Nicola Kuhrt, Markus Weisskopf: Interview with Walter Rosenthal: “The science system is facing its greatest test since reunification,” Research.Table, February 4, 2026.
Rosenthal’s interventions in this interview can be read as a warning based on institutional theory: In his role as president of the German Rectors’ Conference, he does not talk about science as a pure idea, but as infrastructure, as a structure of legal norms, financial flows, procedures, and self-governing bodies. His statement, “We must secure science in such a way that it can withstand illiberal times,” is programmatic and marks a shift: freedom does not appear here as a normative postulate, but as a construction task.
When Rosenthal speaks of the “greatest stress test since reunification,” he is not referring to a singular conflict, but to the simultaneity of structural tensions: geopolitical shifts, growing authoritarian movements, and a growing discourse of mistrust toward expertise. In such a constellation, science is not only criticized but also politically instrumentalized. Its autonomy is not a matter of course but a contested status.
Rosenthal’s reference to structural vulnerability is central. Academic freedom depends on concrete arrangements. Where funding is fragmented on a project basis, where planning horizons are shortened, where responsibilities remain diffuse, political dependence arises. Autonomy is then formally asserted, but materially relativized. In this sense, the demand for reliable basic funding is not a detailed budgetary issue, but a condition of epistemic sovereignty.
At the same time, Rosenthal does not understand resilience as isolation. Science should not retreat into the role of a misunderstood collective of experts. It must explain itself, prove its ability to engage in discourse, and not allow itself to be reduced to populism. Trust is not created by gestures of authority, but by transparent procedures and comprehensible communication. This is precisely where the tension lies: science depends on the public, but must not become dependent on it.
Essentially, Rosenthal advocates conscious institutional precaution. If illiberal dynamics operate not through abrupt breaks but through gradual shifts, then science does not need hectic alarmist rhetoric, but robust structures. In this context, safeguarding means a clear distribution of competences between the federal and state governments, strong self-administration, long-term financing, and international networking as a counterweight to national narrow-mindedness.
Rosenthal’s position could therefore be read as a reaffirmation of democratic politics: Science does not stand outside society, but is part of the political order – and for this very reason it depends on specific protective mechanisms. In this understanding, freedom is not a state that is achieved once and then preserved. It is an ongoing institutional process. In a nutshell: science remains free only if its freedom is produced organizationally and desired politically – even and especially when political majorities change.