For more than ten years, Dr Heidi Mauersberger has been conducting research at the Chair of Social and Organisational Psychology at Humboldt University in Berlin. As well as emotion regulation, the quality of social interactions and the perception of pain, the psychologist focuses on a topic that most people encounter at some point in their lives: workplace conflicts. She was recently interviewed by the Tagesspiegel for an article which suggested that arguments in the office are not necessarily a bad thing. We have now spoken to the researcher to find out what a constructive culture of debate entails and how it can influence companies’ capacity for innovation.

I was fascinated by the fact that one and the same disagreement can play out in very different ways: it can lead people to develop better solutions – or it can cause lasting damage to their working relationship. Conflicts are inevitable in the workplace because people bring different perspectives, interests and ways of working to the table. What matters, therefore, is not just whether there is a disagreement, but how a conflict is perceived and handled. I am particularly interested in the emotional dynamics involved: when does a disagreement remain objective, and when do those involved feel personally attacked?

“Conflicts are inevitable in the workplace because people bring different perspectives, interests and ways of working to the table.”

A central theme running through my research is the question of when a task-related conflict tips over into a relational conflict. Task conflicts, for example, involve differing views on how a problem should be solved or a task carried out. Relational conflicts, by contrast, are characterised by personal tensions, hurt feelings or disparagement.
I am interested in the emotional and communicative processes that facilitate this transition – and how it is possible to negotiate differing positions without damaging the relationship between those involved. Factors such as the interpretation of the other person’s behaviour, the quality of the interaction and how one manages one’s own emotions play an important role in this.

The biggest misconception is probably that conflict is inherently harmful and that a harmonious team is automatically a good team. A lack of dissent can also mean that employees do not voice their concerns, do not address mistakes, or go along with the majority opinion too readily.
At the same time, it would be equally wrong to portray every conflict as productive. Objective differences of opinion can open up new perspectives and improve decision-making. However, as soon as the dispute becomes personal, the potential benefits diminish significantly. The crucial question is therefore not: ‘Is conflict good or bad?’, but: ‘What kind of conflict are we experiencing, and how is it being handled?’

I was surprised by just how much even a personal element within a professional conflict can impair subsequent performance. Our research suggested that it is not merely the immediate experience of stress that is decisive here. Rather, the loss of mental energy appears to be particularly relevant.
Anyone who, during a professional dispute, also has to deal with belittlement, mistrust or personal tension subsequently has fewer resources available for the actual task at hand. Interpersonal conflicts are therefore not only unpleasant, but can actually leave people feeling completely drained. This shows why treating one another with respect is by no means merely a matter of good manners, but is also crucial to a team’s performance.

“Interpersonal conflicts are (…) not only unpleasant, but can actually leave people feeling completely drained. ”

A constructive culture of debate emerges when differing viewpoints are explicitly permitted, whilst at the same time clear boundaries for how we interact with one another are in place. Criticism should relate to ideas, decisions or processes – not to a person’s character or competence. It is also important to address conflicts at an early stage, before negative interpretations and hurt feelings become entrenched.
Managers play a key role in setting an example here. Through their own behaviour, they shape whether dissent is seen as a valuable contribution or as a disruption. This includes being able to accept criticism themselves, admitting to uncertainties and intervening consistently in the event of personal attacks. A good manager does not prevent every conflict. Rather, they create conditions under which conflicts can be dealt with objectively.

What matters most is how managers react to the first critical comment. If they thank the person for their objection, ask interested follow-up questions and give the argument serious consideration, they send out a strong signal. If, on the other hand, they react defensively or dismissively, or later punish the person in question indirectly, everyone present will very quickly learn that openness is not welcome.
It is also helpful to actively seek out counter-arguments before the manager themselves states their position. Otherwise, there is a risk that employees will simply go along with the decision. Psychological safety does not arise from a mission statement or the phrase ‘My door is always open’, but through repeated, concrete experiences: I can raise a problem, express a different opinion or admit a mistake without being personally disparaged for it.

“What matters most is how managers react to the first critical comment.”

