Give Now

Category: Featured Articles

The Personal Foundations of Transatlantic Collaboration

Posted on by [email protected]

Jessica Strattard Hamilton and Christian Strowa

Transatlantic collaboration is sustained not only by agreements, but by engagement. It is accomplished not only through strategy, but through experience and through personal connections. Its foundations are solid, but should not be taken for granted.

In recent months, we traveled across the United States as part of the German Research and Innovation Tour (GRIT), meeting with university leadership, administrators, policymakers, alumni, and students across the American Southwest, Midwest, and Florida. Our mission: to highlight avenues for collaboration; strengthen the human and institutional ties that underpin transatlantic research partnerships; and cultivate collaboration through institutions and individuals who carry agreements beyond signatures and ceremony into real-world connections.

Coordinated through the German Embassy’s Science,Technology, and Space Section, the tour brings together organizations representing complementary parts of the German science, research and funding continuum, each fulfilling distinct roles in enabling collaboration. The German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD) advances academic mobility and institutional partnerships; American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AFAvH) promotes the programs of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation (AvH) and activates long-term, people-centered networks rooted in scholarly exchange in the United States; the German Research Foundation (DFG) supports excellent research projects across all disciplines while promoting international collaboration; the German Center for Research and Innovation (DWIH) connects innovation ecosystems across academia, industry, and policy makers; the Max Planck Institutes, FL, contribute world-leading fundamental research expertise and institutional partnership opportunities; and Fraunhofer USA facilitates applied research and industry-facing engagement.

Together, this group creates multiple entry points for collaboration, engaging participants from students through advanced researchers, as well as institutions.

By joining forces, GRIT partners showcase the full range of funding opportunities, expertise, and transatlantic networks that Germany offers. These networks—alumni, fellows, visiting professors, research ambassadors, friends, and partners—frequently serve as bridges across institutional and programmatic boundaries, reinforcing awareness of opportunities and strengthening connections within the broader transatlantic research community.

Across three tours, team GRIT has so far visited a toal of 14 univeristies, research institutions, and stakeholders, including Arizona State University, Michigan State University, Case Western Reserve in Ohio, Purdue University in Indiana, and the University of Florida in Gainesville. Throughout, there was a strong alignment of university focus areas with strategic priorities outlined in Germany’s recently deployed High Tech Agenda, including AI, quantum technologies, microelectronics, and biotechnology. In some cases, strategic partnerships had already been formed. In others, there was a strong interest in exploring further options for collaboration, supported through existing funding schemes and networks, including Germany alumni.

Alumni engagement across the tours revealed a consistent theme: Individuals do not view their affiliations in isolation. Many participate in multiple German funding programs, (e.g., DAAD alumni later become Humboldtians, or Humboldtians are hosted by Max Planck Institutes) and see themselves more broadly as beneficiaries of Germany’s long-standing investment in research and mobility. These networks are cumulative and mutually reinforcing, shaped by shared experience and sustained engagement rather than individual programs alone.

GRIT visits generally follow a consistent structure: strategic discussions with university leadership, funding presentations for campus audiences interested in collaboration with German partners, often including alumni perspectives on transatlantic exchange; and a networking portion that connects current and prospective alumni of German programs. Together, these engagements catalyze collaboration.

These interactions reinforce a consistent pattern in which collaboration increasingly develops through personal, sub-national, and institutional channels. National agreements establish enabling conditions. Sustained partnership emerges through researchers, faculty, students, universities, and regions acting directly.

The recent Joint Declaration of Intent (JDI) between Germany and the State of Florida illustrates this dynamic. Governmental alignment opened space for engagement, while GRIT outreach translated intent into activity by connecting researchers, students, and administrators, giving practical expression to the agreement’s commitments, and demonstrating how sustained engagement brings policy aspirations into lived collaboration.

Investment in human capital is equally critical. GRIT programs emphasize the circulation of talent rather than one-directional exchange, building communities of researchers who maintain life-long collaborations. These networks sustain cooperation long after formal agreements expire and remain among the most reliable drivers of long-term partnerships Science diplomacy is ultimately carried forward through people, trust, and relationships. And it’s role has never been more vital than it is now.

Our recent tours underscored a central lesson: transatlantic collaboration thrives when cultivated through complementary institutional roles, shared priorities, and sustained personal connection. It is not self-sustaining. Budgetary constraints, political uncertainty, and shifting priorities risk narrowing international engagement unless deliberate efforts are made to maintain it.

