AI revolution in biomedicine
Science videos for the next generation
Austria’s largest “Zukunftsraum”
A severed leg, a missing arm, an open abdominal cavity. The dissection of a corpse is one of the most impressive scenes in the baroque fresco on the ceiling of the Festive Hall of the Academy of Sciences in Vienna. Created by the Italian painter Gregorio Guglielmi in 1755, it shows how the science of the time attempted to gain the latest insights into human biology.
Imagine what the painting would look like if artificial intelligence (AI) had already existed back then: computers, tablets, smart glasses, and surgical robots would have been used by the men and androgynous figures – women are not clearly recognizable – in the fresco. Perhaps, one could speculate, the patient would have survived thanks to the “intelligentia artificialis” and new medical possibilities.
And this is where the baroque ceiling painting meets a new OeAW institute: AITHYRA aims to drive nothing less than a biological revolution by combining AI and biomedicine – with the aim of improving people’s health. Learn how this vision can become reality in this annual report. You can visit the ceiling fresco in the Academy’s main building at any time and experience the impressive dissection scene with your own eyes.
Foreword | AITHYRA | Science Communication | FÄKT | History set in stone | Genes and history | Stable trust in science |
Faßmann: Europe needs more research | Gergely: Why promote biodiversity | Commissions | Summit of AI luminaries |
Entrepreneurial Academy | Democracy in Digital Societies | New members
Major events can usually only be properly categorized in retrospect. Did 2024 mark a turning point? Without much exaggeration, this question can be answered in the affirmative. The political upheavals in the USA have far-reaching consequences for the entire world. The decades-long transatlantic alliance is being put to the test, with new alliances forming between former enemies. Europe seems like a bystander to events, is not sitting at the negotiating table, and is now called upon to gain strength in the current situation. The term “wake-up call” for Europe is often used but has not yet lost its meaning.
Austria also had a politically turbulent year. The National Council elections produced a result that made it difficult to form a government. The longest negotiations of the second republic are behind us, and for the first time three parties are governing – hopefully together and not against each other. Urgently needed reforms have thus become less likely.
The Academy did well to launch its major projects in 2024 before the upheavals hit. As a result, we can still look back on an extremely successful year. Two milestones stand out in particular:
With AITHYRA, the Academy was able to establish a new institute with a claim to excellence. AI in biomedicine is the highly topical and relevant subject to which research there is dedicated. The institute was founded with the largest private research funding ever received in Austria. €150 million came from the non-profit Boehringer Ingelheim Foundation in Mainz. The OeAW prevailed in a highly competitive process for the allocation of these funds and won Michael Bronstein, a star of the AI scene, as founding director. I am confident that AITHYRA will produce groundbreaking research that will ultimately improve all our lives.
The second major project, which the OeAW embarked on together with the University of Vienna and the Vienna University of Technology in 2024, is the construction of a Science Communication Center in the Aula der Wissenschaften building. From 2027, science will be communicated here on equal footing, not as a museum, but using modern means of science communication. Across 4,500 square meters, we expect around 70,000 visitors a year in Austria’s largest center for science communication.
Speaking of science communication, the Academy also developed a completely new digital science communication initiative in 2024. FÄKT is the name of the program for the next generation, in which researchers present their projects in entertaining science videos that are also suitable for teaching. Clips on social media complement the films and meet young people where they are.
This annual report shows what science and research are capable of despite the challenging times. I hope you find it an interesting read.
Heinz Fassmann
President of the Austrian Academy of Sciences
Vienna, May 2024
The axolotl – or Ambystoma mexicanum in technical terms – is the great hope of regenerative medicine. The little “water monster” (as the Aztecs called it) has a characteristic that makes it unique in the animal kingdom: it can regrow entire limbs after losing them. This makes it an important model organism for basic research – and for Elly Tanaka. Using the axolotl as an example, the US biochemist aims to understand how the regeneration of complex body structures can succeed. Since 2024, she has been pursuing this goal as the new director of the IMBA – Institute of Molecular Biotechnology of the OeAW. Tanaka convinced a high-caliber search committee and the Presiding Committee of the OeAW. She previously worked as a group leader at the neighboring IMP – Institute of Molecular Pathology. At IMBA, she is now researching how the medicine of the future could benefit from axolotls.
The magnificent windows of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception in Linz depict more than just religious scenes. The largest contiguous group of windows was created between 1910 and 1924 and depicts prominent personalities from the region and individuals involved in the cathedral’s construction. Since 2020, the 112 windows of the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception have been successively restored – and OeAW art historian Christina Wais-Wolf has now been able to identify certain individuals depicted on the windows. Johann Müllehner from Vöcklabruck contacted her after a visit to the cathedral, as the stained glass windows depict several of his family members. “Although it is known that the people depicted on the stained glass windows are portraits of specific individuals, it is absolutely extraordinary that today’s descendants of these people can recognize and precisely identify their relatives on them,” Wais-Wolf says. Further sources have confirmed the identification, which provides new insights into the origins of this Linz landmark.
During renovation work in his wine cellar in Lower Austria, a winemaker discovered a very special treasure: he came across huge bones that turned out to be Stone Age mammoth bones. He reported the find to the Federal Monuments Office, which referred him to the Austrian Archaeological Institute of the OeAW. The archaeologists carefully uncovered the overlapping bones layer by layer. They appear to be the remains of at least three different mammoths, making it the most significant find in more than 100 years. The discovery also made international headlines: the BBC, CNN, and Washington Post reported on the sensational archaeological find. The bones are now being scientifically examined and restored.
High inflation and the associated price increases were the backdrop against which the Academy had to negotiate its new performance agreement with the then BMBWF. Despite this difficult starting position, it was possible to conclude a future-proof budget. The OeAW will receive a total of €529.2 million for the years 2024 to 2026. This is an increase of €117 million compared to the performance agreement for 2021 to 2023, which represents an increase of 28%.
The then Federal Minister Martin Polaschek and OeAW President Heinz Faßmann signed the performance agreement in March 2024 at a highly symbolic location: in the small Kassensaal of the former Postal Savings Bank (PSK) in Vienna, which is now home to art and research institutions, including numerous OeAW institutes.
The location was not chosen at random. The conversion and relocation to the PSK can now be completed with the new performance agreement. Other construction projects have also been secured, such as the climate and energy upgrading of the Erich Schmid Institute of Materials Science in Leoben and the branch of the Austrian Archaeological Institute in Athens, as well as the renovation of the Nobel Prize-winning Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information in Boltzmanngasse, Vienna. The establishment of the Cori Institute in Graz, which will focus on metabolism research, can also be pursued at full speed.
AITHYRA, the OeAW’s newest institute, focuses on artificial intelligence in biomedicine. Funded by a nonprofit foundation and on a scale that is unparalleled in Austria, research is to be carried out at the Vienna site under the leadership of an international AI luminary – with the aim of improving human health.
Artificial intelligence (AI) has become an integral part of biomedical research. Machine learning enables the rapid and precise processing and analysis of large volumes of medical data; in future, this should improve diagnostic options, personalize treatments, and uncover new drugs.
One place where biomedical research is to be catapulted to the next level is the AITHYRA Institute, which was founded by the OeAW in fall on the initiative of the non-profit Boehringer Ingelheim Foundation (BIS) based in Mainz. The foundation is providing €150 million over the next 12 years for the establishment and operation of the institute. This is the largest amount of private research funding ever provided in Austria.