Innovation rarely arises when everyone is of the same mind from the outset. Teams need different perspectives, critical questioning and a willingness to challenge existing solutions. Objective dissent can help to identify weaknesses at an earlier stage, develop more alternatives and avoid hasty decisions.
However, this only works if employees actually voice their thoughts and other viewpoints are seriously considered. In a culture of debate characterised by personal attacks or fear, unconventional ideas are more likely to be held back. Relationship conflicts also tie up attention and energy that are then lacking for creative thinking. It is not the greatest possible amount of debate that fosters innovation, but rather the ability to use differences of opinion respectfully and productively.

A healthy culture of debate is characterised by the fact that staff can disagree, ask questions and even change their minds without losing face. Different perspectives are not merely tolerated as a matter of form, but are clearly taken into account in decision-making. Following a controversial discussion, those involved can continue to work together in a spirit of trust.
A conflict becomes problematic when the discussion shifts from the issue at hand to supposed personal characteristics: ‘You’re incompetent’, ‘It’s impossible to work with you’ or ‘You always do it like that’. Other warning signs include sarcasm, exclusion, recurring unresolved disputes, brooding over conversations and deliberately avoiding certain people or topics. At the very latest when employees stop voicing important objections in order to avoid negative reactions, action is needed.

“A conflict becomes problematic when the discussion shifts from the issue at hand to supposed personal characteristics: ‘You’re incompetent’, ‘It’s impossible to work with you’ or ‘You always do it like that’. ”

I would advise managers to make dealing with dissent a visible and integral part of their leadership routine. This means, for example, explicitly asking before important decisions: ‘What are the arguments against this proposal?’ or ‘What risks are we overlooking at the moment?’ It is then crucial not to justify or penalise the person raising the objection, but rather to acknowledge their contribution first and examine the substance of their argument.
This establishes a key principle: criticism of an idea is not an attack on a person, but a contribution to our collective work. When employees repeatedly experience that objective dissent is welcome and treated with respect, this not only improves the culture of debate, but also enhances the quality of decisions and the team’s capacity for innovation.

Der Beitrag Effective Conflict Management for better Working Atmosphere and Spirit of Innovation erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Children learn mathematics in role plays (c) gamelab.berlin

For many children, mathematics does not begin with curiosity, but with pressure, frustration, and the feeling of not being able to keep up. But what if numbers suddenly no longer sounded like a classroom test, but like an adventure? This is precisely where a DATI Innovation Print by gamelab.berlin, in partnership with the publisher Ulisses Spiele, comes in: The narrative role-playing system “LIRA” aims to rethink math education and dyscalculia therapy. At its core is the Homo Ludens—the playing human.

For over a decade, gamelab.berlin at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin has been researching the opportunities and risks of our “age of play.” There, digital and analog games are understood not merely as entertainment, but as cultural, social, and pedagogical tools. Now, a passion project of Manouchehr Shamsrizi, co-founder of gamelab.berlin, has been successfully completed. Together with partners from science and industry, and funded by the DATIpilot program of the Federal Ministry for Research, Technology and Space, a prototype for playful learning was created.

The developed system combines mathematics, social skills, and narrative role-playing mechanics. Children do not solve problems in isolation on paper; instead, they take on roles, make decisions, and overcome challenges together. In this way, calculating becomes part of a story, transforming into something that no longer feels like traditional teaching.

Initial interim results have now been presented in the lecture series “Gaming and Society” at the Witten/Herdecke University. Invited by Prof. Dr. Jan P. Ehlers, Shamsrizi presented the consortium’s findings so far. The central message: the participating students were not only more motivated, but also more successful than in traditional mathematics lessons.

The participating experts suspect that this is precisely the key: the role-playing game was not perceived by the children as conventional school lessons. Motivation and success increased because tasks were embedded in a plot, leading to intrinsic motivation among the participants. Numbers became tools, calculations became strategies, and solutions became a sense of achievement. At the same time, the transfer achieved by applying mathematics to develop solutions in the game anchors mathematics as a means of success within the game’s alternative reality.

This approach could be particularly significant for children with special learning difficulties. Approximately one in three children in Germany suffers from special learning difficulties during their primary school years, and at least one in eight meets the World Health Organization’s criteria for a learning disorder. Accordingly, there is a great demand for effective, motivating, and personalizable interventions.

