Brain City Ambassador: Christine Kurmeyer

Who are you and what do you do for a living?

My name is Christine Kurmeyer and I have been involved in equality and diversity issues in science management for quite a long time.

I've been the central women's and equal opportunities officer at Charité for not quite as long. I'm also a member of the State Conference of Women's and Equal Opportunities Officers at Universities in Berlin and on the board of the Einstein Centre Digital Future. And as an honorary position, I am also chairwoman of the Berlin State Women's Council.

This means that I have insights into gender equality mechanisms and politics from many different perspectives, with a focus on science, and of course also on university medicine, which is a specialised area of scientific work, especially with regard to equal opportunities. And equal opportunities does not just mean equality. The aim is to make science possible for everyone who can make a contribution, who wants to contribute their creativity and innovative ideas, regardless of their skin colour, gender, religion or origin.

And that actually brings me to the core of my professional activity. On the one hand, I am very much involved in counselling processes, both for individuals who have difficulties with structures and circumstances. But I also advise organisations, institutes or clinics on how they can make their working environment more equal in terms of opportunities and thus ultimately retain and attract staff. On the other hand, I am also involved in organisational development, if you like. In other words, I endeavour to change and, at best, improve the structures and circumstances so that everyone has the opportunity to participate in the knowledge production process.

You are also a BrainCity ambassador. Why did you decide to take on this role in Berlin?

Yes, it is very important to me to support the transfer between science and urban society. Communication is sometimes not easy and I would therefore like to act as an ambassador in this sense. In other words, I try to bring the interests of the urban population into the scientific community, as well as the relevance and findings from science to the wider population and in this case, of course, to the female population, in order to create a mutual understanding, which is sometimes not always the case.

How have the challenges in your professional field changed in terms of gender equality and the advancement of women?

I would optimistically say that things have improved. But of course it still hasn't reached the standard that I would like to see and that many others would also like to see, because the structures are very rigid and also globally networked. And that's why you can't simply shift or change certain structures at the push of a button. Nevertheless, there is a growing understanding that equality is not an art in itself, but that it is important. And in medicine in particular, if I may focus on that for a moment, it is so relevant to take differences into account. So if we don't take into account the different anatomies of men and women or the different life perspectives or habits of different people, then we can't make good diagnoses or prescribe good treatments. And that is why it is so important to make this differentiation. And in order to make this differentiation, it is also very helpful to include people who have these different perspectives on life in the circle of those who decide which medical issues should be investigated. And under what circumstances must gender-specific differences, for example, also be taken into consideration? 

How do you see the role of Berlin Science Week in Berlin's scientific and cultural life?

On the one hand, it is important to put new findings, which are sometimes very far removed from people's everyday experience, into a form that is generally understandable. This is a major challenge for many scientists. On the other hand, it makes it clear, just like the Long Night of Science, which is very, very successful, that it is important to enter into precisely this dialogue. And the easiest way to do that is through events like this, where people can meet each other and ask personal questions. And perhaps as a result of pandemic: we have learnt very quickly, especially in the scientific community, to switch to virtual media and use video conferencing. And in the course of our experience with this, it also became clear that the value of face-to-face meetings should not be underestimated. There is a different kind of sustainability when you meet in 3D and can exchange ideas, and that you can possibly increase the room for manoeuvre in your head to come up with new ideas or to see what else is actually possible. Such mind games usually don't take place in such an elaborate way in virtual reality.

Berlin Science Week is focussing on the key question ‘What's our common ground?’ What do you associate with such a question?

It's about finding a community in society again in a very differentiated and specialised society and also in science, which is split into many individual disciplines and subjects. And perhaps the example of the Charité is a good illustration of this. We are currently in the process of setting out on this journey. To turn the so-called ‘silos’ that have formed in the individual disciplines- surgery, internal medicine, but also the other professions and physiotherapy, nursing, administration- upside down and think about what our patients actually need. And they need effective and efficient collaboration between all these professions around their illness. And so that a surgical case is not only treated in surgery- if the patient also happens to have diabetes and therefore needs to be treated- but that everything is brought together so that a diabetic patient's leg fracture can be treated appropriately. I hope that was clear enough. It is simply important to me that ‘common ground’ is not just that we try to talk about the same thing, but that we also try to act on the same level and align our goals accordingly.

Berlin Charité is also represented with events at Berlin Science Week. How important is public relations work for the science centre?

Public relations work is extremely important, which is why I made a commitment as an ambassador to improve communication, because it has simply become very specific. Not only do we speak different languages in different countries, but if you've ever looked at your tax return, it's hard to understand, even though it's also a German language. So we have to try to communicate what is going on in the minds of scientists, what benefits does it have directly for urban society? And conversely, what needs does urban society have that have not yet been addressed by science? And that's why I think Berlin Science Week is such an incredibly great opportunity to enter into a dialogue that is also moderated, which should not be underestimated, in order to simply improve mutual understanding and come up with new and creative ideas.

What do you think Berlin has to offer as a centre of science in general?

Firstly, relatively short distances. Anyone who has ever travelled from Steglitz to Marzahn knows that it can be very long. But there is a distinct, innovative scientific landscape here in Berlin, many start-ups, many new approaches to realising ideas. And it's not just AI and everyone jumping on the artificial intelligence bandwagon and racing ahead, but there is also critical reflection: What does it actually do? Where are the risks in this process? And how can we respond differently? I think it's very, very important to always see this critical potential in Berlin and not to be driven one-sidedly by industry or other major interests that hardly allow any critical reflection, but instead hold out the prospect of huge profits and then everything is done exactly in line with this. In Berlin, there are many different angles and perspectives that make it possible to carry out a technology impact assessment that goes a little further than just the next ten years.