To underline the focus of the new life sciences institute, AI was also included in the search for a suitable name and thus AITHYRA was developed. According to the AI-generated backstory, she is the fictional daughter of Athena, the goddess of wisdom, and Asclepius, the god of medicine, and is considered the patron and source of inspiration.
With AITHYRA, the OeAW and BIS want to establish an institute of excellence that is unique in Europe, in which scientists from the fields of AI and biomedical research combine their respective expertise from the outset.
For Heinz Faßmann, President of the OeAW, “Vienna will thus become a center for biomedical AI research and the institute, in conjunction with other institutions, will make a significant contribution to closing the research gap in Austria and perhaps even in Europe.” And Christoph Boehringer, Chairman of the Board of the Boehringer Ingelheim Foundation, emphasizes: “AITHYRA will provide new impetus for excellent science and create freedom and the best conditions for outstanding researchers.”
These visions are to be implemented under the leadership of Michael Bronstein, who has been recruited as founding director. “The superstar of the AI scene,” as Faßmann calls him, studied computer science and is an internationally renowned expert in the field of machine learning and professor at Oxford University (more about him on page 16).
Michael Bronstein: “My goal is to make AITHYRA a magical place in Central Europe. We want to use AI to drive the biological revolution in the next decade to improve human health. We want our research to have a tangible impact on diagnosing and curing diseases, developing new medicines, and better understanding how biological systems in our bodies work.”
To achieve this goal, biologists and computer scientists will work together to develop the respective research questions. AI researchers are therefore involved in biomedical research, experiments, and data analysis from the outset – and not, as has been the case in the life sciences up to now, only at a later stage.
“I want to make AITHYRA a place where magic happens.”
Michael Bronstein
Bronstein: “We will ensure that researchers pursuing a career in the life sciences are well trained in AI and computational methods, and conversely that computer scientists understand biological problems and challenges.”
The leadership of the innovative institute includes Managing Director Anita Ender, who is also Administrative Director at the CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine of the OeAW, and, more recently, Georg Winter as Co-Director from the life sciences area, who will define the biological orientation of the research institute more concretely.
300 employees will ultimately work at the Vienna site, two thirds of whom will be computational researchers and one third life science researchers. “There are more and more computer scientists who are interested in biological problems. And there are also many biologists who are interested in using machine learning in their field. It is important to put them in the same building so that they breathe the same air and dream the same dreams,” Bronstein is convinced.
There will also be many so-called “global collaborators”. “We are planning joint PhD or post-doctoral programs with renowned universities,” says Anita Ender, describing the ambitious plans. There are already joint programs with Oxford University and the Swiss École Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL). Michael Bronstein is also a professor at the latter university.
“We are planning PhD or postdoc programs with renowned universities.”
Anita Ender
The DeepMind Professor for AI is also in demand as a speaker in his new role as director of the AITHYRA Institute. In November, Bronstein was invited together with OeAW President Heinz Faßmann to the well-known Falling Walls Summit in Berlin on the topic of “How Artificial Intelligence Drives the Biomedical Revolution.” An exciting new research alliance was also announced at the event: AITHYRA and the “BioAI Dresden” research area in Germany will be working closely together.
Collaborations are also planned in the direction of commercialization and the establishment of spin-offs. Faßmann’s goal is: “To transfer good ideas from academic research into industrial research so that the entire chain of innovation is closed.” And Bronstein adds: “We aim to become a good location for researchers who want to try their hand at founding a company.”
Speaking of location: with the support of the City of Vienna and the Vienna Business Agency, the institute will have a new research building on the Vienna BioCenter Campus (VBC) that is due to be completed in early 2029. Until the move into the new building, the Vienna Business Agency is providing space in the existing “Marxbox” building in the immediate vicinity of the VBC. In recent months, a great deal of time has already been invested in the planning of such a research building with special IT and robotics requirements. Peter Hanke, now Minister of Innovation, Mobility and Infrastructure and, until the beginning of 2025, the Vienna Councillor for Finance and Economy, says: “With the Vienna BioCenter, which represents a unique mix of cutting-edge biomedical research, innovation, and educational opportunities in Europe, we have an ideal environment for the new institute.”
All parties involved have made a clear commitment that data protection must be subject to particularly strict rules in all future research. “If we work with medical, individualized data, then this remains within the network of universities and the Academy of Sciences,” emphasized Heinz Faßmann in a recent interview with the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung (FAZ).
However, the AITHYRA team is not only concerned with data security, but also with the ongoing scientific development of how to deal with the topic in the future, says Anita Ender. “For example, the first EU grant, which we applied for together with several European research institutes, is dedicated to the topic of ethics and AI. This is intended to show: We know what the rules are, but we want to do more than that.”
Artificial intelligence has enormous potential to revolutionize research and therapy development as well as the diagnosis and care of patients. Here’s an insight into the potential applications of AI in biomedicine.
Precise and rapid diagnostics
AI is valuable in all areas where it is important to recognize patterns in large amounts of data. In diagnostics, for example, AI can help to detect diseases earlier and more accurately. It is already being used successfully in image analysis, for example in the evaluation of X-ray images, ultrasound, MRI or EEG scans. Among other things, heart diseases, tumors, and other pathologies can be better assessed in this way. In this field, AI systems often already outperform humans.
In the case of biopsies, tissue analysis can be carried out more quickly, thus reducing the duration of the procedure. AI can even help to recognize disease patterns before symptoms appear, for example in cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases. Algorithms analyze patient records and genetic data to identify early indicators.
Personalized medicine
In therapy, AI makes it possible, for example, to tailor treatment plans to individual patients based on genetic information and other medical data. This means that in future, therapies can be tailored more and more precisely to the patient’s individual genetic and medical background.
Telemedicine is also an important area of application: with the support of AI, doctors will be able to reach not only a larger number of patients, but also those in remote or underserved areas.
Optimized drug research
The development of new medicines should be accelerated and more accurate thanks to the use of AI. Researchers can test new drugs in virtual environments so that fewer laboratory tests are required. Possible side effects can also be detected and predicted more quickly.
An incredible success in this area was the development of AlphaFold, an AI program from DeepMind, a subsidiary of Google that specializes in deep learning. AlphaFold uses neural networks to accurately predict the three-dimensional structure of proteins based on their amino acid sequences.
Breakthrough thanks to AlphaFold
Proteins fold based on these sequences, forming three-dimensional structures that are largely responsible for their properties and biological functions. The mechanism of protein folding is complex and depends on numerous factors. To understand how a particular protein functions and how it can be specifically modified – for example for use in drugs – its 3D structure must be known. However, determining protein folding has been a major challenge for decades. Using experimental methods, the three-dimensional structures of only around 170,000 proteins have been determined in over 60 years.
However, more than 200 million proteins are already known. The turning point came with the AlphaFold deep learning algorithm. The system was trained with the 170,000 protein structures in the Protein Data Bank and can predict protein structures with unprecedented accuracy and in a fraction of the time – a decisive breakthrough for drug development, disease research, and the understanding of biological processes. For example, AlphaFold was used to predict the three-dimensional structure and thus properties of the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 (coronavirus).