For decades, pen-and-paper role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons or The Dark Eye (Das Schwarze Auge) have demonstrated how powerfully stories, rules, cooperation, and imagination can motivate people. The consortium wants to harness this potential for education and learning therapy. With Ulisses Spiele GmbH, the most prominent German-language role-playing game publisher, a strong industry partner is also involved.

Following these promising results, the next steps toward the education and healthcare markets are now set to follow in cooperation with Humboldt-Innovation and the Humboldt-Innovation Academy. The prototype proves that math education can look different. Perhaps the future of calculating does not begin with the question “What is the result?”, but rather with: “What adventure will you experience next?”

Der Beitrag When Math Becomes an Adventure erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Participants of the Constituency Days by Hallo Bundestag (c) Hallo Bundestag

A democratic society cannot be taken for granted. Strengthening democracy is therefore just as important as the task of regularly reminding people of their right to co-determination. Many are often not even aware that they have the right to participate and shape society – or they are convinced of the exact opposite: they feel powerless and abandoned by politicians. Not infrequently, this leads them to fall prey to conspiracy theories or radical views.

The non-profit association Demokratie Innovation (Democracy Innovation) is doing something to counter this. As part of the “Hallo Bundestag” (Hello Bundestag) project, it brings together 25 randomly selected people with MPs from their constituency on so-called Constituency Days, thereby attempting to strengthen the relationship between politics and society.

And the Constituency Days actually work, as a research team from the Humboldt Governance Lab (GovLab) at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, led by Prof. Dr. Heike Klüver, has found: Political trust, self-efficacy, and the willingness to participate increased after the events, while openness to conspiracy narratives decreased (results). The GovLab combines social science research with societal dialogue and, together with practical partners, develops evidence-based approaches to strengthening democratic resilience.

“This project is a prime example of what the Humboldt Governance Lab stands for: we do not just want to analyze societal challenges, but rather develop and scientifically evaluate concrete solutions to strengthen democracy together with practical partners. Only when we have an evidence-based understanding of which measures strengthen trust, political participation, and democratic resilience can successful approaches be scaled in the long term.”
— Prof. Dr. Heike Klüver, Director of the Humboldt Governance Lab

Prof. Dr. Heike Klüver, Director of the Humboldt Governance Lab (c) GovLab

The scientists evaluated the effectiveness of the Constituency Days during the very first phase of the project. Now, they are also providing scientific support and evaluation for the 2026 to 2029 project phase.

We spoke with Jainaba Kurz, Policy and Research Advisor at “Hallo Bundestag”, to find out more about the project and the collaboration with the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.

The association Demokratie Innovation, which is behind the Hallo Bundestag project, wants to strengthen our representative democracy. Because it is under pressure: anti-democratic forces are growing stronger, our society is polarizing, and many people feel powerless in the face of the global situation.

With Hallo Bundestag, we want to make democracy tangible. With our one-day dialogue format, the ‘Constituency Day’, we show that we are not as far apart as we sometimes think. This works best when a group of randomly selected people who are as diverse as possible sit down at the same table with MPs from different parties. Through this dialogue, which we guide constructively thanks to professional moderation, trust grows once again – both in politics and in social cohesion.

Enabling as many people as possible to have this experience – especially those who are withdrawing from politics – is what drives us.

Jainaba Kurz, Policy and Research Advisor at Hallo Bundestag (c) Hallo Bundestag

It was very moving to see how people blossom when you give them the space to do so. We got to know very different individuals, each bringing their own story. What was particularly remarkable was that many of them regained a tangible idea of what a positive future could look like.

The MPs also highly appreciated the format, even though some of them were skeptical at first. They were surprised by the constructive atmosphere and the diversity of the selected participants. They rarely reach such diverse groups.

The fact that our personal experience here aligned with the research results was very encouraging for us.

For us, the rule is: we work in an innovative, self-critical, learning, and curious manner. Impact measurement is one of our top credos. The scientific support from the Humboldt Governance Lab helps us to systematically measure the impact of our project and uncover potential for improvement that we could not identify on our own.

Furthermore, it helps us immensely in our external communication to be able to refer to reliable research findings. This builds credibility. After all, with our ‘Constituency Day’ dialogue format, we want to bring a democratic innovation into the Bundestag and establish it throughout Germany. Scaling it up like this would not be sustainably possible without accompanying scientific research.

