16 I 08/22 DUZ I POLITICS & SOCIETY

"INFINITE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES"

Whether CERN in Geneva, DESY in Hamburg or SESAME in Jordan: Despite conflicts between their countries, scientists have been working closely together there internationally for years. Hannes Jung from Science4Peace encourages to remember this even in times of the Ukraine war and to question the sanctions against Russian scientists

INTERVIEW: VERONIKA RENKES

Without torching for long, the German scientific institutions announced a freeze of cooperation with Russia after the attack on Ukraine. You, a physicist, think this is the wrong way to go. Why?

Science works independently of political and ideological ideas, such as CERN - the European Organization for Nuclear Research - in Geneva. It was founded in the fall of 1954 by scientists whose countries wanted to destroy each other during World War II. It was therefore important for the initiators to work together on fundamental physical issues regardless of their political systems. In order to find solutions to such immense challenges, international exchange is necessary. No nation could cope with this alone. And also important: When we research together, we get to know colleagues from other countries and experience that they often have similar ideas and needs to ourselves. This may be a trivial insight, because one doesn't go on war against people you work with.

Together with colleagues from DESY and CERN, you have called on their directorates to NOT break all contacts and connections with Russian scientists. What made you optimistic that there is another way? 

Our scientific work is based on the exchange of and access to information. Our work lives and benefits from these connections. Our goal is international cooperation for peaceful purposes and for the benefit of humanity. A good example of this is the SESAME (Synchrotron-light for Experimental Science and Applications in the Middle East) project initiated at the end of the 1990s in Jordan. In this "CERN of the Middle East", scientists from Egypt, Bahrain, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Pakistan, the Palestinian Authority as well as Turkey and Cyprus work together peacefully, although some of them are politically in conflict. This is how you get to know other perspectives and this helps in mutual understanding. A discontinuation of cooperation is ultimately counterproductive in science. Nor do we see how this can contribute to the end of the unspeakable suffering of the Ukrainian population. To be very clear: We are all against this war of aggression contrary to international law, there can be no justification for a war. This is also the view of many of the Ukrainian scientists, whose institutes have been destroyed and who now have to fight with the weapon instead of being able to devote themselves to their actual task.

Both CERN and DESY are considered institutions that not only attach importance to scientific excellence, but have always contributed to peaceful coexistence and international understanding. What stands out: how differently the two handled Russia after the outbreak of war ...

Yes, that's amazing. CERN initially only suspended the cooperations and no new cooperations were agreed. The experiments initially put all publications on hold, later the publications were released without a detailed list of authors. The CERN Council then decided to continue the cooperation agreements with Russia and Belarus until the end of their term - i.e. until 2023/2024. After that, we will discuss how to proceed. How to publish in the future is still being discussed at CERN. Physicists from all countries, including those from Russia and Belarus, are involved in these discussions. At DESY, on the other hand, all cooperation agreements were put on hold and public publications with scientists of Russian affiliation were prohibited. I also could not publish a scientific paper that I had written together with colleagues from Moscow last year. In addition, there should be no official e-mail traffic with Russian institutes. Email lists with Russian colleagues had to be stopped or changed to private communication. Russian colleagues who have been working at DESY since the early 1990s and have lived in Hamburg for over 20 years have been prohibited from access to the DESY computer network and the use of DESY e-mail accounts. All DESY scientists were prohibited from attending conferences, even online, where scientists with Russian affiliation acted as speakers.

What triggers such a thing in those affected? 

There is great uncertainty as to whether you can cooperate with each other again at some point. From the Western side, it is probably more about compensating for the financial losses at the moment. But for Russian scientists, the existential question arises as to how they can personally deal with the fact that they are suddenly declared an undesirable person after years of trusting cooperation

What medium and long-term damage do you fear from the science sanctions? 

The exclusion of Russian and Belarusian scientists from publications and conferences has caused a great attention in the German and international scientific community. Some researchers believe that a publication ban does not correspond to good scientific practice and violates the fundamental right of scientific freedom. In addition, there are financial and material aspects. It is an immense financial challenge to compensate for the participations of the Russian institutions as well as the large amount of material they have made available for the experiments. The loss of know-how due to the elimination of our Russian colleagues, who were responsible for specific topics in the experiments, is also serious. In summary, the sanctions generate infinitely negative consequences for scientific work in all areas, including the immensely important research on climate change and sustainability, where international data exchange is essential.

