Two weeks ago I participated in a strategy workshop organized by Arthur D. Little and the German Ministry for Education and Science (BMBF). As part of our talks we discussed the value of scientific information as well as the existing scientific information distribution and access structures. As two major problems we identified that scientists are not really aware of a variety of information resources they could access, and that publication and valuation processes will intensively change within the next years. To provide you with the corresponding background: the BMBF commissioned the management consultant Arthur D. Little and the ‘Gesellschaft für Innovationsforschung und Beratung’ to analyse the German WTI system (“wissenschaftlich-technische Information”) and to develop a strategy concept for the future of scientific and technical information. This study will be the basis of the future German federal government policy regarding specialist information. In a first step the consultants did a survey targeting 10.000 scientists working at universities or non-academic research institutions as well as 10.000 industry and service companies with an extensive use of information. In a second step the results and early recommendations are discussed by industry insiders and checked for their practicability. I myself was invited for one of this second level workshops that also included the directors of the three German special information centers, several representatives of university libraries, scientists, and others, overall a group of about 15 information specialists with a focus on scientific information. Giving you a very personal impression, to my opinion the information providers do not really know their client: the scientist working at the bench. During my time as ‘lab rat’ we did not really miss anything as regards information. We had a nice library, we had the internet, and the first internet databases for literature, sequences, etc. started these days. Additionally there has always been the possibility to ‘clone by phone’ or to get information via direct contacts in labs working at the same questions. Nobody told us about STN and other special information providers. And I think we would not have used it for two reasons: the costs (in the lab you have a regular budget for enzymes and pipette tips . but usually you have no true budget for information) and the missing knowledge regarding the retrieval languages (what student is educated in command languages like messenger, e.g.?). I am sure that this situation will change. I cannot tell you if this will happen within the next 5 years or within the next 15 years, but societies will learn that information itself has a value. Someone once even said that information is the gold of the 21st century. We already have a development within the western societies that people that have a privileged access to – for example – business information and are able to process it do have an advantage over their competitors. This is also valid for scientific information. But . the overall amount of scientific information is increasing logarithmically and the scientist needs more and more pre-selected information regarding his topics and questions. You cannot read all articles in all journals of your discipline AND do successful bench work. You only have 24 hours a day. And you do not really have the place for the growing stacks of publication copies on your desk (wouldn’t it fit your needs to have access to digitized copies?!). So far there is public structure that supports the bench scientist with these problems. So, we really have to think about improved information infrastructures for the scientific community. And we have to find a solution of the bivalent situation that on the one hand the public pays for science (and by this for the resulting scientific information), and on the other hand scientists have to pay for scientific information – respectively they or their libraries already do by their journal subscriptions. Perhaps we have to understand that not only the information but also information processing is worth to be paid, for example if you think about information pre-selection, journalistic ‘digestion’, services that help to be more focused, and publication providers. Revised version of the article “The value of information”, originally published in October 2001 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Journalists as well as politicians are desperately looking for lab results that nicely fit to a political ideology.