The collaboration at the interface of science and practice is incredibly valuable to us. Too often, both fields work in their own silos, even though both sides learn enormously from each other. At the same time, we notice that the researchers also benefit from our practical experience.

Of course, external accompanying research requires precise coordination, regular exchange, and a certain amount of organizational effort. But we are convinced that this form of evidence-based impact measurement is indispensable for civil society projects. The Humboldt Governance Lab in particular pursues an approach here in which research and social practice are closely intertwined.

In the predecessor project, we were able to show through GovLab’s research that Constituency Days work. A particularly important insight was that the effects are significantly stronger when MPs from different parties are involved. That is why we now ensure that at least two Members of the Bundestag (MdBs) attend each Constituency Day.

In addition, we brainstormed together on how we can think bigger in the new project phase. Now, we are not only investigating how Constituency Days affect the participants themselves, but also how these experiences ripple out into their social networks and constituencies.

We are in very close and warm contact with our liaisons. Both sides bring great expertise to their respective fields, and it is fun to bring these different skills together. Administration is not always easy, of course. However, since we work with sensitive data ourselves and have to meet high requirements, we are used to structured processes.

At Hallo Bundestag, we want to establish the Constituency Day as a long-term democratic innovation. Already, 89 members of the Bundestag have expressed interest in holding a Constituency Day in their constituency. That is a strong signal. The scientific insights from the Humboldt Governance Lab are central to our efforts. They help us not only to understand how and why the format works, but also to convince political decision-makers, funding partners, and the public of this approach in the long term.

We started with our first Constituency Day in 2021. Now, we are planning over 50 Constituency Days across Germany. This is a major step forward for us. Without scientific backing, scaling up would likely have been neither possible nor sustainable. Therefore, we would clearly recommend that other initiatives involve scientific expertise as early as possible. Collaborations with institutions like the Humboldt Governance Lab specifically help not just to implement projects, but to actually understand their impact and develop them further in the long term.

Founded and led by Prof. Dr. Heike Klüver, the Humboldt Governance Lab combines excellent social science research with societal dialogue, evidence-based policy advising, and the development and evaluation of concrete measures to strengthen democratic resilience. Under the guiding principle “Better Evidence. Stronger Democracy.”, the GovLab works with partners from politics, civil society, and business to develop evidence-based approaches to strengthening democracy, and actively injects scientific findings into public debates.

Der Beitrag Constituency Days in the Spotlight: Humboldt Governance Lab Explores the Bridge to Politics erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Right-wing parties are on the rise, in Europe as well as in the USA. And their political influence does not only begin upon entering government. In a recently published study, the Humboldt Governance Lab examines how the parliamentary presence of right-wing opposition parties affects government policy. The result is as clear as it is explosive: as soon as radical right-wing parties are represented in parliament, governments tighten their stance on migration.

Political scientists Heike Klüver and Fabio Ellger analyzed 165 coalition formations in 24 European democracies between 1980 and 2015. Using a unique dataset, they compared the discrepancies between parties’ election manifestos and the positions actually agreed upon in coalition agreements. This allowed them to precisely track when and where parties shift their political lines. The result: mainstream parties often adopt different positions in coalition agreements than those they advocated in their manifestos. According to the researchers, coalition negotiations offer the best time to shift positions, as these changes can be justified to citizens as necessary compromises. In this way, parties try to avoid being perceived as opportunistic by the electorate.

The study shows that established parties react strongly to changes in public mood. If support for right-wing parties grows, they adapt their policies in the hope of winning back lost voters. Right-wing parties, on the other hand, remain remarkably constant. They orient themselves toward their core electorate and stick to their positions.

The result is paradoxical and has significant political consequences: mainstream parties lose a substantial share of their votes in subsequent elections because they are perceived as lacking credibility. Right-wing parties, by contrast, benefit from their consistency and perform equally well or better. Adaptation thus proves to be a risky strategy. Minority governments that have already suffered losses in votes are particularly vulnerable to this dynamic. Interestingly, neither the size of right-wing parties nor the timing of their entry into parliament is decisive. Their mere presence is enough to trigger political shifts.

The study thus raises an uncomfortable question: should established parties resist the pressure and stick to their positions even in coalition negotiations to remain credible in the long term and take the wind out of right-wing parties’ sails? There is no simple answer. But one thing is clear: right-wing parties often change politics before they even govern.