The work ahead therefore must focus on persistent stewardship rather than invention. It will involve sustaining mobility pipelines, cultivating and activating alumni networks, reinforcing institutional dialogue, and ensuring that collaborative opportunities are visible and accessible. Initiatives like GRIT show that when organizations with distinct but complementary missions act together, collaboration moves from aspiration to implementation.

Transatlantic partnership is formed and sustained through people—those willing to engage, build trust, exchange ideas, and share ambition in confronting global challenges. In the current geopolitical climate, that choice carries particular significance. By cultivating collaboration across institutional, regional, and personal levels, we collectively reinforce relationships essential not only to innovation, but to the resilience of international cooperation.

The GRIT partner organizations have helped shape transatlantic ties for decades, and in some cases for more than a century. These relationships have endured crises before, weathering wars, financial shocks, and the disruptions of the Covid era. This is a moment to reaffirm their value: the contribution of international research partnerships to scientific progress and societal advancement; the benefits of talent circulation and academic exchange, including cultural, social, and economic gains; and the personal connections that emerge through engagement across borders.

These relationships are built not only through institutions, but through experience. Re-discovering one’s own culture by experiencing another, forming lifelong friendships, and maybe even finding love, are all part of the international student and research experience. GRIT will continue to lay the groundwork at the institutional level. At the personal level, sustaining these relationships rests with all of us.

AvH Research Unites: Strategic Priorities in Turbulent Times

Posted on by Ilonka

Authored by Elisabeth Malsch, PhD and Jessica Strattard Hamilton, CFRE

We had the honor of taking part in the 2025 Alexander von Humboldt Foundation Annual Meeting in Berlin, where Jessica and I joined fellow American Friends of AvH board members Sumit Ganguly, Dale Medearis, Matthew Roller, and Andrea Stith. It was my second Annual Meeting; my first was 20 years ago during my Humboldt fellowship. In many ways, the event is impervious to time. The sight of children from around the world playing lawn games together embodies hope for a peaceful and collaborative future and is almost as impactful as the awesome depth of knowledge and breadth of experience represented by the awardees in attendance from across the globe. For me, this year’s meeting carried a special resonance; it was a full-circle moment that underscored the continuum of the Humboldt experience—from individual fellowship to stewardship.

In his remarks at Bellevue Palace, Federal President Frank-Walter Steinmeier reminded us that:

The truth—in the sense of scientific knowledge and political honesty—needs the support of all of us more than ever.

His words resonated as both affirmation and challenge. At a time when truth itself is contested, science must serve as a steady anchor, and networks like those of the AvH are crucial to sustaining it. During one of my morning walks, I happened upon Checkpoint Charlie and was reminded of how quickly change can occur. Sometimes gradually, sometimes suddenly—but always reshaping the landscape. The same is true of the global scientific environment. We must be vigilant, adaptable, and committed to building bridges where others see walls.

In addition to touring the Free University of Berlin, we joined the Round Table USA, an event coordinated by Katrin Amian to connect US Humboldtians and Fulbright scholars. Our discussions underscored the need to sustain our network and to create space for fact-based dialogue on issues ranging from climate science and history to diversity, politics, science diplomacy, and AI. Participants reflected on the mounting pressures on international collaboration, noting that US federal support for research and exchange is both declining and increasingly politicized, while philanthropic interest in transatlantic partnerships remains niche and competitive. At the same time, Germany is stepping forward with renewed vigor, as evidenced by the launch of the Global Minds Initiative. Alumni reaffirmed what many of us know to be true: the Humboldt fellowship often marks a pivotal turning point in careers, creating not just professional opportunity but a durable, values-driven network built on trust, reciprocity, and long-term investment in people.

Looking ahead, our conversations in Berlin pointed to several priorities: keeping alumni connected in meaningful ways, ensuring that transatlantic research pathways remain open and flexible, amplifying the voices of Humboldtians working under pressure, and cultivating the next generation of researchers who may otherwise hesitate to pursue international opportunities. These are not abstract goals but practical steps that AFAvH can help advance, serving as a transatlantic anchor in turbulent times.

Accordingly, we reaffirm that diverse perspectives and a vibrant network of connections are not only at the heart of the Humboldt experience but also the tools we must use to meet this moment. By fostering belonging among alumni, sustaining flexible pathways for collaboration, amplifying voices under pressure, and inspiring the next generation of researchers, we can ensure that the Humboldt Network continues to deliver impact across borders. In turbulent times, this commitment becomes not just valuable, but essential.

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

Posted on by Jan

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.

Maintaining Scientific Progress in the Changing Research Landscape

Posted on by Jan

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.