The latest version, AlphaFold 3, which was presented in May 2024, is able to predict not only the 3D structure of molecules, but also their interactions with each other and with other molecules.
AITHYRA, the new Research Institute for Biomedical Artificial Intelligence, is the OeAW’s fifth institute in the field of life sciences.
The Cori Institute of Molecular and Computational Metabolism is an institute for metabolism research in Graz and a cooperation between the OeAW, the University of Graz, the Medical University of Graz, and the Graz University of Technology.
The GMI – Gregor Mendel Institute of Molecular Plant Biology – has been conducting scientific work since 2000. Research topics include basic mechanisms of epigenetics, cell biology, interactions between plants and pathogens, developmental biology, and population genetics.
Like the GMI, the IMBA – Institute of Molecular Biotechnology – is part of the Vienna BioCenter life science cluster. The OeAW’s largest institute deciphers the biological foundations of modern medicine.
The CeMM Research Center for Molecular Medicine is an interdisciplinary research facility for molecular medicine that develops diagnostic and therapeutic approaches.
The success of the institutes in 2024 is demonstrated, for example, by the awarding of the “Emerging Fields” projects by the Austrian Science Fund FWF to Frédéric Berger from GMI, Jürgen Knoblich from IMBA, and Christoph Bock from CeMM, as well as the awards at the Houska Prize ceremony, also to Jürgen Knoblich and Giulio Superti-Furga, Director of CeMM. In addition, three researchers received highly endowed grants from the European Research Council (ERC) this year: Julius Brennecke, molecular biologist at IMBA, an Advanced Grant; Stefan Kubicek, biochemist at CeMM, a Proof of Concept Grant; and computational biologist Anton Goloborodko, junior group leader at IMBA, a Starting Grant.
Vienna city center, 2027: A group of young people gather in front of the historic Aula der Wissenschaften. Lively discussions can be heard from inside the exhibition space. Inside, a huge LED wall shows a 3D visualization of the growth of urban forests. A researcher explains how this data can improve the urban climate. Elsewhere, visitors discuss the latest AI applications with a scientist. The Science Communication Center has become a reality – a place where science becomes tangible.
Back to the year 2024: the historic location at Wollzeile 27a is to be transformed into a lively space for dialog between science and society. The vision: to make science accessible and tangible for everyone. The Science Communication Center, the current working title, is intended to build a bridge between science and society and address current issues. Close cooperation with the OeAW, the University of Vienna, and the Vienna University of Technology forms the backbone of the project. These institutions provide the content basis for exhibitions and events.
The aim here is not just to impart knowledge, but also to encourage direct interaction between scientists and visitors. “Who could convey enthusiasm for science more authentically than the researchers themselves?” says Christopher Lindinger, innovation researcher and project manager.
Initial plans already show an inviting forecourt with benches and trees, which will encourage people to linger and chat. The entrance area will feature temporary exhibition spaces showcasing research topics from the OeAW, the University of Vienna, and TU Wien. A highlight will be a virtual reality LED installation that allows visitors to experience scientific content interactively. Changing science exhibitions and science events are planned for the first floor, while the magnificent Jesuit Hall on the second floor will continue to be used as a venue for public events.
The redesign of the listed building is both a challenge and an opportunity. “We are creating a modern center for science communication in a historic building in the heart of Vienna. This combination has a very special charm,” says OeAW President Heinz Faßmann. Special exhibitions, interactive elements, and hands-on laboratories are intended to inspire young people in particular, strengthen interest in current topics, and foster broad social acceptance. The costs of around €17 million will be covered by the federal government and the participating institutions. The opening is scheduled for 2027. The countdown has begun.
Mr. Lindinger, how can people outside the academic world be reached by science?
Christopher Lindinger: The center will continue to develop science education by targeting the general public, with a particular focus on teenagers and young adults. This will create points of contact that address the current challenges of our time and highlight the importance of science in these contexts.
How would you describe your approach to science communication?
Lindinger: Our aim is to establish a contemporary understanding of science communication that enables dialog and discourse on equal footing and creates space for active listening. The exhibits should serve as starting points for engaging in lively exchanges with visitors. We do not see visitors as passive observers, but as active participants in a shared process. This approach encourages participation and interaction and makes science a vivid and practical experience.
What events or projects will the Science Communication Center implement after its opening?
Lindinger: We are currently preparing a call for architectural proposals and ensuring that we can accommodate a wide range of formats. The specific content development will start in 2025 together with the scientific institutions. What is definitely planned, however, are temporary activities and events at the construction site even before the opening in 2027.
What role would the Science Communication Center like to play in the international context of science communication?
Lindinger: There is a clear vision of positioning ourselves as Austria’s competence center for science communication. The center sees itself not only as a venue for exhibitions and discussions, but also as a living experimental laboratory for pioneering scientific dialog.
With this approach, the center aims to establish itself on the international map, but also to work closely with institutions pursuing similar goals. Content exchange is already taking place during the founding phase, extending from VISTA in Klosterneuburg to the Science Galleries in London and the MIT Museum in Boston.
The OeAW successfully launched a new science education program. FÄKT presents science videos for the next generation in the classroom and on social media.
Why are glaciers disappearing? What are zombie cells? How much energy does AI consume? FÄKT or fake? The idea behind the OeAW’s new science communication project is to convey complex knowledge in short clips: the language is simple and relatable, the young hosts are close to the target group, and the content is trustworthy, evidence-based, and rooted in the everyday lives of young people.
FÄKT was launched in 2024 on the initiative of OeAW President Heinz Faßmann and immunologist Andreas Bergthaler. The project, which is financed by the Fonds Zukunft Österreich, pursues two approaches: 1) Science videos on topics aligned with the lower secondary school curriculum are available on the edutube education portal together with accompanying material for school lessons; 2) Short clips on these topics are available on popular social media platforms (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube).
The long and short videos are presented by the two hosts Julia Winkler and Marie-Sophie “Miso” Tschak: “Our aim is to impart knowledge in a cool, modern, and exciting way,” Miso says. Today, “one of the biggest challenges is capturing the attention of young people. Through dynamic videos, questions, and visually appealing clips, we aim to spark and sustain their curiosity.” Julia adds: “We are both still very young and essentially grew up with smartphones. I think this helps us communicate with younger people in their language. My aim is to communicate complex topics in a way that even my little sister would understand. When I interview the researchers, I try to put myself in her shoes.”
To participate in one of the FÄKT videos, researchers apply with their quality-assured projects and a short video submission. A jury, which includes representatives from the BMBWF, the ORF, and the FWF, selects the best candidates based on editorial criteria. The production company Neulandfilm then takes care of translating the complex content into easily understandable language and presenting the scientific content visually. FÄKT is aimed at researchers in Austrian from all disciplines and sees itself as an umbrella for digital science communication in Austria.
President Faßmann says: “FÄKT is opening a new chapter in science communication. Such a format has not existed in Austria until now. We need to counter the many anti-science narratives on social media and aim to reach young people where they communicate. FÄKT videos bear the OeAW’s seal of approval and are presented in a contemporary and relatable manner.”
Why are glaciers disappearing? What are zombie cells? How much energy does AI consume? FÄKT or fake? The idea behind the OeAW’s new science communication project is to convey complex knowledge in short clips: the language is simple and relatable, the young hosts are close to the target group, and the content is trustworthy, evidence-based, and rooted in the everyday lives of young people.
