Goethe University Frankfurt’s Center for Critical Computational Studies (C3S) unveils a new research focus at a high-profile event.
The new Center for Critical Computational Studies (C3S) conducts research into the interactions between digitality and democracy and the dynamics of change. Speaking at the opening of the “Planetary Hopes” event in mid-June, Goethe University President Prof. Enrico Schleiff said, “The pace of social change is accelerating and our actions as humans are having an increasingly drastic impact on our planet’s stability. I began my term as president of this university with the idea of founding an institute dedicated to our future, which tackles the increasingly urgent challenges of this age of change in a special, interdisciplinary manner.” Digitality is not only a driver of social and economic transformation, he said, adding that it is also a tool that can help us reach a better understanding of the world and shape our future.
At the press conference ahead of the event, Timon Gremmels, Hessian Minister of Higher Education, Research, Science and the Arts, stressed: “We have a unique scientific ecosystem in place here in Hesse in the fields of IT, high-performance computing, quantum computing, artificial intelligence and big data.” With regard to C3S and its Earth-Nature-Society focus, he emphasized, “The way in which the center brings together digitality and the Anthropocene, i.e. our current era, which is so significantly shaped by humans, sets standards. I am particularly fascinated by its interdisciplinary nature: C3S brings the rather obvious IT-related scientists, such as bioinformaticians and algorithm specialists, together with lawyers and educational scientists. I am both pleased and proud that such an innovative institution emerged out of a Hessian university.”
Together with other internal and external researchers, at least twelve new professorships are to be established at C3S to develop critical computational studies into an independent research profile that also extends to teaching and training. A novel appointment process will be applied, whereby Goethe University Frankfurt first will hold workshops to sound out outstanding potential colleagues and exciting ideas. The process will be both open-rank and open-discipline, meaning there are no predetermined specific disciplines for interested candidates, and the final salary classification will depend on their qualifications and experience. Recruitment committees will oversee the appointments.
Research teams are planned in several areas, including the interfaces between classical network science and deep learning; the calculation of tipping elements and their interactions as global warming progresses; the modelling of social and socio-economic drivers and impacts of global warming, and those of ecosystems and biodiversity and their interrelationships; critique of computing: critical data science; ethics of data processing; science and technology studies; science, philosophy and the history of computer technology; predictions in complex systems; and advanced simulation in the life sciences and social sciences.
Planetary Hopes
C3S unveiled its Earth-Nature-Society research focus to the public at an event entitled “Planetary Hopes.” The key question discussed by Frankfurt-based scientists and their guests was whether and how computational and data-based methods can contribute to coping with planetary polycrises. C3S founding director Prof. Juliane Engel kicked off by explaining the different perspectives of the center’s new thematic focus. Keynote speeches were delivered by Prof. Sabine Andresen, Goethe University’s Vice President for Equal Opportunities, Career Development & Advancement, Diversity and Gender Equality; Frankfurt City Counselor for Digital Affairs Eileen O’Sullivan; and Dr. Nico Wunderling from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, who addressed the predictability and interdependence of different systems’ tipping points.
Prof. Ilona Otto, Professor of Societal Impacts of Climate Change at the University of Graz’s Wegener Center for Climate and Global Change, dedicated her keynote to the “Socio-metabolic conflicts in the Anthropocene,” that is, conflicts between social groups with differing resource and energy consumption in view of global environmental changes. Prof. Klement Tockner, Director General of the Senckenberg – Leibniz Institution for Biodiversity and Earth System Research (SGN), spoke about the One Health approach based on the premise that the health of human beings, animals and the environment is closely intertwined. The keynote speeches were moderated by Prof. Thomas Hickler, Professor of Quantitative Biogeography at Goethe University, and Prof. Jochen Blath, Head of the Stochastics Group at Goethe University’s Faculty of Mathematics.
Much data, little knowledge?
The final panel discussion was moderated by Prof. Indra Spiecker genannt Döhmann (University of Cologne). Participants included Thomas Langkabel, National Technology Officer at Microsoft Deutschland, Dr. André Ullrich from the Weizenbaum Institute and Professors Otto and Tockner. The moderator introduced the topic by stating that models are based on data, adding that the normative ideas hidden behind this data is often overlooked. She asked the panelists whether an empirical-normative connection was needed. “We always have to bring up the question of how we want to live in the future, how we want to shape our future,” Ilona Otto stressed. Thomas Langkabel conceded that empiricism was a major focus at Microsoft; yet a company with worldwide operations will always be confronted with many different values, explaining that whereas in the US, data are seen primarily as an economic commodity, Europeans are more concerned with protecting individual data.
André Ullrich said that while values are always somewhat context-dependent, formulating global values was unavoidable. He called for “alternative narratives”, pointing out that large technology corporations tend to have solutions to global problems but often obscure the fact that they themselves were also part of the problem. As such, the quantities of recycling material returned to the processing cycle has to date never reached sufficient levels. Klement Tockner pointed out that more data by no means results in more knowledge, adding that the gap in the distribution of knowledge is expanding. While a few people know more and more, many know less and less. He spoke of an “oligopolization” of knowledge, with public spending on knowledge diminishing, while private spending continues to grow. According to Thomas Langkabel, while the world is becoming more transparent, at the same time, it is also becoming increasingly complex – making it absolutely essential to enable people to handle data and manage complexity. “Ubiquitous computing” on its own is not enough to reach people, he said. Ilona Otto drew attention to the problem that research has only limited access to socio-economic data such as those generated on social media.
Given that companies deal in data, Prof. Indra Spiecker asked how the various stakeholders could be brought together. According to Klement Tockner, transdisciplinarity means developing important questions about the future with the involvement of all stakeholders. Doing so, he said, would simultaneously draw together different forms of knowledge: knowledge for orientation, knowledge about taking action and also academic knowledge. Prof. Spiecker said the timeframe constitutes a growing problem: Artificial Intelligence is turning knowledge upside down at ever-shorter intervals, but a lot of time is needed for learning and overcoming challenges. Ilona Otto called for more transparency, but also more regulation. AI, she said, is unfortunately still too often being used for banal purposes like boosting product sales or acquiring more followers. Klement Tockner pointed out that many international agreements are not working, adding that European delegations are frequently criticized in the international context for taking the moral high ground, often followed by talk of “value colonialism.” Indra Spiecker brought the discussion on regulations to the observation that although the state seldom had as little power as it has today, rarely have there been so many calls for its power to be enhanced. She added that the stakeholders responsible for future issues need to have solutions, processing cycles have to be re-adjusted, and empirical and normative questions need to be drawn together and converted into action. The canon of instruments, including citizens’ science, has to be revised, she said.