 

Trump-Anhänger stehen nicht trotz, sondern wegen seiner Fehltritte zu ihm

Posted on by Jan

Im NW-Interview analysiert der in Spenge aufgewachsene und in den USA wohnende Amerika-Kenner Christian Hänel die Situation im Land kurz vor den Präsidentschaftswahlen.

Wie nimmst du aktuell die Stimmung im Land vor der Wahl wahr? Wie gespalten sind derzeit die USA?

Die USA sind nicht so tief “gespalten”, wie das allenthalben medial vermittelt wird. Ich komme durch meinen Job viel herum im Land. Bin zwischen den Küsten unterwegs, im Süden, im Mittleren Westen, auch abseits der Metropolen. Wirklich überall begegne ich typisch amerikanischer Gastfreundlichkeit und Hilfsbereitschaft. Nachbarn unterstützen sich gegenseitig, engagieren sich als Freiwillige in der Organisation ihrer communities, sind in Schulen, Kirchen, Sportvereinen etc. aktiv. Und das unabhängig von politischen Ansichten, Geschlecht, Alter, Hautfarbe oder Einkommen. Das ist die Realität, die echte Realität.

Die virtuelle Realität sieht hingegen ganz anders aus. Sogenannte Soziale Medien mit ihren Algorithmen, die absurde Verschwörungstheorien befördern, säen Misstrauen und Hass. Genau diese negativen Emotionen adressieren extreme Politikerinnen und Politiker, verstärken sie, schüren Ängste bis hin zum Verfolgungswahn (“Die anderen wollen Euch die Freiheit nehmen, Euren Wohlstand, Eure Waffen!”). In Zeiten von umfassender Digitalisierung und atemberaubenden Fortschritten im Bereich der Künstlichen Intelligenz wird die Deutungshoheit der virtuellen Realität in der politischen Öffentlichkeit zunehmend größer.         

Die “klassischen Medien” könnten hier viel besser gegenwirken. Ein Beispiel: Die berühmte “Electoral Map” der USA, auf der die Bundesstaaten rot oder blau eingefärbt sind, je nachdem, ob hier die Republikaner oder die Demokraten die Mehrheit haben. Ich bin es ehrlich gesagt leid, dass wir hier alle täglich darauf starren—in Print, im TV, online. Denn diese Karte ist völlig irreführend. Der dünnbesiedelte Flächenstaat Montana beispielsweise (mit republikanischer Mehrheit) ist auf dieser Karte ein riesiges rotes Gebiet, das im Vergleich kleine Rhode Island dagegen (wo die Demokraten die Mehrheit haben) dagegen ein winziger blauer Fleck. Dabei leben in beiden Staaten fast exakt genau so viele (bzw. wenige) Menschen. Die Optik der Electoral Map erzählt aber eine ganz andere Geschichte.

Es ist die Rhetorik von den “red states” und den “blue states”, die eine Spaltung suggeriert, die so gar nicht besteht. Wir sollten eher von “purple states” sprechen, also “violetten” Staaten. Denn alle Bundesstaaten sind eine Mischung aus rot (Republikaner) und blau (Demokraten), und manchmal ist das daraus entstehende Violett eben rötlicher und manchmal bläulicher. Je nachdem, welche politische Farbe in der Mehrheit ist. Schauen wir uns die beiden größten Bundesstaaten an: Kalifornien und Texas. Auf der Electoral Map wirkt das rote Texas wie ein riesiges Bollwerk der Republikaner und das blaue Kalifornieren wie ein Imperium der Demokraten. Wenn man sich aber die Mühe macht, die tatsächlichen Wahlergebnisse anzuschauen, bietet sich ein ganz anderes Bild. 2020 haben in Texas 52,1% Donald Trump gewählt. Sehr, sehr viele Texanerinnen und Texaner, nämlich 46,5%, stimmten aber für Joe Biden. Und in Kalifornien, dem bevölkerungsreichsten Bundesstaat, der medial stets als “tiefblau” präsentiert wird, stimmten über 6 Millionen Wählerinnen und Wähler für Donald Trump.

Aufgrund des “winner takes all”-Prinzips in fast allen Bundesstaaten gehen alle electoral votes (Wahlmännerstimmen) eines Bundesstaates an den Kandidaten oder die Kandidatin, der/die mindestens eine Stimme Mehrheit hat. Und das unabhängig davon, wieviele Menschen in dem Staat leben (Ausnahmen sind hier lediglich Nebraska und Maine). Dieser Mechanismus wird dem Prinzip der repräsentativen Demokratie nur unzulänglich gerecht. Vor über zwei Jahrhunderten wurde dieses System eingeführt. Es ist nicht mehr zeitgemäß. Denn es führt dazu, dass zuweilen Kandidaten die Wahl gewinnen, die insgesamt, also USA-weit, weniger Stimmen geholt haben als ihr Gegenkandidat bzw. ihre Gegenkandidatin.