FÄKT was launched in 2024 on the initiative of OeAW President Heinz Faßmann and immunologist Andreas Bergthaler. The project, which is financed by the Fonds Zukunft Österreich, pursues two approaches: 1) Science videos on topics aligned with the lower secondary school curriculum are available on the edutube education portal together with accompanying material for school lessons; 2) Short clips on these topics are available on popular social media platforms (Instagram, TikTok, YouTube).
The long and short videos are presented by the two hosts Julia Winkler and Marie-Sophie “Miso” Tschak: “Our aim is to impart knowledge in a cool, modern, and exciting way,” Miso says. Today, “one of the biggest challenges is capturing the attention of young people. Through dynamic videos, questions, and visually appealing clips, we aim to spark and sustain their curiosity.” Julia adds: “We are both still very young and essentially grew up with smartphones. I think this helps us communicate with younger people in their language. My aim is to communicate complex topics in a way that even my little sister would understand. When I interview the researchers, I try to put myself in her shoes.”
To participate in one of the FÄKT videos, researchers apply with their quality-assured projects and a short video submission. A jury, which includes representatives from the BMBWF, the ORF, and the FWF, selects the best candidates based on editorial criteria. The production company Neulandfilm then takes care of translating the complex content into easily understandable language and presenting the scientific content visually. FÄKT is aimed at researchers in Austrian from all disciplines and sees itself as an umbrella for digital science communication in Austria.
President Faßmann says: “FÄKT is opening a new chapter in science communication. Such a format has not existed in Austria until now. We need to counter the many anti-science narratives on social media and aim to reach young people where they communicate. FÄKT videos bear the OeAW’s seal of approval and are presented in a contemporary and relatable manner.”
From the magnificent Library of Celsus in Ephesus to the earliest houses in Europe – buildings tell stories that last for thousands of years. Archaeologists from the OeAW shed new light on the beginnings of human civilization and the course of history.
Buildings are more than just physical structures; they preserve memories of past eras and offer a unique view of human history. The traces of past peoples manifest themselves in their buildings – be it in the magnificent Library of Celsus in Ephesus, the earliest houses in Europe, or an imposing temple of Poseidon on the west coast of Greece. These and other monuments are often early architectural masterpieces. In 2024, some of these buildings were the focus of media and public attention – thanks to the research and conservation work of archaeologists from the OeAW. A short tour of OeAW excavations from Turkey to Serbia, Italy, and Greece shows what makes the finds so significant.
First stop: Turkey. One of the most impressive examples of the combination of history and archaeology is the Library of Celsus in Ephesus. The magnificent building, erected in the 2nd century AD in honor of the Roman senator Tiberius Julius Celsus, was not only a cultural center, but also a place of knowledge. But after millennia of earthquakes and weathering, the library is at risk; its significance could be lost if it is not restored.
50 years after it was rebuilt, the library is now undergoing restoration. The Austrian Archaeological Institute of the OeAW has initiated a large-scale restoration project with an international team of experts. As OeAW excavation director Martin Steskal emphasizes: “The Library of Celsus is certainly the icon of the Ephesus excavation. Its reconstruction was undoubtedly an architectural masterpiece by the Austrian team of the 1970s. Now it is important to preserve this unique monument for future generations.”
State-of-the-art restoration techniques will be used to preserve the ornate façade and the structural integrity of the building. Initial investigations and safeguarding measures have already been completed, so that the magnificent building, which has been a major tourist attraction since its reconstruction, is expected to be fully restored by the end of 2027.
The journey continues to southern Serbia near the city of Niš, where the discovery of an 8,000-year-old house by an Austrian-Serbian team of archaeologists led by the OeAW provides a fascinating insight into the history of human migration. Barbara Horejs, archaeologist and scientific director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute, explains: “The new findings in Svinjarička Čuka provide substantial new insights and data that are likely to change previous models of the development of settled life in the Balkans.”
The well-preserved remains of the rectangular house, which was built from wattle and wooden posts, shed light on the origins and spread of settled life in Europe. Microarchaeological investigations such as sediment analyses and chemical soil samples have provided valuable new data on this early architecture and the lifestyles of the first farming communities in the Balkans.
“Instead of nomadic or only seasonally sedentary small groups, the Neolithic pioneers in the Balkans apparently built stable houses with facilities for provisions and grain storage,” Horejs emphasizes the scientific significance of this discovery.
Researchers from the OeAW also gained new insights from a building in Italy. The discovery of an early Christian basilica in Aquileia tells us a lot about the religious and political upheavals of the 6th century. Aquileia, today a small town with around 3,000 inhabitants between Udine and Grado, was an economically important city of the Roman Empire. Founded in 181 BC as a Roman military colony, it was strategically located at the end of the Amber Road and on the way to the province of Noricum, today’s Austria.
OeAW archaeologist Stefan Groh succeeded in locating the sacred building: “This basilica is the first newly discovered large-scale building in Aquileia in decades of intensive archaeological research.” And it provides insights into the spread of Christianity and the influence of the Eastern Roman Empire on Western Europe.
“The city was fortified under Emperor Justinian I with a mighty zigzag wall, for which there are the best comparisons in Thessaloniki. The discovery of the new basilica indicates a larger Byzantine construction program,” Groh says. For him, the basilica should therefore not only be seen as a religious building, but also as a sign of Justinian I’s reconquest of northern Italy.
From Italy, we finally move on to Greece. There, after more than a hundred years of intensive research by archaeologists with the participation of the OeAW, the temple of Poseidon was uncovered. The famous building dedicated to the god of the sea on the west coast of the Peloponnese is 28 meters long and over nine meters wide. The enormous dimensions were revealed in 2024 during excavations by OeAW researchers.
“Based on current knowledge, it is an archaic double temple that probably dates back to the 6th century BC,” explains Birgitta Eder, head of the OeAW’s Athens branch.
Among the two new finds from the excavations was a bronze plaque that was originally attached to one of the temple’s mud-brick walls. “Initial X-ray images show parts of an extensive inscription, but it will only be fully legible after extensive restoration,” archaeologist Eder explains. Deciphering the inscription could provide further important clues about the use of the sanctuary, which was apparently an important religious and ethnic center of the ancient region.
Turkey, Serbia, Italy, Greece – in all these places there are buildings that reflect turning points and milestones in the history of humanity. The archaeologists at the OeAW are able to look deeper and more closely into the past with every building they discover – just like with a microscope. History set in stone tells us where we come from and how we became what we are today.
The OeAW mourns the loss of archaeologist Sabine Ladstätter, who passed away in June 2024 at the age of 55. As director of the Austrian Archaeological Institute and head of the Ephesus excavation, she had a lasting impact on international archaeology. With her passing, the OeAW has lost a highly respected expert in her field, a warm colleague with great leadership qualities, and a passionate science communicator.
Her successor as excavation leader is Martin Steskal, who has been serving as deputy leader in Ephesus since 2015. He will continue the interdisciplinary research and collaboration with Turkey. Steskal emphasizes the importance of long-term research projects to investigate resource management, environmental relationships, and living conditions in antiquity.