Der Beitrag How right-wing parties reshape politics before even taking power erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

What effects do state-sponsored anti-LGBTQ measures have on voting behavior?
This question lies at the center of the new Humboldt GovLab study “The Electoral Effects of State-Sponsored Anti-LGBTQ Measures” (2025) by Violeta Ines Haas, Konstantin Bogatyrev, Tarik Abou-Chadi, Heike Klüver, and Lukas Stoetzer. Against the backdrop of the growing prevalence of anti-gender and anti-LGBTQ policies in many countries, the study addresses a dimension of these developments that has received little scholarly attention to date: their effects on individual electoral choices.

In countries such as Russia, Hungary, or Poland as well as in parts of the United States repressive anti-gender and anti-LGBTQ measures have become a common feature of political practice. Right-wing radical parties and religious groups in Western Europe and Latin America also increasingly oppose the LGBTQ movement. There are therefore strong reasons to examine more closely how these developments affect voting behavior.

While the cultural and institutional consequences of such rhetoric and policies have been extensively studied, far less is known about their political effects. To address this gap, the researchers from Humboldt GovLab and their partners employ a synthetic difference-in-differences design, a method particularly suited to estimating causal effects in quasi-experimental settings. The quasi-experiment underlying the study is the adoption of so-called “LGBT-free zones” by Polish municipalities. These resolutions were passed in some regions roughly seven months before the nationwide elections in 2019 and were actively promoted by the then-governing Law and Justice party (PiS).

The results show that voter turnout declined significantly in municipalities that adopted such resolutions. The drop was particularly pronounced among supporters of opposition parties. At the same time, PiS achieved higher vote shares in these municipalities. In geographically adjacent municipalities where no such resolutions were adopted, these patterns did not emerge. Regional factors can therefore be ruled out as an explanation for the observed electoral outcomes.

The authors conclude that anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies strengthen the electoral base of the parties that promote them. They trace these effects back to two central mechanisms. First, through anti-LGBTQ measures, political elites send normative signals that communicate which behaviors are socially desirable and which are not. This encourages citizens who already hold negative attitudes toward the LGBTQ community to express these views more openly, thereby mobilizing voters who support incumbent parties. Second, anti-LGBTQ measures shape perceptions of political efficacy. Citizens with hostile attitudes toward LGBTQ people experience state repression as confirmation of their political influence. By contrast, individuals with liberal values feel politically disempowered, leading to lower levels of electoral participation. This pattern was clearly evident in the 2019 Polish elections.

Overall, the study demonstrates that anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies have measurable effects on voting behavior. Supporters of such policies are more likely to turn out to vote, while opponents increasingly withdraw from the electoral process. The answer to the initial question is therefore clear: Yes, homophobia can contribute to electoral victory. The researchers therefore express concern that this dynamic may lead to a further increase in queer-hostile policies in the future.

Der Beitrag Winning Elections with Homophobia? erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Over the past few decades, populist parties have been on the rise. While around the year 2000 they received only about 12% of the vote in European democracies, by 2018 they had already convinced 28% of voters across Europe.

But how can the ideology of these parties be defined? What is meant by populism remains a matter of debate among researchers. However, the definition proposed by populism scholar Cas Mudde has gained wide acceptance. From a populist perspective, society is divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: the “ordinary people” on one side and the elites on the other. The elites are seen as arrogant, lazy, irresponsible, and corrupt, while the ordinary people are viewed as innocent and at the mercy of the elites. According to populists, the general will of the people should be directly reflected in politics.

Political science research shows that support for parties with this populist ideology tends to be higher the greater the economic inequality within a society. In their new study, HU professors Heike Klüver and Johannes Giesike, along with Lukas F. Stötzer, professor at the University of Witten/Herdecke, have taken a closer look at this relationship, which has so far not been sufficiently explained. In addition to her professorship, Heike Klüver is the director of the Humboldt Governance Lab, of which Lukas F. Stötzer is also a member.

The researchers argue that it is not so much actual economic disparities that drive the rise of populism. Rather, the perception that society is unequal leads to the spread of populist attitudes and, consequently, to increased support for populist parties.