Kamala Harris hatte einen guten Start, schien zuletzt aber zu stagnieren. Hat sie Fehler gemacht? Wenn ja, welche?

Kamala Harris hat es seit Ende Juli auf beeindruckende Art und Weise geschafft, einem Rennen wieder Leben einzuhauchen, das schon gelaufen schien. Sie hat die Basis der demokratischen Partei (re-) mobilisiert und neue Rekorde in der Spendeneinwerbung aufgestellt. Ihre offizielle Nominierung auf der Democratic Convention im August in Chicago war ein perfekt inszeniertes Spektakel der positiven Botschaften, coolen Acts und mitreißenden Atmosphäre. Diese Wiederbelebung der Basis war für die Partei dringend notwendig. Denn es sind auch und vor allem die vielen, vielen freiwilligen Helferinnen und Helfer, die im amerikanischen Wahlkampf mitentscheidend sind. Im wahrsten Sinne des Wortes ziehen sie von Haus zu Haus und kämpfen um jede einzelne Stimme.

Im September folgte das einzige TV-Duell zwischen Harris und Trump. Ein glasklarer Sieg für Harris. Ihr ansonsten sehr TV-affiner Gegenkandidat ging der direkten Konfrontation seitdem konsequent aus dem Weg und lehnte das Angebot eines weiteren TV-Duells ab.

Im Oktober begeisterte Harris ausgesprochen große Menschenmengen auf zahlreichen festivalartigen Wahlkampfveranstaltungen. Gemeinsam mit prominenten Unterstützerinnen und Unterstützern wie Barack und Michelle Obama, Bruce Springsteen, Beyoncé, Willie Nelson, Oprah Winfrey etc. tourte sie durch das Land. Talor Swift schickte ihren Millionen Followerinnen und Followern eine leidenschaftliche Wahlempfehlung für Harris. Vor ein paar Tagen sprach Kamala Harris hier bei uns in Washington, DC vor über 70.000 begeisterten Menschen, auf der sogenannten Ellipse, zwischen Weißem Haus und Washington Monument. Das ist der Ort, an dem Donald Trump am 6. Januar 2021 seine Rede hielt, in der er seine Anhängerinnen und Anhänger aufforderte, zum Capitol zu marschieren.

Kamala Harris hat das Rennen um die Präsidentschaft wiederbelebt. Sie hat in kürzester Zeit die Menschen und die finanziellen Mittel mobilisiert, die es für die Demokraten brauchte, um wieder wettbewerbsfähig zu sein. Eine Stagnation oder bedeutende Fehler kann ich mit Blick auf die vergangenen drei Monate nicht erkennen.

Eine Frage, die viele Deutsche umtreibt: Wie ist es zu erklären, dass trotz seiner ganzen Fehltritte und Skandale (Verurteilung, rassistische Ausfälle, etc.)  viele US-Wähler Trump noch immer zum Präsidenten wählen würden? 

Der harte Kern der Trump-Anhängerschaft steht nicht trotz, sonden wegen seiner Fehltritte und Skandale zu ihm. Das ist wie ein Personenkult. Diese Wählerinnen und Wähler sehen in Trump den einzigen Vertreter ihrer Interessen, den einzigen Beschützer ihres “wahren” Amerikas (das vor allem “christlich”, weiß, und nationalistisch zu sein hat). Rassismus, Xenophobie und politische Gewalt werden in diesem harten Kern als Mittel zum Zweck toleriert.

Die Stimmen des harten Kerns allein würden nicht ausreichen, um die Wahl zu gewinnen. Es kommen Wählerinnen und Wähler hinzu, die die Ausfälle und Skandale Trumps nicht gutheißen—und dennoch für ihn stimmen. Diese Gruppe ist nicht klein und  durchaus heterogen. Statistisch sind diese Menschen vor allem im ländlichen Raum in der Mehrheit, aber sie leben selbstverständlich auch in den Metropolen, auch wenn es dort mehr Wählerinnen und Wähler der Demokraten gibt. Trump-Wählerinnen und -Wähler sind auch Kolleg/innen, Kommiliton/innnen, Mitarbeiter/innen, Verwandte, Vorgesetzte. Durchaus repräsentiv für verschiedene Bildungs-, Berufs- und Einkommensgruppen. Warum sie Trump wählen? Weil aus ihrer Sicht alles und jeder besser ist als etwas, das sie für “radikal links” halten. Und dieses alles und jeder ist—Trump.