2025 is a year to celebrate: Austrian archaeologists have been excavating in the ancient city on the west coast of Turkey for 130 years. Around 300 people from numerous countries around the world are involved in Austria’s largest archaeological excavation abroad.
What do 1,000-year-old graves reveal about the people who once populated the Avar empire? An EU project at the OeAW is combining the latest data from genetic analyses with historical records, archaeological findings, and anthropological results. It has now been proven that, despite genetic differences, cultural integration was successful even back then.
In the early Middle Ages, a nomadic people originally from Central Asia ruled between Vienna and Belgrade. In the 6th century AD, the Avars established an important empire in east-central Europe, in the Pannonian Plain, which also included parts of present-day Austria. Although less well known than their predecessors, the Huns, who are mentioned in every school history book, their 250-year rule in Central Europe left indelible traces, including over 100,000 graves, which were excavated between the 1950s and 1970s and have now been re-examined.
An international team of scientists has now combined genetic analyses of remains from over 1000-year-old graves with archaeological, anthropological, and historical findings. As part of the EU research project HistoGenes, coordinated by the OeAW, they are reconstructing the way of life of the steppe people. The latest results were published in the journal Nature in 2024.
All available skeletons from four completely excavated burial grounds were sampled. “The combination with results from other disciplines provides a new, much more detailed picture of life in Central Europe over a thousand years ago,” says Walter Pohl from the Institute for Medieval Research at the OeAW, who heads the HistoGenes project. The project also involves the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, and the ELTE University in Budapest.
Based on extensive analysis of entire burial grounds spanning generations, the researchers compiled several detailed family trees. Some of these cover a period of 250 years and nine generations. The DNA analysis of a total of 424 individuals allows conclusions to be drawn about kinship relationships in the early medieval communities, among other things.
The findings include surprising details: the researchers came across the practice of levirate marriage – a tradition in which women had children with multiple related men. The results show that men remained in their communities while women came from other regions. This mobility of women shaped the social structures of the Avars.
This is consistent with historical records of the way of life of the steppe peoples in Central Asia and indicates that the Avars brought some of their social customs with them to their new homeland.
Another breakthrough was achieved through the investigation of two burial grounds in Lower Austria. The analysis of 500 graves in Mödling and almost 150 in Leobersdorf, both from the 8th century, confirms that genes and culture do not necessarily align. While the population of Leobersdorf was predominantly of East Asian origin, the people in Mödling had European roots. Despite these genetic differences, both groups lived together peacefully. The anthropological and archaeological findings show hardly any combat injuries or signs of deprivation.
What the researchers also discovered: The grave goods and status symbols were similar at both sites, indicating a common way of life and culture. “Cultural integration apparently worked despite major genetic differences. This is the first time we have been able to prove this,” says medieval expert Pohl. These results debunk the cliché of the “wild” Avars and highlight one of the most peaceful phases in the Vienna Basin.
Around 800 AD, the genetic trace of people of East Asian descent is lost. The reasons for this remain unclear. During this time, the Franks led by Charlemagne conquered the Avar empire. From the last generation, almost only children and a few adults were buried. Why adults and adolescents had previously left the region remains a mystery.
Walter Pohl is optimistic that future research will provide further answers. “Genetics alone is not enough to understand the past. But in combination with other disciplines, it opens up new perspectives.”
For the third consecutive year, the OeAW presented its Science Barometer. The survey measures the level of skepticism toward science among the population. The good news: the majority of people trust science and research. But: only a few feel well informed – a clear mandate for more science communication.
Can science assert itself against anti-scientific tendencies? Does the public still trust research results and researchers? Or is it increasingly the simple answers – the constellation of the stars, the one miracle cure for the pandemic, the “health damage” of eating a genetically modified piece of fruit ... - that are holding a fragmented society together?
In 2024, the OeAW examined this question for the third time in a row, commissioning the Gallup Institute to conduct the Science Barometer survey (1,500 respondents, online and on the phone). The key findings:
→ The good news: trust in science remains stable. 73% of respondents trust science and research strongly or very strongly. This is the same figure as the previous year. The increase of three percentage points compared to the first barometer in 2022 was maintained. An encouraging detail: Austria performs better than Germany, where only 55% say they trust science.
→ 80% of Austrians also believe that research improves our lives. Medical advances and improvements in everyday life and at work are obviously convincing.
→ Interest in science and research, on the other hand, has declined slightly: It fell by four percentage points within a year and currently stands at 56%. Experts attribute this to a “normalization” following the pandemic-driven high interest in recent years. The Nobel Prizes for Anton Zeilinger and Ferenc Krausz in 2022 and 2023 also prompted many to read science news.
→ Despite the general decline in interest, 60% say that it is important to be informed about science and research. 80% believe that researchers should provide information about their work. However, only 32% feel well informed.
What do these results mean? President Heinz Faßmann, who initiated the introduction of the Science Barometer, says: “Three quarters trust science; we need to work on the remaining quarter. The majority of people in this country are convinced that science is something good, honest, and useful. That is encouraging.” However, Faßmann also identifies a “clear mandate in the results of the Science Barometer: people in Austria want more science communication. It is crucial for making scientific findings understandable and accessible to everyone.” There is a need for “even more innovative ideas and targeted investments in science communication.”
Conclusion: The focus of science communication efforts must be on those who are among the skeptics, but are still calling for more information. They can still be reached. However, science cannot expect these people to view obtaining science news as their responsibility. Instead, science must actively deliver.
The OeAW sees itself as a pioneer in science communication. The FÄKT video series communicates scientific content to a young audience on social media and in school lessons. The establishment of the Science Communication Center in the Aula der Wissenschaften brings science communication to the heart of Vienna’s city center. Both initiatives aim to reach segments of the population that otherwise have little contact with science. The goal: astrophysics instead of astrology – but at least as entertaining.
Philip Schmidt from IQOQI Vienna secured one of the FFG’s coveted spin-off fellowships for an amplifier in quantum computing. With “QuantumGain,” the product is expected to hit the market by 2026. An inspiring environment and concrete support from the OeAW are helping with spin-offs.
What do a Mozartkugel and the amplifier for a quantum computer have in common? Both are products from Austria, though one is perhaps a little better known than the other – for now.
This is how Philip Schmidt began his pitch for a spin-off fellowship from the Austrian Research Promotion Agency (FFG). The young scientist from the Vienna Institute for Quantum Optics and Quantum Information of the OeAW – IQOQI Vienna for short – was highly successful. He secured around €460,000 in funding and is now developing a market-ready product.
Schmidt has learned to explain his complex research in pictures. In this way, he makes it clear to laypeople why a quantum computer needs an amplifier in the first place: “I like to imagine an orchestra. Every bit of information is like an instrument. They all play together, each with their own timbre. The computation task is the music score, and the overall sound is the result of the computation,” Schmidt explains. The key point about the quantum orchestra, however, is that it must not be “heard” from the outside. This means that the information must not be observed, as this would disrupt the computation. The orchestra therefore plays very quietly, at low temperatures and energy levels. It is actually inaudible to those who are supposed to hear it. For them, an “amplifier” of the sound is needed.