Traditionally an old years end is the time of reflections. No, I do not mean the bright glittering snow in some people winter holidays. I am talking about thoughts regarding the sense of life. Did I get the best out of the old year? Could I have done something better? What will be in the new year, what challenges and tasks are waiting for me? And what are my personal priorities in life? As a young PhD student – quite a few years ago – I read a Science article by Gregg Easterbrook about the social as well as ethical conflicts between science and religion. Surprisingly it did not pick out the inconsistency of both but their reconciliation as a central theme. During these days I have had many committed discussions as a scientist defending the evolutionary theory against creationists as well as defending my Christian faith against science believers. Yes, I am a Christian and a scientist (but not a “christian scientist”!). To my opinion there is no true incompatibility but just two sides of a single coin. And so I always found myself between the lines. Assumed there would really be incompatibility. Should it not be possible to have the sensibility to tolerate each others position? Should it not be possible to have the sensibility to accept that there are different levels of consciousness? Let us have a look to some of the battles fought in the US “bible belt” about what children should be taught in school, e.g.. Sorry for being honest but sometimes it seems to me like children from the kindergarden squabbling for their Lego. Who is going to tell them that they will have more fun and will be more successful when playing together? Telling you my point of view: science is giving the knowledge, faith – independent if Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Naturalistic, or whatever – is giving the sense. Both together create wisdom. In other words, science tells us how the world works, religion tells us for what the world works. One cannot without the other, or as Gregg Easterbrook used to say “they have linked destinies”. Originally published in January 2001 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Do you remember? Y2K had been announced as the great entry into the millennium of biotechnology! Did you get it? 2000 in biotechnology was planned as the year of the big conferences and meetings as well as the year of the phenomenal announcements. This should have been the grandiose prelude for an international campaign against the technique critics. But did anyone – besides scientists – really pay attention to all the efforts. Honestly: no. No, because this is how it should be _ or no, because we missed the chance to present our science to the people. If you picked the first “no”, there is nearly no reason to go on reading. But if you think that the scientific community missed a chance, then join my thoughts about how we could better the situation. Living in Central Europe we still face the situation that most non-scientists adore gene food and associate gene technology with Frankenstein. People will not buy daily products known to content genetically engineered compounds. We do have a really bad public opinion about gene technology. Is the reason for this situation really only ignorance and antagonism against all technological advancement? Or is it possible that the scientists themselves fail to promote their science? Who else should do it? What biotechnology and gene technology (who are used synonymously in this context) are missing is capital. This capital is coming from confidence. A confidence that results from the knowledge of the opportunities as well as from the hope for a better future. If the people do not rely on our biotechnology enterprise they will not invest any capital in it. That is what we can learn from a going public at the stock exchange. No confidence – no money, no money – no development. So, colleagues, let’s go public! Let’s use a language that everybody can understand when we talk about the science we love. Talk with the heart and not with the dictionary. Open your ears for the fears. Show the opportunities and advantages of biotechnology. Talk to the people and talk with the people. You are the ambassadors of our science! Originally published in November 2000 by Inside-Lifescience, ISSN…

Between 2000 and 2008, I investigated prior art, freedom-to-operate, infringement evidences and patent portfolios for reputable patent attorneys and life science industry clients, like Roche and BASF. In 2004, I ad-hoc joined a BASF due diligence team that was preparing a company buy-in as an external expert for analyzing the biosequences portfolio (assets) of the company planned to be acquired. I locally evaluated the IP relevance of the protein and DNA sequences offered, e.g. by checking for uniqueness and redundancies. I applied in-depth computer-based sequence analysis using algorithms like BLASTx, TBLASTx, FASTA, FASTM, Smith-Waterman, and ClustalW2. CLIENT:BASFPROJECT TIME FRAME: May…

Today, I am proud to share that my PhD thesis with the title “Cell-cycle-dependent gene regulation by Mcm1p-complexes in Saccharomyces cerevisiae” has been accepted, and my Ph.D. (Dr. rer. nat.) has been granted by the Leibniz University of Hannover, Germany. Between 1994 and today, I had the opportunity to do basic oncological research on the genetic regulation of the cell growth at the Institute for Molecular Biology at the Hannover Medical School. I was using yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae) as model organism for eukaryotic cells, which on molecular level share many commonalities. My scientific research was specifically targeting a better understanding of the cell-cycle-dependent gene regulation by transcriptional regulatory ternary complexes. The latter play key roles in the control of eukaryotic cell growth … which is out of control in cancer cells. My work was funded by a scholarship for the DFG Graduate Student Course “Molecular Pathophysiology of the Cell”. And I would like to take the opportunity giving a big thank you to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Alfred Nordheim, to an army of amazing and supportive colleagues in Hannover as well as at the Vienna Biocenter, and – last not least – to my mother for her kind “sponsorship”. This journey has ended. And I am already curious about the next one to…