Prepared for the Future? A plea for a new orientation of German forest sciences

This paper seeks to promote a discussion on the present situation of forest sciences in Germany and to work out proposals for future orientation. In doing so it pays special tribute to the paper of G. OESTEN and R. v. DETTEN, which is published in this issue as well. Starting with an analysis we conclude that the situation of forest sciences in Germany is less dramatic than OESTEN and VON DETTEN claim. In contrast to them, we consider changes within the scientific system to be likely to generate appreciated possibilities of reorientation in research and teaching. Although we basically share Oesten's and von Detten's assumption of an impending marginalization of forest sciences, we are convinced that the origin of this is not to be found in a general shift within the scientific system, but in changes taking place elsewhere. One of these is the increasing significance of private actors from the forest-trade-sector vis-A-vis the traditional state forest services. This shift in influence within the policy field together with the increasing importance of third party funding imply significant consequences for forest sciences. Traditionally close connections between forest sciences and politics suggest an examination of the interactions between these social systems. However, the imparted idea that in the past impartial science on the one and partial politicized science on the other hand could have been easier distinguished cannot be accepted, This wide-spread notion is contrasted by a social-constructivist concept of science, which interprets the scientific research process as an argumentative construction of reality. Starting from that point we discuss the manifold consequences of interactions taking place among researchers and between researchers and political actors. In addition, we present criteria of quality for scientific work and finally we refer to the special dilemma scientists find themselves in, which results from the conflict between the demand of theoretical-methodical quality on the one and economic benefit on the other hand. The following paragraph deals with the thesis brought up by OESTEN and VON DETTEN that the crisis of forestry has become the crisis of forest sciences. However, a closer look reveals, that not the crisis itself but the upcoming ideas of how to solve it lead to problems of positioning and redefining forestry science. Obviously it is necessary to free the academic business from its sole focus oil the forest sector. Admittedly this might provoke a change of the roles assigned to universities of applied science, research institutes and universities. Hence, in order to weave forest sciences more effectively into interdisciplinary discourses we offer a concept of how to disengage from the idea of a common roof under which forest sciences assemble. For universities, to secure the theoretical and methodical quality of research and teaching alike, we recommend a matrix organization which would link the research units to scientific disciplinary schools whereas interdisciplinary research centres Would cover the variety of research topics. However, strongly practically oriented research and teaching should be assigned to research institutes and universities of applied science. To sum up, we are convinced that I reform of forest sciences call only meet the current demands by initiating structural changes. In this spirit we understand this paper as a critical contribution to an argument which is particularly of importance to young scientists.