Trump-Wählerinnen und Wähler empfinden es als Bedrohung von einer „radikalen Linken“, was von politisch “progressiven” Demokratinnen und Demokraten als notwendig und positiv betrachtet wird (z.B. humanitäre Hilfe für Flüchtlinge, Unterstützung von Einwanderung, rückwirkender Erlass von hohen Studiengebühren für Universitätsabsolventinnen und -absolventen aus Steuermitteln etc.). Sie empfinden es als eine Bedrohung ihrer Werte, ihres Wohlstands, ihres eigenen Lebensmodells. Und genau hier wirkt auch wieder das Gift der Sozialen Medien. In extrem rechten Meinungsblasen werden absurdeste Verschwörungstheorien salonfähig gemacht. So kam es dazu, dass ein einzelner, haarsträubender Social Media Post von hundeessenden Einwanderern in Springfield, Ohio, einen Weg ging, der bis vor ein Fernsehpublikum von über 67 Millionen Amerikanerinnen und Amerikanern führte, als sich Donald Trump im TV-Duell mit Kamala Harris darüber echauffierte, dass Migranten amerikanische Haustiere verspeisen würden.

Die Ausfälle und die gefährlichen Absurditäten der politischen Rechten (soweit rechts-links-Schemata im heutigen politischen Diskurs überhaupt noch passen) sind hinlänglich bekannt und diskutiert. Was vielleicht auch diskutiert werden sollte, sind die Fragwürdigkeiten auf der anderen Seite des politschen Spektrums. Für den nach eigener Einschätzung besonders  progressiven Teil der demokratischen Partei ist es beispielsweise gesellschaftlicher Fortschritt, wenn das Konzept von nicht mehr als zwei biologischen Geschlechtern ad acta gelegt wird und wenn das Wort “Mutter” durch “gebärende Person” ersetzt wird. Dies wirkt verunsichernd auf viele Menschen. Linke Meinungsblasen in den Sozialen Medien brandmarken diese Menschen als fortschrittsfeindlich und reaktionär. Und für diese Menschen ist damit im Zweiparteiensystem der USA Trump die einzige Alternative. Gegen den Zeitgeist, der im “alten weißen Mann” den Universalschuldigen für alle Übel sieht, wählen sie bewusst eben diesen.

Was würde es für Deutschland bedeuten, wenn Trump gewinnt? Was, wenn Harris gewinnt? Kann Deutschland wirtschaftlich und politisch weiter auf die USA als Partner setzen?

Egal, wer die Wahl gewinnt: Deutschland wird mehr außenpolitische Verantwortung übernehmen und seine eigenen Ziele klar formulieren und verfolgen müssen. Ob Harris oder Trump siegt, beide werden weiterhin substantielle Verteidigungsausgaben von Deutschland einfordern. Beruhigend ist sicherlich, dass der U.S. Congress im letzten Jahr relativ geräuschlos eine Gesetzesänderung verabschiedet hat, die einen Austritt der USA aus der NATO allein auf Geheiß des Präsidenten nicht mehr erlaubt.

Wirtschaftspolitisch werden sowohl Harris als auch Trump vor allem nationale Interessen in den Vordergrund stellen (so wie das auch schon Präsident Biden mit “Build America, Buy America” gemacht hat). Und die Exportnation Deutschland wird mit Blick auf ihre Beziehungen zu China unter Umständen zu schmerzhaften Entscheidungen gezwungen sein, egal wer die Präsidentschaftswahl gewinnt. Denn die US-amerikanische Chinastrategie ist unter Demokraten wie Republikanern deutlich robuster als die deutsche, im Austarieren zwischen Partnerschaft, Wettbewerb und Rivalität.

Aber machen wir uns nichts vor: Ob Harris oder Trump am Ende vorne liegt, das wird sehr unterschiedliche und sehr spürbare Auswirkungen auf das deutsch-amerikanische Verhältnis haben. Die Botschaft von Harris ist Zukunftshoffnung und Weltzugewandheit. Trumps Botschaft ist und bleibt America First. Harris steht für Pluralismus und Debatte. Trump steht für ein nationalistisches Amerika, in dem er als unantastbarer Anführer durchregiert. Harris und Trump verkörpern vollkommen gegensätzliche Visionen, Kommunikations- und Politikstile. Und diese werden das transatlantische Verhältnis in den kommenden vier Jahren ganz unterschiedlich prägen, je nachdem, wer gewinnt.