When Schmidt joined Markus Aspelmeyer’s research group as a postdoc in 2020, it quickly became clear that even the best amplifier on the market was not a satisfactory solution for the research projects. “So, we started to build it ourselves,” he explains. After initial setbacks due to supply chain issues during the pandemic, the team developed a technology that made it possible to amplify as many “instruments” as possible at the same time. This meant that the manufacturers of quantum computers could build “larger orchestras”, i.e., more complex computers. A nice thing in the lab, but would it hold its own on the market? Is the amplifier really needed, or is it just a good idea for which there is no demand?
Before Schmidt applied for the fellowship, he conducted a reality check and consulted professionals for his market analysis. He also reached out to leading manufacturers of quantum computers such as Google Quantum and IQM, and later also with ParityQC, which specializes in quantum computer architecture and is one of the OeAW’s most successful spin-offs to date. The unanimous response: Yes, we need this. Please bring it to market!
How does a researcher make the leap from lab to start-up? Schmidt: “The most important thing is role models and mentors. Being able to draw on their expertise is extremely helpful.” There have already been several spin-offs at IQOQI. “I’ve learned a lot about entrepreneurial thinking from my professor Markus Aspelmeyer. The impact of that is immeasurable.” In the supportive environment of the OeAW Institute, Schmidt and his colleagues Ugur Sezer and Martin Zemlicka decided to launch the “QuantumGain” project and prepare for founding a company.
However, support beyond the immediate environment is also essential. At the OeAW, the Knowledge Transfer Office, in cooperation with the INiTS incubator, offers briefings, training sessions, and pitch workshops for start-up projects, which Schmidt and his team also took advantage of before acquiring the spin-off fellowship. As journalists are generally very interested in new spin-offs, the OeAW also provides media training. Schmidt: “You can tell that spin-offs are now a priority for the OeAW. The many resources definitely make life easier. Not everyone has to start a company, but it’s good when the options are there.”
Schmidt’s project has been running since April 2024 and will last at least 18 months. The motto: Think big! “We want to establish a leading technology company for quantum hardware in Austria,” the project proposal to the FFG states. But: failure is allowed, even within the framework of the fellowship. Schmidt is well aware of this: “The most important thing is to take the plunge. Failure is part of the process. You have to try things out, you have to adapt – that’s physics.” And if all goes well, Schmidt’s quantum amplifier might soon rival the Mozartkugel in fame.
Europe is falling behind: our continent is no longer what it used to be in terms of science and innovation. The gaps between self-image, external image, and reality are widening. This is why the EU must now invest in research and research-friendly structures.
Europe is no longer what it used to be in terms of science and innovation. The gaps between self-image, external image, and reality are widening. Europe sees itself as culturally and morally superior and scientifically advanced. Unfortunately, the latter no longer corresponds to reality; the facts are clear. In the Times Higher Education Ranking 2025, not a single university located in the EU is among the top 20. The list is dominated by universities from the USA, followed by China and the UK. In the Leiden Ranking for 2019–2022, which avoids subjective reputation surveys, the top 20 places are occupied by 15 Chinese universities, two US universities, and one each from Canada, Brazil, and Japan. In recent decades, the EU’s contribution to global scientific publications has fallen to around 18%. Currently, only around 17% of global patent applications come from the EU. The EU-wide research spending is 2.2%, compared to 4.9% in South Korea, 3.5% in the USA, 3.3% in Japan, and at least 2.4% in China.
The EU cannot and should not accept this. On the contrary: it must act, it must invest more, it must start with a radical simplification of processes, it must promote basic research as well as the targeted transfer of research results into application. There is no other answer to the geopolitical and practical challenges of our time. Research and innovation ensure the competitiveness of companies in national and global markets, and these secure the public budgets that are necessary to maintain the welfare state in an ageing society and to address climate change and its consequences.
A simple “business as usual” approach to promoting research and innovation is not enough. National policy must provide more funding to avoid falling behind the competition. An R&D spending rate of 4% by 2030 is necessary and attainable, as are longer planning and funding periods for universities and Austria’s central research performing organizations and research funders, as well as greater coordination of who is responsible for which tasks and topics. At the European level, a new and bold Framework Programme “FP10” – the tenth of its kind – needs to be developed, which continues the tried and tested, sets new priorities, and contains more funding overall.
To think about this in a structured way, the EU Commission set up a 15-member expert group led by former Portuguese Science Minister Manuel Heitor. University professors from various disciplines, experienced research managers, university and research institution management bodies, and CEOs of large and small industrial companies were selected for this purpose. The group, which included the author of this article, met approximately once a month in Brussels or via digital conferences. The diversity of the group was valuable, as different perspectives enriched the discussion, but also made it challenging to draft a unified report. What united all members was the interest in getting Europe “back on track” through research and innovation.
The result was a 94-page report titled “Align, Act, Accelerate,” presented in Brussels in October 2024. The report analyzes the implementation of the current Framework Programme, identifies the strengths and weaknesses of existing funding instruments, and makes a series of recommendations to policymakers. The title of the report is also the program: “Align” means coordination with other funds, but especially with the EU member states, “Act” is a clear call to action, and “Accelerate” indicates that Europe needs to be faster: faster in funding, but also faster in translating research findings into concrete, economically relevant actions.
One of the recommendations relates to the European Research Council (ERC), which is undoubtedly an outstanding instrument for promoting excellent basic research. In the many statements on the new Framework Programme, the ERC has been praised and also described as the “crown jewel” of European research funding. Its political independence and its selection processes based on scientific quality are its strengths. There are no predetermined approval quotas based on the characteristics of the applicants, nor are there disciplinary or thematic restrictions. A similar finding emerges for the European Innovation Council (EIC), which does not strengthen basic research, but rather research-based start-ups at various stages of their development. The recommendation is therefore clear: to continue and significantly increase funding to raise the low approval rates. Approval rates of 14% for the ERC and 8% for the EIC are far too low, resulting in too much wasted effort.
Another recommendation concerns industry-related research, which is essential for Europe’s competitiveness. More than half of the Horizon Europe budget goes to collaborative projects and industrial partnerships, and industry-oriented research should continue to be part of FP10 in the future. Funding the entire research spectrum is a core element of European research funding; fragmentation into basic research on the one hand and applied research on the other does not appear to be expedient. However, analysis of the processes to date and numerous statements criticize the specific thematic focus set by the so-called clusters and the resulting calls for proposals. These are sometimes politicized and do not or only partially align with the interests of stakeholders. For this reason, the “Align, Act, Accelerate” report proposes the establishment of a “European Council for Technology and Industrial Competitiveness,” which is modeled after the ERC, is politically independent, and gives industrial “practitioners” greater weight in the decision-making process. Industry-oriented research funding needs to be grounded and connected to real-life events.
Another recommendation in a similar vein relates to the pressing issues of our time, such as climate change, aging populations, immigration and integration, the preservation of the social welfare state, the new political world order, and the spread of artificial intelligence. Evidence-based policymaking requires science-based reality assessments and actionable options to address these issues. The social sciences, cultural sciences, and humanities are called upon to contribute. Once again, an independent European Societal Challenges Council should set the topics and decide on concrete calls. A scientific orientation is just as necessary as a certain degree of flexibility, as it is not possible to predict which issues will be urgent during the next Framework Programme.