Perceptions of inequality can vary greatly between individuals and often do not align with the actual level of social inequality. People tend to underestimate how unequal their society really is. Nevertheless, there is a clear positive correlation between perceived and actual inequality.

The researchers’ study, which draws on data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), shows that support for populist parties is also linked to perceived inequality. Individuals who view society as more unjust are 2.7 percentage points more likely to vote for a populist party than those who consider their society relatively fair. The effects are particularly pronounced for major right-wing populist parties such as Norway’s Progress Party, the Danish People’s Party, and Austria’s Freedom Party.

With their study, the researchers make an important contribution to answering key political science questions about the rise of populism. In contrast to previous research, their findings show that the perception of society as unequal may be a crucial explanatory factor for the growing support of populist parties.

Der Beitrag Inequality in the Mind – Fuel for Populism? erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

The journey of AI start-up Noah Labs began in 2021, when Oliver Piepenstock (34) and Marcus Hott (28) met at the Entrepreneur First incubator in Berlin during a start-up speed dating session. Both had applied to the organization of the same name, which invests six-figure sums in talented people right from the start out of conviction, without program participants having to present a business idea. This was also the case for Oliver and Marcus, who subsequently joined forces in the incubator and founded their company, the heart of which is the medical device “Noah Labs Ark”. This is an AI-based cardiovascular telemonitoring platform and is now to be expanded to include “Noah Labs Vox”, a voice-based AI software for detecting decompensated heart failure in an early stage.

The medical sector was not new territory for Oliver and Marcus when they founded the company, as they had both worked in this field before: Marcus had worked as a software developer with machine learning and AI at Harvard Medical School and recognized the potential of these technologies for the healthcare sector. At the time, Oliver, an economist, already had his own healthcare company in the field of elderly care called Mecasa.
Oliver and Marcus received support from the Berlin Startup Scholarship (BSS) from December 2021 to April 2023 to further develop the business idea for their new company. In addition, the founders also took part in the Humboldt-Innovation GmbH mentoring program between 2022 and 2023.

Until then, the founders were still a duo, but this changed in 2024 when Dr. Leonhard Riehle (31), who had completed his medical studies at the Charité hospital in Berlin and had led clinical studies on voice and also worked in the field of cardiology, joined and completed the founding team.
A promising constellation of an economist, software developer and doctor, whose Noah Labs Ark software was quickly approved as a Class IIa medical device. The telemonitoring platform is already being used successfully in numerous medical practices. The Noah Labs team takes care of setting up all the devices, other technical tasks and also offers medical staff training on how to use them correctly. As a result, doctors are able to concentrate fully on treating their patients’ cardiovascular diseases, monitor the effectiveness of treatment in real time and intervene medically in good time if vital signs and symptoms deteriorate. In this way, patients are cared for even if they have to wait months for their next appointment with a cardiologist. At this point, Noah Labs closes a gap in the healthcare system.

AI-based cardiovascular telemonitoring platform “Noah Labs Ark” (c) Noah Labs

But that is not all: Noah Labs is currently developing the voice-based AI software Noah Labs Vox which is to be used for detecting decompensated heart failure early. As part of the “AI-Based Voice Analysis for Monitoring Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure” study, or “VAMP-HF” for short, the German Heart Center at Charité and the Mayo Clinic in the USA are investigating the extent to which patients with advanced heart failure can be monitored telemedically via the sound of their voice, using AI from Noah Labs.

But how can the condition of the heart be determined from the voice? To answer this, it is necessary to explain what happens in the body of people with heart failure with “hydropic decompensation”: Due to the severely reduced pumping function of the heart, sufficient fluid can no longer be transported from the tissues to the excretory organs, so that the fluid accumulates in the body, such as in the lungs, leading to a life-threatening deterioration in general condition. Doctors then administer medication to strengthen the heart and drugs to improve the elimination of fluid. It is essential that the effectiveness of the therapy is closely monitored and adjusted. This is where voice monitoring by Noah Labs Vox is helpful, as a greater accumulation of fluid in the body leads to a change in the propagation of sound waves, resulting in a temporary change in the voice. In contrast to human hearing, which cannot perceive these changes, Noah Labs Vox makes them measurable.
The software analyzes hundreds of parameters in patient voice samples and identifies the smallest changes. The AI records the amount of fluid excreted and can thus predict the effectiveness of the therapy so that doctors can adjust the treatment before symptoms occur.