Was erwartest du, wenn Trump verlieren sollte? Wird es wieder Betrugsvorwürfe geben? Wie werden seine Anhänger reagieren?

Ein weiterer Aspekt des amerikanischen Wahlsystems, der nicht mehr zeitgemäß erscheint, ist die sehr lange Zeit des Prozesses: Vom Tag der Wahl des/der Präsidenten/in  am 5. November bis zur Amtseinführung am 20. Januar vergehen 11 (!) Wochen. In dieser Periode der “Transition” finden allerhand Ereignisse statt. Ereignisse, die bis zur letzten Präsidentschaftswahl lediglich zeremoniellen Charakter hatten—und so gut wie keinerlei mediale Berichterstattung fanden. Da kommen z.B. die Electors in den Bundesstaaten zur Stimmabgabe gemäß der Ergebnisse vom Wahltag zusammen, es zertifizieren die jeweiligen Gouverneure die Wahlergebnisse und schicken diese nach Washington, und schließlich bestätigt der Kongress in der Hauptstadt das Resultat. Seit den Wahlen 2020 ist klar: All diese eigentlich rituellen Wegmarken bieten Einfallstore für Anfechtung und Manipulation des Wahlergebnisses.

Sollte Trump verlieren, ist damit zu rechnen, dass er das Ergebnis nicht akzeptiert. Er hat ja auch bis heute nicht das Wahlergebnis von 2020 akzeptiert. Der harte Kern seiner Anhängerschaft wird ihm treu bleiben.

Christian Hänel ist seit Januar 2023 Geschäftsführer (President & CEO) der “American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation” (AFAvH) in Washington, DC, der gemeinnützigen amerikanischen Partnerorganisation der Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung. Diese fördert Kooperationen zwischen internationalen und deutschen Forscherinnen und Forschern und unterstützt die sich daraus ergebenden wissenschaftlichen und kulturellen Verbindungen. Die wichtigste Ressource der AFAvH sind die Alumni, die ehemaligen Stipendiatinnen und Stipendiaten der Stiftung. Diese arbeiten als wichtige Vordenkerinnen und Vordenker weltweit  vernetzt an den relevanten Themen unserer Zeit, wie z.B. Erderwärmung, Energiesicherheit, öffentliche Gesundheit, technologischer Wandel, Künstliche Intelligenz. Weltweit gibt es über 30.000 Alumni, darunter 61 Nobelpreisträger und zwei ehemalige US-Energieminister. Etwa 6.000 Alumni leben und arbeiten in den USA.

Vor seiner Tätigkeit in Washington hat Hänel viele Jahre an der Schnittstelle von Corporate Citizenship (unternehmerischer Verantwortung) und Philanthropie gearbeitet und in der unternehmensverbundenen Robert Bosch Stiftung in Stuttgart vor allem die internationalen Strategien und Programme der Stiftung, sowie die Themen Zukunftsfragen und Stiftungsentwicklung verantwortet.

Der 51-Jährige ist in Bielefeld geboren, in Spenge aufgewachsen und lebt mit seiner Frau und den zwei Töchtern in der Nähe von Washington, DC. Er studierte Geschichte und Wirtschaftswissenschaften an der Universität Bielefeld und an der Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, MD.

Science Diplomacy Priorities for the United States 2025–2030

Posted on by Jan

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.

Humboldtians and the Changing Arctic

Posted on by Jan

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.

The Time for Science Diplomacy Is Now. This Is the Time for Humboldtians.

Posted on by Jan

Alexander von Humboldt was a German naturalist and explorer whose primary focus was on scientific exploration and research.

Alexander von Humboldt was also a science diplomat whose work had significant international implications. He fostered international cooperation through collaborations with scientists and scholars in the countries he visited and established political connections and exchanged knowledge across borders. Humboldt’s insights profoundly influenced political decisions related to trade, agriculture, and environmental conservation and his work embodies current definitions of science diplomacy, such as that of Nina V. Federoff, former Science and Technology Advisor to the US Secretary of State:

Science diplomacy is the use of scientific collaborations among nations to address the common problems facing […] humanity and to build constructive international partnerships.

Today, science diplomacy is more important than ever. Our societies face challenges that affect everyone on the planet—global warming, public health, and international security, to name just a few. At the same time, rhetoric—and policies—on de-globalization, re-nationalization, and de-coupling have entered the political and societal mainstreams. Such “de-s” and “re-s” are poison for scientific progress. After all, climate change does not stop at the border between a democracy and an autocracy, and viruses do not care about the political views of their hosts. If we want to tackle global challenges, we cannot afford to think and act in regional spheres.

