From June 9 to 11, 2026, Berlin hosted Europe’s International Life Science & AI Festival, bio:cap, attended by AI NATION, Science & Startups, JUNI, and the Berlin University Alliance. HI Managing Director Volker Hofmann was also present at the joint booth, welcoming Federal Minister Dorothee Bär. The mission behind bio:cap? Bringing groundbreaking science together with funding to help mere ideas unfold their full impact.

The Berlin Senate has approved a strategic roadmap for Berlin’s research landscape up to 2040. The strategy focuses on pooling resources rather than spreading them too thin. Furthermore, Berlin aims to become Europe’s premier destination for researchers, as well as a leading global hub for excellent research, innovation, and social impact. There is particularly good news for the transfer and innovation sectors, both of which are core components of the strategy. Our central innovation units—Science & Startups, JUNI, and AI NATION—are also firmly integrated into the plan.

Der Beitrag Week 24: Incubators at bio:cap 2026, Berlin’s New Research Policy erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Weekly Wrap-up: Our Topics in weeks 21 & 22.

In 2020, Leonie Müller, Willi Weisflog, and Carolin Blanck—who were psychology students at the time—founded the association “Kopfsachen” at the Humboldt University of Berlin. Their vision? To strengthen the mental health literacy of young people across Germany. The startup has been successfully achieving this for several years now, earning Kopfsachen multiple awards along the way. On May 19, 2026, another accolade was added to the list: at the re:publica festival, Kopfsachen was awarded first place in the “People” (Mensch) category at the “Berlin’s Social Enterprises 2026” awards. A decisive factor for this recognition was, among other things, the vital preventative work that Kopfsachen carries out.

For our new HI:LIGHTS, we interviewed Jainaba Kurz, Advocacy and Research Officer at “Hallo Bundestag”, about the project and the collaboration with the Humboldt Governance Lab. Already during the first phase of the project, the GovLab found that the “Wahlkreistage” (constituency days)—where people come together and discuss issues with the members of the Bundestag representing their constituency—are proving to be effective: political trust, self-efficacy, and readiness to participate increased, while susceptibility to conspiracy theories decreased.

A year ago, we opened our Munich office. Last week, the Berlin team came to visit and spent several intensive days there reviewing our collaborative efforts, reflecting on our progress, and planning the next steps. The primary purpose of the Munich office is to create even stronger networks between Berlin and Munich—Germany’s two most important innovation ecosystems—thereby driving knowledge transfer and entrepreneurship.

Even with all their success, having 10 million pairs of eyes on them is still something they aren’t quite used to: on May 21, SHIT2POWER was featured on the Tagesschau, where they got to explain to Germany how their container solution produces energy from sludge. The occasion for the feature was the German Startup Awards in Berlin, where founder Nina Habicht was nominated for Female Founder of the year (Gründerin des Jahres).

Der Beitrag Weeks 21 & 22: Berlin’s most social company, new HI:LIGHTS, HI Berlin in Munich, SHIT2POWER on Tagesschau 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.

The political attitudes of young people in Europe differ significantly by gender, a trend already highlighted by the 2025 study “The youth gender gap in support for the far right” from the Humboldt Governance Lab. This divergence is clearly visible in Germany, where 25 percent of young men identify with the right-wing spectrum, compared to only 14 percent of women. Conversely, support for left-wing parties is growing among their female peers, rising from 44 percent in 2019 to 51 percent in 2024.

The reasons for these gender differences are complex: Young men tend to orient themselves more strongly toward traditional roles and images of masculinity, and many feel left behind in a world shaped by globalization and modernization. Because they obtain higher educational qualifications less frequently than women, they are more often affected by economic insecurity. While lower education levels correlate strongly with right-wing populist attitudes, a high level of education is no guarantee for the rejection of right-wing positions.

In Germany, a young person’s place of residence also plays a decisive role in their political stance. In recent state elections in Eastern Germany, between 29 and 38 percent of the younger generation cast their vote for the right-wing populist AfD, whereas these percentages are lower in Western German regions. This can be explained by a persistent East-West divide regarding wages, infrastructure, and demographics to the disadvantage of Eastern Germany.

Generally, the voting behavior of younger generations in Germany is characterized as volatile and susceptible to crises. Alongside frustration and political apathy, there is a shattered trust in established parties. It is particularly striking that 44 percent of the younger generation desire a “strong hand” in government leadership. At the same time, a counter-pole exists, defined by high political interest, satisfaction with democracy, and progressive values among young people.

Der Beitrag Generation Divide: Why are young men and women drifting so far apart politically? 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.

Weekly Wrap-up: Highlights in week 46

We have published a new HI:LIGHT on the Humboldt Governance Lab on our blog, in which we report on the GovLab’s new project. This project includes a study by Prof. Dr. Heike Klüver and Prof. Dr. Johannes Gieseke, both from HU, and Prof. Dr. Lukas Stötzer from the University of Witten/Herdecke. In their study, they examined the relationship between perceived inequality and populism and uncovered new insights.

There was another reason to celebrate: On 14 November 2025, the startup network Science & Startups honored the best research-based business ideas from the “100 to 100” competition. The evening focused on five ideas that particularly impressed the jury with their innovative and social potential. You can find out who won and more details in the post by Science & Startups.

Leap Berlin opened its doors last week for another Berlin Quantum BBQ hosted by Optec-Berlin-Brandenburg (OpTecBB) e.V. With this event series—where grilling is part of every gathering—OpTecBB aims to strengthen the quantum community and create opportunities to share valuable knowledge in a relaxed atmosphere. The next BBQ will take place on 9 December, and you can already register for it.

Der Beitrag Week 46: HI:LIGHT about inequality and populism 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.

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.

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.