Finally, the “Align, Act, Accelerate” report emphasizes a major problem in Europe, namely the heterogeneity of national objectives and the negative shift in competencies. Some member states delegate their research responsibility to “Brussels” and set too few research policy priorities themselves. However, a European Research Area is only strong if all member states have an interest in it and work towards it. A Framework Programme, even with a generous budget, can never compensate for what the member states fail to do. Only a few countries (including Austria) have achieved the famous 3% target for research and development expenditure (as a percentage of GDP), while almost a third of member states unfortunately invest less than 1%. This is why “alignment,” the joint focus on common goals, is so important, and it affects the member states just as much as various EU funding instruments themselves. It remains unclear why no funds from agricultural funding are used for relevant research or regional funding for the establishment of research facilities. The chain is as strong as its weakest links, and this also applies to the common European Research Area.
Negotiations on the multiannual financial framework are in full swing. As is well known, this will determine the EU’s seven-year budget and thus also the political priorities. The Commissioner for Start-ups, Research and Innovation, Ekaterina Zaharieva, is tasked with advocating for a strong Framework Programme and significant budget growth. The Heitor Report and many other stakeholders are calling for an increase to €220 billion over a seven-year period and can also demonstrate why this is necessary. But more money for research may mean less for agriculture or regional development. Distribution conflicts are setting in. It remains to be seen whether the Commissioner has the strength and political clout to achieve the goals. It goes without saying that the research-strong academies of science in Europe will support her in this.
Everyone can contribute to the promotion of science and its communication. Stefan M. Gergely, author and entrepreneur, is one of them. He explains why he supports the OeAW and biodiversity research.
Florian Schubert was born in December 2024. Statistically speaking, he has a good chance of living to see the year 2100 – but only if nature remains sufficiently intact until then. Intact nature requires a diversity of species and a diversity of species-rich, stable ecosystems. Both are already under threat today. To ensure that science can find solutions to preserve biodiversity, we need to better understand the relationships and interactions between species, their diversity, and their living and non-living environments. This calls for basic research and scientific exploration and testing of measures to safeguard our livelihoods and prevent damage to nature and the biosphere.
This is why I support dissertations on research questions about biodiversity through prizes, which the OeAW kindly announces and awards.
However, people also need to understand why biodiversity is important for them and their descendants and what each individual can do to keep nature as intact as possible. New scholarships for science journalism, which I am also happy to support, should contribute to this.
Imparting knowledge is important because it is becoming increasingly difficult in public discourse to distinguish facts from fakes. It is therefore important to counter deliberate and unintentional disinformation with reliable knowledge.
The importance of competent science journalism for a better understanding of nature cannot be overstated. In this context, it should be noted that translating technical jargon into understandable language is also the responsibility of the scientists.
The fact that biodiversity does not (yet) have an economically influential lobby was also a decisive factor in my decision to provide the aforementioned funding. Measures to preserve biodiversity often have to contend with economic interests that are based on exploiting nature and natural spaces. In many cases, however, this exploitation has turned into overexploitation, with consequences that affect us all.
The “adversaries” of biodiversity include intensive agriculture, forestry, and fishing, insofar as they overexploit nature, harm biodiversity, and ignore the long-term consequences of their actions. This is true despite the immense challenge of feeding ten billion people in the near future.
The construction industry is also detrimental to biodiversity – think of soil sealing with concrete etc. Finally, the extensive fragmentation of natural spaces by roads and railways significantly disrupts species-rich habitats and animal migration routes.
Those who do not want to stand idly by and watch the harmful effects of human intervention in the natural environment have various options. For example, they can get involved with one of the many NGOs, purchase an area of primeval forest to preserve it, or take to the streets with Fridays for Future
My biography explains why I support both young people who are committed to researching biodiversity and those who communicate new knowledge about it in the media: For my dissertation in chemistry at the University of Vienna, I used model molecules to investigate the role of daylight duration in the sprouting of green leaves in spring. After my studies, I worked as a science journalist for a good fifteen years, often writing about nature, the environment, and alternative energy sources. Since then, I have been active as an entrepreneur.
While it is clear that individuals cannot achieve much on their own, supporting biodiversity research and communication can provide impetus and inspire imitation.
Great thanks are due to the President of the Academy of Sciences, Heinz Faßmann, who embraced and actively supported this initiative. This made it possible for the first prizes and scholarships to be awarded in 2024. I hope for a successful long-term collaboration!
Can posts and likes destabilize a democracy? The newly established Commission on Democracy in Digital Societies says unequivocally: Yes. Polarization, opinion manipulation, and loud minorities dominate social networks – with dangerous consequences for trust in politics. But there are solutions.
The promise of social media sounded enticing: being connected, being informed, having a voice. However, TikTok, X, Instagram, Facebook and the like have long since not only shaped our communication, but increasingly manipulated political debates and election decisions. What was once intended as a platform for sharing and information has now become a venue for hate speech, fake news, and conspiracy theories.
The risks and side effects of social networks for democratic discourse and social cohesion are now being investigated by the OeAW’s Democracy in Digital Societies Commission (DEMGES). It aims to create scientific awareness of the vulnerability of democracy through digital media and began its work in 2024.
In this interview, the two DEMGES founders Barbara Prainsack from the University of Vienna and Astrid Mager from the Institute of Technology Assessment at the OeAW talk about the Commission’s concrete plans.
Democracies around the world are facing profound challenges due to the use of digital practices. What do these look like?
Barbara Prainsack: Digital technologies have great advantages for many people and give a voice to many who would otherwise not be heard. At the same time, however, they are also being used to influence voters, manipulate people, spread disinformation and misinformation, and sometimes even incite violence. When such activities are strategically deployed, for example by autocratic governments, we speak of the phenomenon of “foreign interference”. Unfortunately, this has reached a very large scale, the full extent of which is still not really known to much of the public.
Astrid Mager: There are many other examples of how digital platforms are used to undermine democracies. As we can see, polarization on social media also plays into the hands of right-wing parties in particular. It is important to recognize that the business models of major tech companies are primarily geared towards keeping people on the platforms and generating as much data as possible. Algorithms therefore rate user engagement, e.g., likes and comments, as positive and rank these at the top, which aligns well with controversial and polarizing content – often that from far-right groups. Conspiracy theories and similar content can also gain visibility in this way – as we have already seen in the wake of coronavirus, for example.
How can the new OeAW Commission help to counteract this?
Prainsack: So far, the extent of these developments – especially the targeted influence of autocratic governments through digital tools – has not been sufficiently recognized and addressed by policymakers. This requires not only educational work, but of course also research. Our Commission will examine a wide range of digital practices that threaten democracies, but can also strengthen them. The issue of “foreign interference” is a wake-up call for us to pool the expertise available in Austria to better understand digital transformations in democracies and provide helpful recommendations for policymaking.
And what is the Commission’s objective?
Mager: The aim of the Commission is to look both empirically and theoretically at which practices in digital societies strengthen democracies and which weaken them. During the US election campaign, social media was even used to incite violence. Here, we also need to examine how the legal system and law enforcement respond. DEMGES is therefore about concrete practices in specific contexts and not about formulating abstract principles.
What are your initial work plans?
Prainsack: We want to create a typology of digital practices that harm or benefit democracies. To do this, we will jointly identify specific cases for in-depth analysis. The next step will be to see what we can learn from them and how this relates to existing literature.
At the renowned Falling Walls Science Summit in Berlin, leading international experts were invited by the OeAW and the Boehringer Ingelheim Foundation to discuss how artificial intelligence is advancing biomedical research. The new AITHYRA Director Michael Bronstein was also on the panel.