Noah Labs Ark enables detecting heart failure early so that reduce cardiovascular events, hospitalizations and mortality are reduced. If Noah Labs Vox is also approved as a medical device, these events will presumably occur even less frequently. Noah Labs Vox may also be used for other cardiovascular diseases in the future. This is currently being tested.
With its products, Noah Labs is demonstrating a further facet of the possible applications of AI and motivating people to continue exploring the potential of the technology.

Der Beitrag Detecting heart failure based on voice erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

In recent decades, right-wing populist parties have achieved success worldwide with anti-immigration campaigns, attracting many voters away from established mainstream parties. These parties now face the challenge of winning back their supporters.

Research has so far offered two common strategies for dealing with right-wing populist anti-immigration campaigns. On the one hand, established parties could adapt and adopt these issues themselves. However, this carries the risk of alienating remaining voters. On the other hand, they could try to suppress the issue and make it less prominent.

Researchers led by Prof. Dr. Heike Klüver from the Humboldt-Governance Lab have now investigated whether so-called “wedge issues” could represent a new strategy for mainstream parties. Wedge issues are issues that appeal to both pro-immigration and anti-immigration voters, thus taking into account the diverse interests of the electorate.

The research group tested this hypothesis with a panel survey experiment during the 2021 federal elections, focusing on the CDU/CSU. Through hypothetical election posters, the perceived agenda of the Union was manipulated to increase the importance of certain wedge issues.

The results of the study show that wedge issue strategies are not effective on average. However, exploratory analyses suggest that some anti-immigration voters could be won back through strategically targeted messages.

The research group emphasizes that wedge issue strategies could be particularly suitable for mainstream parties, which, unlike right-wing parties, cover a broad range of topics. Mainstream parties should therefore exploit “cracks” and “breaks” in the opposition’s electorate while strengthening their own base. This would allow them to win over supporters of right-wing parties as well as retain their core voters.

However, for these strategies to be successful, careful alignment of the wedge issues is crucial. “Through clearly formulated messages, there is potential to win back voter votes,” the researchers conclude.

The study by the Humboldt-Governance Lab thus offers new insights into the challenges and potential of voter recovery for mainstream parties. Whether wedge issues actually represent a promising strategy remains to be seen in the future.

Get read the study: Can wedge strategies by mainstream parties cross-cut the anti-immigration far right vote? – ScienceDirect

Other articles on current GovLab’s projects:

Der Beitrag Countering AfD with wedge issue strategy erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Humboldt University and Humboldt Innovation are participating in the monitoring of the LIFE Multi Peat project by NABU, promoting its accelerated implementation, and providing necessary equipment. The aim of the project is the restoration and, in parts, the transition to wet peatland management of project fields in Poland, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Functional peatlands significantly contribute to climate and species protection. From 2021 to 2026, with the support of the LIFE Climate Change Mitigation Programme, researchers will work to restore the natural functioning of peatlands. The project area in Germany is the “Häsener Luch” in Löwenbergerland, Brandenburg.

The restoration of peatlands is of enormous importance for climate protection because healthy peat landscapes store greenhouse gases, thus contributing to climate regulation, fulfilling important ecosystem functions, providing flood protection, filtering groundwater, and providing a habitat for threatened animal and plant species. It has catastrophic consequences when peatlands lose their function, mainly due to drainage for agricultural and forestry purposes, leading to microbial degradation of peat. In Germany, about 95% of peatlands are drained. As a consequence, peat areas can no longer store organic carbon and release it in massive amounts. For instance, the drained mainly agricultural peatland “Häsener Luch” emits an estimated 1290 tons of CO2 equivalent per year on an area of about 50 hectares.
For Europe, the figures indicate that the EU, globally, is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases from peatlands. In Germany, seven percent of greenhouse gases are attributable to drained peatlands.

The reduction of greenhouse gases is intended to be achieved within the framework of LIFE Multi Peat through peatland rewetting and consequent raising of the water table. Specifically, this means restoring 689 hectares of peatland, reducing the global warming potential of the affected peat landscapes by up to 50%, developing strategies for paludiculture (wet peatland management) in Germany and Belgium, enabling improved communication and coordinated cooperation among EU peatland projects, and developing recommendations for expanding peatland restoration and an EU-wide decision support system for authorities and the private sector.