Together with other scientists, they founded the Science4Peace Forum in response to the Russia-Ukraine war. How does it work? 

There are regular online meetings and at the moment mainly discussions about the restrictions in the field of science. All meetings are open. We have set up a website and a zoom account that is independent of institutes and thus also restrictions. 20 to 40 people participate regularly mainly from EU countries as well as Great Britain, Russia, Turkey and Ukraine. It is very important for us to exchange ideas with each other. This tells us how the war and the restrictions in the field of science are discussed in other EU countries and also that there are sometimes big differences from the discussions in Germany. In addition, we have already been able to contact other science initiatives for peace, such as the "International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War", who are committed to a ceasefire and a diplomatic solution to end the war.

What goals do you and your fellow Science4Peace comrades pursue? 

We consider it important to offer scientists and especially younger ones a perspective in attractive and future-oriented research and thus create a serious alternative to dual-use and military research.

What does that mean in concrete terms?

Our concern is that we pursue science for peace, avoid wars on resources and enable a sustainable future. Dual-use and military research for scientific cooperation at CERN and DESY are excluded. In our view, it is essential that basic research excludes any cooperation in cooperation with military projects. But there are also areas such as artificial intelligence or machine learning that are used and researched in basic research and at the same time have large applications in military research. It is important to clarify exactly what is covered by dual use, and for this we need a broad discussion.

Let's look back on the Russia-Ukraine war: How could science still build a bridge between Ukraine and Russia now? 

It would be important to continue to maintain contacts and conversation channels. Science can build bridges by working together. If you stay in touch, political discussions can also be held and ideas about peaceful solutions can be brought into the respective society. This makes much more sense than being confrontational. In the current situation, it is certainly difficult for scientists from Ukraine to work directly with colleagues from Russia. An exception are the large experiments at CERN, where this is still possible. Personal contact is important and that you also trust yourself personally. For example, it could make sense to decisively support projects that bring Ukrainian and Russian scientists together - similar to what the Volkswagen Foundation did until the end of 2021. That would be a possible way to get back into conversation at all.

Isn't that somewhat naive, entirely in nostalgia of the peace movement from the last millennium and has long since been ad absurd by Putin's ruthless approach? 

I would like to refer to my experience at DESY here: In the middle of the Cold War, we were able to work closely together with colleagues from then officially opposing states - including Poland, the GDR and the USSR - in the 1980s. An example is the cooperation with the particle accelerator HERA. The findings from this research work are now one of the foundations of knowledge about the structure of matter. Scientists from more than ten countries around the world contributed to this. Thus, the scientists of the then Soviet Union were leaders in the field of Small x physics and it was scientifically imperative for us to work with them. In addition, the "HERA model" of international cooperation developed so well that it is now a model for the implementation of large international research projects.

The recently presented peace report of the peace research institutes criticizes the strategically unthought-out use of sanctions against Russia by the EU and Germany. Sanctions could trigger new conflicts if the framework conditions for their success have not been spelled out. Can this shortcoming also be observed in the sanctions against Russia in the scientific sector? 

Unfortunately, it is similar in science to sanctions in the political and economic field. In my opinion, they are not really well thought through. Above all, the exit strategy is missing. Thus, it is simply not clear under what circumstances the sanctions can be lifted again - even in part. It is claimed that the sanctions do not directly affect scientists, but only the scientific institutions. But research is carried out by scientists who work in and for these institutions. If you sanction the institutions, you also marginalize the people and thus ultimately harm all research. Culture and science should be exempt from sanctions. Even during the Cold War, there was cooperation in science and culture. CERN and DESY were pioneers here. With their experiments at DESY and HERA, scientists were able to enable a well-functioning system of international cooperation across political borders in the first place. The fact that all this is now thrown overboard is incomprehensible to me and my colleagues from Science4Peace and very regrettable.