AI has long been a dominant topic in biomedicine. For example, the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded to the developers of AI-supported protein research, the OeAW Institute AITHYRA for Biomedical AI was founded (see pages 12-17), and an innovative research program for biomedical AI was developed in Dresden, Germany. No wonder that this area of science was “the next big thing” passionately discussed at the Falling Walls Science Summit in Berlin in October.
The round table talk, chaired by British geneticist and editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Nature, Magdalena Skipper, brought together an exciting panel of AI and life sciences experts. Among them was Heinz Faßmann, President of the OeAW, which initiated the event together with the non-profit Boehringer Ingelheim Foundation. Also present was Michael Bronstein, DeepMind Professor of AI at the University of Oxford and Scientific Director of AITHYRA. Both spoke impressively about the expected breakthroughs in the healthcare sector.
“With the help of AI in biomedical research, we will likely develop drugs for diseases that currently have no cure. These drugs could potentially be personalized, and clinical trials themselves could be accelerated with the help of AI,” says Bronstein, describing promising areas of application.
Richard Socher, computer scientist and founder of the AI search engine you.com, uses an example to illustrate the advances in biotechnology and machine learning: these have made it possible to grow tiny organoid lymph nodes on a large scale and thus conduct clinical trials virtually in a petri dish, which means, among other things, that much more data can be collected in less time and the drug development cycle can be significantly shortened.
One of the greatest milestones achieved so far is the development of AlphaFold – the prediction of complex protein structures, for which the developers were awarded the Nobel Prize. The next big revolution is expected to come from Alpha Cell, explains Jan Ellenberg, molecular biologist and director of SciLifeLab. “In other words, being able to predict how the basic unit of life, a whole cell, functions.” Co-panelist Sochor continues: “Once you can simulate a cell, you can test hypotheses an infinite number of times.” A first, very rudimentary version of Alpha Cell is expected in around three years.
However, the discussion was not limited to scientific findings. A key topic was how AI research in biomedicine can be conducted effectively. Heinz Faßmann emphasized: “To establish a foothold in this field, a cultural shift in scientific work is a challenge, because it is clear that much more interdisciplinarity is needed than before. Larger teams are required, as well as data. And to obtain data, international collaboration is essential. In this field, one must think big.”
Trust is also an important prerequisite for generating data, explains Patrick Cramer, President of the Max Planck Society. “It is important that people are not afraid of AI, but are willing to provide data because they see the benefits.” As people do not simply trust machines or algorithms, events like the Falling Walls Science Summit are important, according to Cramer. “You have to know the scientists behind the science and know that they are doing research for the benefit of humanity.” Because despite all the help provided by AI, Cramer wants to leave one thing clear: ultimately, every final decision will be made by a human being.
The Academy remains excellent and is becoming more diverse: In 2024, 16 female, 17 male, and one non-binary researcher were elected as members of the Academy.
The 34 new members of the Academy are characterized by outstanding expertise and scientific excellence in their respective fields. The proportion of newly elected women and non-binary individuals is 50%.
OeAW President Heinz Faßmann: “Excellence and diversity are not mutually exclusive. With the election of the new members, the Academy remains excellent and will also become a little more diverse. All new members are among the best minds in their disciplines.”
The new members reflect the diversity of the fields: music archaeologist Stefan Hagel and legal scholar Paul Oberhammer were elected as full members of the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences. The Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences welcomed plant biologist Liam Dolan, space physicist Rumi Nakamura, mathematician Adrian Constantin, materials scientist Christian Mitterer, and medical scientist Günther Weiss as full members. In addition, there are newly elected corresponding members in Austria and abroad, members of the Young Academy, and two new honorary members.
Christiane Wendehorst, President of the Division of Humanities and Social Sciences, and Wolfgang Baumjohann, President of the Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, commented: “We warmly welcome our new members. Their expertise will enrich the Academy in scientific debates, at public events, and in advising politics and society.”
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
→ Richard Salomon (University of Washington, USA), Indology
Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
→ Walter Kutschera (University of Vienna), physics, geosciences, archaeometry, technology
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
→ Stefan Hagel (Austrian Archaeological Institute, OeAW), classical philology, music archaeology, digital humanities
→ Paul Oberhammer (University of Vienna), civil procedure law, commercial, securities and intellectual property law
Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
→ Adrian Constantin (University of Vienna), partial differential equations, applied mathematics
→ Liam Dolan (Gregor Mendel Institute of Molecular Plant Biology, OeAW), plant biology, developmental biology, developmental evolution
→ Christian Mitterer (University of Leoben), materials science
→ Rumi Nakamura (Space Research Institute, OeAW), geophysics, space research, space plasma physics
→ Günter Weiss (Medical University of Innsbruck), internal medicine
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
→ Pascale Hugon (Institute for the Cultural and Intellectual History of Asia, OeAW), Tibetology, Indology, history of philosophy
→ Katharina Rebay-Salisbury (University of Vienna), archaeology, prehistory and early history, history, gender studies
→ Barbara Stelzl-Marx (University of Graz), European contemporary history, focus on conflict and migration research
Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
→ Sepp Hochreiter (Johannes Kepler University Linz), artificial intelligence, computer science
→ Friederike Range (University of Veterinary Medicine, Vienna), comparative cognition research, psychology, domestication
→ Eva Schernhammer (Medical University of Vienna), medicine, epidemiology
Division of Humanities and Social Sciences
→ Carmen Cardelle de Hartmann (University of Zurich, CH), Latin philology: late antiquity, Middle Ages, early modern period
→ Maciej Górny (Institute of History, Polish Academy of Sciences, PL), history of East-Central Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries
→ Isabel Schnabel (University of Bonn; European Central Bank, DE), financial market economics, monetary policy
→ Petra M. Sijpesteijn (Leiden University, NL), Arabic studies, Arabic papyrology, history of the early caliphate, Islamic studies
Division of Mathematics and Natural Sciences
→ Albert- László Barabási (Northeastern University, Boston, USA), statistical physics, network science
→ Helen Blau (Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, USA), stem cell biology, bioengineering
→ Stefanie Dehnen (Karlsruhe Institute of Technology, DE), inorganic chemistry
→ Pasqualina Maria Sarro (Delft University of Technology, NL), microsystems engineering, micro- and nanotechnology
→ Éva Tardos (Cornell University, Ithaca, USA), computer science, operations research
→ Bernhard Bauer (University of Graz), Celtic studies, digital humanities
→ Maria Christakis (Vienna University of Technology), computer science: software engineering, formal methods
→ Agnes Dellinger (University of Vienna), botany: pollination biology, plant evolution
→ Sebastian Felten (University of Vienna), history of science, economic and social history, history of the early modern period
→ Richard Küng (Johannes Kepler University Linz), theoretical computer science
→ Kimberly Modic (Institute of Science and Technology Austria), physics: experimental condensed matter physics
→ Clemens Plaschka (Research Institute of Molecular Pathology), molecular biology
→ Hryhoriy Polshyn (Institute of Science and Technology Austria), physics: condensed matter physics
→ Katta Spiel (Vienna University of Technology), computer science: human-computer interaction
→ Thomas Vogl (Medical University of Vienna), cancer immunology