Our world needs leaders who drive scientific exchange and research collaboration across borders, and across sectors, be they in academia, the private sector or non-profit sphere, or the public or philanthropic sectors. We need science diplomats, and we have many in our global network—30,000 Humboldtians. When it comes to science diplomacy, Humboldtians have been there, done that. In addition to being experts in their relevant fields, they all are experienced practitioners of international exchange and collaboration.

The mission of American Friends of AvH is to cultivate the network within the network, that is, the community of US-based Humboldtians. We aim to engage these almost 6,000 brilliant minds and influential voices as much as possible. The list of our activities since the beginning of this year keeps growing. We have engaged on topics such as AI, diversity, equity, and inclusion, Russia’s war of aggression against Ukraine, the future of US-Chinese science and research exchange, cancer research, and so on. Our approach is always transatlantic, our perspective is always global.

We are also building strategic partnerships with other like-minded organizations to further elevate our brand recognition and impact on both sides of the Atlantic. Since I began outreach efforts around the United States, we have received substantial interest from potential partners. This is largely due to the fact that we bring a great asset to any partnership—our network of almost 6,000 Humboldtians. This is a network that extends across the United States–beyond the beltway, between the coasts, from the North to the South.

American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation aspires to be a driving force in international science and research exchange and collaboration. To achieve this, we rely on our Humboldtians as experts, speakers, co-developers, advisors, and partners—and as science diplomats.

Please get in touch if you would like to work with us in tackling the most urgent global challenges of today. We look forward to sharing more about our upcoming programs and initiatives. Exciting things are on the horizon, such as programs on sustainable AI, neuroscience and robotics, historical memory in international relations, fake news and deteriorating trust in science, and more. Next spring, we plan to co-shape the Johns Hopkins University Science Diplomacy Summit 2024 in Washington, DC. We invite you to collaborate with us on that, and on all our other programs. Because the time for science diplomacy is now. And this is the time for US Humboldtians to shine.

Alexander von Humboldt as an Early Advocate of Science Diplomacy

Posted on by Jan

My name is Sandra Rebok. I am a historian and began my career with my research on Alexander von Humboldt almost 30 years ago. My long experience in Humboldtian scholarship started as a student in Paris; from there I followed Humboldt’s path to Madrid, while drawing my attention to his ties to Spain. This research then took me to many of the places Humboldt himself visited on his American expedition (1799-1804), from the Canary Islands to Washington and Philadelphia, where he ended his five-year expedition, and where the focus of my work now turned to his connection to the young republic of the United States, and its third President, Thomas Jefferson, in particular. During all these years I have been fascinated by Humboldt’s thoughtful, balanced, and knowledgeable analysis of the different worlds he experienced, even if this included a critical eye, based on both his own observations and the readings of the work of others. It is his ability to describe the causes and consequences of the situations he observed in a rather scientific manner, beyond dogmata or the ideological currents of his time, and to foresee future developments, along with recommendations know how to promote or else mitigate them. Currently, I continue my research in California—the place where Humboldt never actually happened to set foot on, although he expressed this desire to do so from the very beginning of his expedition.

Today, however, our approaches to Humboldt do not seem to always follow his own example—they sometimes relate more to what we want to see in the famous Prussian. A rather delicate topic where this can be observed is Humboldt’s nearness to political circles, which has indeed led to an array of criticism and misinterpretations: while some saw him as ideological leader of the independence movement in Spanish America, others took him as being yet another colonial explorer; while some interpretations saw in him an agent for the Spanish Crown, others criticize him for acting as a spy for Thomas Jefferson’s cabinet. If we like to better understand the ways he navigated through the rough seas of diplomacy and strategy though, it might be helpful to look at it through the lenses of science diplomacy, a concept that recently is getting much attention: Humboldt knew that he needed to go beyond discussions within scholarly circles, if he sought to turn his science into applicable knowledge and connect with the needs of society. To this aim he had to reach out to the political power and further scientific and technological progress through a skillful connection of both worlds. And vice versa, Humboldt needed to be willing to advance diplomatic objectives through the universal world of science. In doing so he served as a science adviser for foreign policy objectives to the Prussian crown, he actively established contact with politicians to facilitate international scientific cooperation and create large-scale science projects. In other words, Humboldt was in a position to passionately make things happen, by connecting people, ideas, and nations.