How is Berlin positioned for women in science from your perspective?

Very well. Here in Berlin, we are the leading federal state in all rankings that focus on the proportion of women or women in leadership positions in science. We are very proud of this. And I think we have every right to be, because a great deal of effort and endeavour has been made in the various types of higher education institutions. Supported by the Senate Administration with the Berlin Equal Opportunities Programme, which responds in a very targeted and differentiated way to the various requirements. For example, at a university like Alice Salomon University, which traditionally has a very high proportion of women, but still needs to support women in management positions. In contrast to a technical university, which has traditionally always had a very low proportion of women, even among students, where we must work together to make these technical and engineering disciplines more attractive to young women and girls. So I am not an advocate of always blaming women and girls for not being interested in technology, but I actually think that we need to achieve a turnaround in order to shape technology differently and to set our sights on a different future than the one we have always had our sights on, because unfortunately it is also very one-sidedly male-dominated.

How has Berlin's scientific community contributed to the promotion of equal opportunities? What do you think could still be improved?

Of course, the scientific community in Berlin is highly sensitised to the differences that exist within society. And that is also very good and very important. This has led to many research institutions focussing on these different living conditions and perspectives. So, starting with gender research, in order to gain an understanding of why and how, for example, women and men are different. And which different gender identities have which effects on knowledge. And not just in relation to medicine, but also to technology. I used to be confronted with the sentence: ‘The button doesn't care whether a woman or a man presses it.’ But of course there are also very serious differences in engineering if I don't design technologies in such a way that they can be operated by different people. Speech recognition programmes that only react to male voices, for example, are not sufficient. And I think the reaction in Berlin was much quicker in this area too, because the deficits were recognised much more quickly. And of course there is also a lot to improve here. Unfortunately, we are currently experiencing a so-called backlash due to the overall political climate. Everywhere in parliament, small questions are being asked about the extent to which gender research is still useful and necessary. And people are questioning what the Federal Constitutional Court has established as the third option for gender registration. And a retraditionalisation is to be promoted that would certainly not have a positive effect on the innovative power of science. And that is why we have to be very careful not to lose the progress we have made.

What are you working on right now? What are you most concerned with at the moment?

Fortunately, we have now been able to take up a topic that has been on my mind for a very long time, but which has always been treated with extreme caution in society. And that is the topic of racism. Ten years ago, it was virtually impossible to even discuss it. And now people are talking about it much more openly. And we are currently working on the topic of racism in science and also unconscious bias, i.e. what role do our unconscious thought patterns actually play? For example, when selecting personnel, taking into account the fact that we may have unconsciously adopted certain images of people with a different skin colour from our parents or grandparents and have to consciously deal with them. That's a big issue at the moment. And the other, of course, is the synchronisation of a very long-standing feminist equality policy with a diversity policy that takes all possible dimensions of discrimination into account. And for a long time there was a great deal of aversion and competition in this area, naturally with limited resources. And that would be an important concern for me, to create a symbiosis and to dissolve this competitive behaviour to the effect that we all have to join forces in some way in order to make resources accessible to everyone with their own potential. That's my project at the moment, which I'm working on both at the Charité and in the State Conference of Women's and Equal Opportunities Officers, as well as in the State Women's Council.

In your opinion, are there any trends that will influence your work in the coming years?

Most definitely. I would pick up on the two aspects of backlash and diversity again. That will continue to occupy us in the coming years. It would be extremely helpful to not just label the topic of diversity as a fancy label with a colourful rainbow outside the front door, but also to take into account that diversity in teams also takes energy. So if you want to get people with different languages to work together, then you also have to develop a common language as ‘common ground’. And that takes time and energy and is usually not taken into account. And then people say that there are conflicts in the team and that this or that person doesn't fit in with us. And that is of course completely counterproductive. So this is the actual inclusion of diversity right down to the team level. This is something that will certainly keep us busy for some time to come. On the other hand, it will of course be counteracted by any right-wing populist movements that want to elevate another ideology to the throne, which will exclude the majority of people who do not conform to this ideology. And that actually worries me.

What keeps you awake at night? What issues concern you most?

Actually, what keeps me awake at night is the fact that a lot has to be done. And I also spend a lot of time sitting at the computer writing certain statements or other texts because I think that's important at the moment. And that relates to the topics I've just mentioned, because of course I also have to deal with a lot of committee work and advisory activities on top of my normal work schedule and still be involved in science. Going the extra mile is often night work.

Do you have a favourite place in Berlin?

Two, actually. But the first favourite place is, I think, the reason why I came here in the first place, because I'm not a native Berliner. But I was at the Gendarmenmarkt many years ago as part of a conference that took place here in Berlin. And I was amazed and very touched by all the places, buildings and culture here in Berlin. I hadn't realised that before. And that's why I've always loved going to the Gendarmenmarkt. At the moment it's a huge building site, which is a shame. And my second favourite place is actually the market at Südstern, because it just has such a typical Berlin atmosphere for me, so completely mixed and so colourful and so open and not extreme in either direction. It really is a wonderful place.

What are you reading at the moment?

A book about understanding the fear of others or understanding the pain of others. It's a female author, of course, Charlotte Wiedemann- ‘Understanding the pain of others’. And it's not easy reading, because it's about understanding and accepting that there is pain that is so terrible that you can't talk about it. This whole complex of the Holocaust has always touched me very, very deeply. My parents are of a generation that lived through the war, so that topic is relatively close for me. And I think that's something we should always bear in mind. So the subtitle is ‘Holocaust and world memory’. And it's really about how we can still deal with what happened back then today, what learning curves we can derive from it. And I'm also a social psychologist by training, so I'm always very interested in topics like this.

Find out more about Brain City.