competition or conflict with the United States to advance areas of mutual benefit and to serve as important channels of communication. Maintaining ongoing dialogue between scientific leaders in the United States and China is especially important. Bilateral engagements by scientific, engineering, and medical academies and professional societies are now occurring. They address global challenges as well as the latest advances in scientific knowledge. Programs that enable future scientific leaders to interact are equally valuable.

Lead on science and technology for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The United States should increase support for national and international action plans and roadmaps to use science, technology, and innovation to accelerate progress on all seventeen of the SDGs. Special attention should be given to those that have the greatest potential in the near-term to mitigate existential threats and reduce human suffering.  These include climate action, affordable clean energy, pandemic preparedness, and peace negotiations to aid civilians affected by conflicts and natural disasters. The national STI for SDGs roadmaps proposed by the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs (UN-DESA) and under development by six pilot countries illustrate how roadmaps can stimulate action to realize aspirational goals. Other governmental and non-governmental organizations can use roadmaps to help develop consensus and make progress through concrete actions.

Increase support for emerging countries

US diplomacy would significantly benefit with more government funding to help emerging countries strengthen their national ecosystems for science, technology, innovation, science policy, science advising, and science diplomacy. Work carried out by international non-governmental organizations, like the International Network for Governmental Science Advice, the InterAcademy Partnership, and the International Science Council, as well as by some national governments, scientific institutions, and philanthropies, are making real contributions. The United States’ non-governmental scientific organizations are eager to do more. They are contributing as much as they can using mostly their own funds and fund-raising, as is the case with assisting Ukraine. More US government funding to support the US scientific community to strengthen science-policy-society interfaces around the world could help restore the reputation of US science diplomacy to the prominent level it achieved during the golden era.

Protect the global commons

Increasing global dialogues on the peaceful uses and management of increasingly contested international commons, including the atmosphere, outer space, polar regions, and oceans, are key areas for science diplomacy in the new era. More engagement of foreign ministries with scientific experts is necessary to build consensus on how to manage these areas for the benefit of all.

Empower diverse actors

The United States should encourage its scientific and engineering societies, non-governmental organizations, universities, civil society groups, subnational governments, and private companies to develop their own roadmaps and partnerships using science diplomacy to help advance their goals. International partnerships and roadmaps are an effective approach to stimulate public and private institutions to learn from similar institutions in other countries and to take actions together.

Epilogue

An important task for the future is how to empower the next generation of scientists and science diplomats with the tools of science diplomacy to help overcome the challenges of this new era. Increasing the collaboration of science communities with government actors and the number of scientifically trained people working in government is critical.

To learn more about my work, click here.

The Humboldt Network in Action – ISSUE NO. 18

The Humboldt Network in Action – ISSUE NO. 17

Humboldtians and the Changing Arctic

Humboldtians and the Changing Arctic

Betsy Baker (BUKA 1991)

Humboldtians work across diverse disciplines and geographies on cutting edge scientific and policy matters. Combining these varied approaches is precisely what will help expand our understanding of the multiple changes facing the Arctic in 2024 and beyond. Arctic amplification, which tops the list of those changes, refers to the Arctic warming three to four times faster than the rest of the world in recent decades. Arctic or polar amplification is a “robust fact” supported by observed measurements, climate models, and paleoclimate proxy records.

This essay aspires simply to 1) introduce a small number of issues associated with Arctic change and 2) prompt you to consider and share whether and how your work relates to it. Input from beyond the circle of Arctic science is especially welcome, as the field would benefit from viewing these challenges from a fresh perspective.

The cascading changes associated with Arctic warming have serious consequences for the world’s oceans, atmosphere, and ecosystems: from slowing ocean circulation and thawing permafrost to changed hydrology, terrestrial landscapes, and species habitats, to precarious energy and food security and increased access to an ice-diminished Arctic and its resources. The implications of these changes are not only scientific but cultural, socioeconomic, and geopolitical.

Over decades as a professor of international ocean and environmental law, I have been fortunate to work closely with natural and social scientists from around the world in seeking solutions to environmental and cultural challenges arising from Arctic change. On any given day, my inbox here in Alaska includes reports and inquiries ranging from indigenous knowledge and ecosystem expertise, to how changes in lipid content up and down the marine food web affect fish and marine mammal abundance, movement, and vitality, to diplomatic discussions on maritime boundaries in the Arctic, to the reduction of sulfur content in shipping fuel for improved air quality in coastal Arctic villages that abut increasingly busy shipping lanes. We worry about the breakdown in pan-Arctic scientific collaboration with—and the safety of—our Russian colleagues since Russia’s unprovoked further invasion of Ukraine, and the growing data gaps resulting from the inability to work across terrestrial borders and maritime boundaries in the Arctic. These are just a few of the many interconnected issues my colleagues and I work on.

In the dozen years that my own work has focused on the Arctic, the biggest and most promising change in the broader research community relates to Indigenous Knowledge. What began as a gradual shift from outright skepticism in the Western scientific community a decade ago is now widespread acknowledgment that Indigenous Knowledge provides essential insights and expertise for addressing Arctic issues. Indigenous colleagues and organizations have led the way with persistent advocacy and relationship building, consistently participating in scientific meetings and using platforms such as the Arctic Council, where they have formal participation rights, to demonstrate how critical their input is to informed Arctic policy. Today, most pan-Arctic research organizations and many governmental bodies have official policies to promote co-produced research that draws on Indigenous and other knowledge. A concrete and legally binding example from international law is the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement. Groundbreaking in many other ways, it also includes Indigenous Knowledge holders in the body charged with developing the scientific program for the parties to the agreement.

To assist in preparing this essay, American Friends of AvH helped me identify fellow US-based Humboldtians who work on Arctic issues, including Dr. Julie Brigham-Grette, a distinguished arctic marine and terrestrial paleoclimatologist—and skilled climate communicator—who chaired the US National Academies Polar Research Board for many years. Piper Foster Wilder, a sister German Chancellor Fellowship alumna, is founder and CEO of 60Hertz, whose software streamlines the maintenance of energy assets, especially for the microgrids that are essential in a state like Alaska that has no centralized power grid, let alone roads to connect most of our villages. Several other Humboldtians working on issues relevant to, even if not directly based in the Arctic, are associated with one of the world’s premier polar research institutes known as AWI: the Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung in Potsdam, Germany. AWI’s now aging research icebreaker, the R/V Polarstern was the backbone of MOSAiC, a historic multi-year research program in the Arctic Ocean that for the first time gathered ship-borne observations year-round, even in the relentlessly dark polar winter.  The work of Humboldtian Dr. Alexandra Jahn, who directs the Polar and Paleoclimate modeling group at the University of Colorado, and participates in the multinational ship based Synoptic Arctic Survey, returns us to the starting point of this essay: both modeling and paleoclimatology confirm the existence of Arctic amplification.

If this short excursion through a sampling of challenges arising from Arctic change taps into your interests, or omits you or other Humboldtians in the field, please contact me to consider how we might amplify our knowledge in service of addressing those challenges.

Strata Winter 2023