With his outstanding social skills, Humboldt was indeed the ideal science diplomat: he was frequently described as extremely charismatic, a blessed character with great charm. He tended to be at the center of all social gatherings he attended, where he entertained other guests with his wealth of knowledge and his farsighted analysis. This is where he was at his best: as a catalyst for developments, as a source of inspiration or model to follow for others, and in a position that connected the concerns of different worlds. This is a point where he can serve as a source of inspiration for us today.

“SDG Halftime Report”: We Must Double Down on Teamwork or Risk Losing the Global Challenge

Posted on by Jan

On January 1, 2016, something extraordinary happened: the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) came into force. The whole world had agreed on seventeen goals for all–ranging from No Poverty and Climate Action to Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions. Some found these goals too ambitious; for others, the goals were not ambitious enough. However, the whole world committed to them and that in itself was remarkable.

The United Nations also agreed on 2030 as the deadline for achieving all seventeen goals. Now in spring 2023, we find ourselves in the second half of the SDG challenge and it does not look like we are winning. No country is on track to achieve the ambitious goals set in 2016. A global pandemic and rising geopolitical tensions have blocked progress, re-set political priorities, and messed up the game plan—if there ever was one.

Have we failed to rise to the challenge? It’s too early to tell. We still have almost seven years left to turn things around. Key indicators across the board (carbon emissions, income gaps, new military conflicts, among others) show that we are lagging behind our ambitions. If this were a game of American football, we would be behind by more than just a field goal. We need to pick up the pace and adjust our strategy.

Every organization buying into the SDGs has to take stock and review: Where are we only “talking the talk?” And where do we need to do more of “walking the walk?” This is also true for American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation. As an organization, we are trying to follow in the footsteps of Alexander von Humboldt—and those are enormous shoes to fill. Indeed, Humboldt would have had the perfect mindset for achieving a comprehensive and varied set of goals like the SDGs. He did not believe in borders—neither between disciplines, nor between cultures. He recognized and uncovered the complex interdependencies of the world and drew pragmatic conclusions. Such a cross-disciplinary and holistic mindset would be very helpful in tackling the SDGs and operationalizing them in the form of impactful actions.

To stay with the SDG game metaphor, American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation is a tiny player on a huge global field. We are a small organization but what we do have is a large network of almost 6,000 American Humboldtians. These Humboldtians are alumni of the foundation’s various fellowship programs that have been in place since 1953. They comprise almost 6,000 brilliant minds and influential voices in their respective fields—from science and public policy to the social sciences and humanities—with the additional benefit of an international mindset. Together with our Humboldtians, American Friends of AvH aims to create tangible impact when it comes to tackling the pressing issues our world is facing. Together with the members of the US Humboldt alumni network, we want to contribute as much as we possibly can to achieving the SDGs.

Early into the second half of the SDG challenge, we need to review and adjust our strategy and not remain confined in our cozy science bubble. We have to reach out—across sectors, and across cultural, political, and societal boundaries—just like Alexander von Humboldt did two hundred years ago.

Our main asset is our network of Humboldtians and our expertise is platform building. We know how to connect organizations and people to work toward common goals. Now we wish to create new platforms with new partners. Our deepest connections traditionally have been with the science community and the next logical step is to partner with actors in other sectors as well, such as philanthropies and private-sector companies. Such partnerships will allow us to pool resources and increase impact in the spirit of SDG #17: Partnerships for the Goals. To start, we need to identify the things we have in common with foundations and businesses, and there is likely to be plenty of common ground. One important effect of the SDGs is their unifying effect on different players. After all, the goal of making the world a better place transcends sectors and industries.

Reaching out across sectors is the right approach for generating sustainable impact. For American Friends of AvH, as a platform-builder with an excellent network, it has the potential to create new and exciting platforms and synergies. Current economic and societal trends are working in our favor. Sustainability (either as defined in the SDGs or with ESG criteria) is playing an ever more important role for companies—global corporations and SMEs alike. Investors and consumers increasingly make their decisions dependent on how a company is not only “talking the talk,” but also “walking the walk” on sustainability. Good corporate citizenship is key to good business, and corporate citizenship needs platforms that showcase concrete, authentic, and impactful sustainability efforts. American Friends of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation stands ready to both provide and co-develop these platforms together with our partners. These can take the shape of dialogues, exchange initiatives, workshops, studies, and public outreach events. American Friends of AvH has the experience, the creativity, and the network to make it happen.

We invite everyone who shares our vision to pool resources with us and co-create impactful platforms and initiatives for solving issues ranging from affordable and clean energy and gender equality to quality education. Let’s join forces and double down on our efforts to make the second half of the SDG challenge a success and, by extension, make the world a better place.