Humboldt University and Humboldt Innovation support the project in monitoring, playing an important role in the implementation of LIFE Multi Peat by NABU. Through HI, accelerated processing and procurement of necessary equipment, such as specialized measuring devices or gas analyzers, are possible. The research team can also utilize university laboratories through them to conduct specific measurements. As part of the project, the progress and success of the targeted reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are documented through monitoring. Under the leadership of HU Acting Professor Dr. Kathlin Schweitzer from the Department of Soil Science and Site Science, students and graduates of the department are involved in the NABU team. The faculty has a long tradition in peat soil research and is where a significant number of researchers currently working in the peat sector were trained

Der Beitrag Humboldt-Innovation supports NABU in moorland renaturation erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Two devastating world wars shaped the first half of the 20th century, leaving Europe and other parts of the world in ruins. Seven years after the end of the war, in 1952, France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries laid the crucial foundation for a new European beginning by founding the European Coal and Steel Community. This later evolved into the European Union in 1993 through the Maastricht Treaty. Today, the EU comprises 27 countries and is globally regarded as the most successful example of regional integration: EU citizens can travel through neighboring countries without a visa, work or live there, and member states benefit from close economic ties within the single market, along with numerous other advantages.

Given all these benefits, wouldn’t it seem far-fetched to reject the EU and return to fully sovereign nation-states? While many indeed consider this idea absurd, others still long for exactly that: the abolition of the EU. For several years now, criticism of the supranational organization has been growing: citizens complain about a democratic deficit and tend to identify more strongly with their national identity than as EU citizens. Many also criticize the EU as a project driven solely by elites, failing to adequately represent the interests of ordinary people. Within these critical voices, a clear divide emerges: social democratic, green, left-leaning parties, and much of the political center support the grand political project, while conservative and right-wing parties tend to take a Euroskeptic or outright hostile stance.

As an unprecedented supranational institution, the EU is a constant subject of political science research. At the Humboldt Governance Lab of Humboldt University in Berlin, the organization is also regularly examined. Professor Dr. Heike Klüver, head of the HGL and lecturer at HU, together with Dr. Asli Unan from the University of Amsterdam, studied how EU citizens’ attitudes toward the EU have been influenced by Russia’s war of aggression. For their research project, the scholars used data from the Eurobarometer, collected between February and April 2022 from over 26,000 EU citizens (aged 15 and older, representative sample). Thanks to the large sample size, the researchers were able—unlike other scholars who only captured public opinion in countries bordering Russia—to assess the war’s impact on citizens’ views across all EU member states.

So, what are the results of the study? They show that support for the EU among citizens has increased since the Russian invasion. On average, the war led to an increase of about 4 percent in support, which continued in the weeks following the invasion. Interestingly, support for the EU rose not only in states that border Russia and are therefore more directly threatened, but across all EU member states.

Thus, the study could be seen as evidence of the “rally around the flag” effect, where regional conflicts foster greater unity within supranational organizations. This is also supported by theories from social identity research, which suggest that external threats enhance group identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Hogg, 2016). In addition to a stronger identification as Europeans, more people now appear to view the EU as a vital security actor during times of conflict.

While overall support has increased, the study also notes a rise in critical voices from left-leaning citizens—traditionally among the EU’s core supporters—since the Russian-Ukrainian war. As a result of both developments, the ideological gap between left- and right-leaning Europeans has narrowed somewhat. Fundamentally, the researchers conclude that attitudes toward the EU are strongly influenced by political ideology and age, with the youngest age groups showing the highest levels of support.

Since public opinion is crucial for the survival of supranational organizations like the EU, it is particularly important to regularly examine EU citizens’ views. It appears that war on European soil has led to greater unity among the European population. People have realized that they benefit significantly from the EU in terms of security and may now be more inclined to identify with their status as EU citizens.

Read the full study here: Europeans’ attitudes toward the EU following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine | Political Science Research and Methods | Cambridge Core

More articles on current GovLab’s projects:

Der Beitrag Threat unites erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.