The question of whether to rename an award that is named after a scientist who was also a member of a controversial organization is a complex one that raises many ethical and historical issues On one hand, the individual's scientific contributions should be recognized and honoured. On the other hand, their association with a group that promoted ideologies that are incompatible with democratic values. We need to weigh the benefits and drawbacks of keeping the current name versus renaming the award.

It is also important to note that renaming an award, would not change the past, but it could be seen as a symbol of the society's commitment to promoting values such as diversity, inclusion, and ethical conduct.

I don't think that an award of this kind should be named after a person who has a Nazi past.

What about a woman instead?

- Emma Marie Antoine Täuber (1882-1961) worked cartographically for the Geographic Institute of the University of Berlin at the Institute for Soil Mapping of the German Administration for Agriculture and Forestry.

- Helene Wiszwianski did her PhD in 1906 about "Factors causing desert development" in which she also discussed the role of soils.

Of course, their past would also have to be checked.

The Fritz Scheffer Award has been awarded since 1987 and a number of top-class and deserving scientists have received this award. Unfortunately, it is not a secret that in the 1930s a large proportion of the teaching staff, especially at agricultural colleges and universities, were members of the SS, SA and/or the NSDAP. For the most part, they followed the rule: “The younger you are, the more likely it is that you have membership in the SA or SS in addition to party membership.” In part, membership was extremely conducive to a career in the scientific establishment, but additionally the “blood and soil” ideology was very popular among agricultural scientists. Agricultural research was not only about improved agricultural production, but also about hereditary biological breeding of humans. Unfortunately, one has to assume that almost all agricultural scientists at that time moved in this environment. After the Second World War, the biographies of these scientists were generally not examined in detail. Therefore, the most astonishing results about entanglements with the Nazi state have come out in the last few decades.

In my opinion, we are far from the end of the exploration. At the same time, we no longer have the same "tolerance" towards misconduct and crimes under National Socialism as our previous generations did in the post-war period.

Fritz Schaefer earned recognition as a soil scientist after World War II. But his past in the Third Reich urgently needs to be dealt with. In the context of a liberal basic order, scientists should be role models who practice their profession free of racism, discrimination, glorification of war and other anti-democratic ideologies.

I would strongly recommend the German Soil Science Society to reconsider the naming of such an outstanding award. The main question should be: Can Fritz Scheffer's life be a role model for promising young scientists?

I would like to point out a second award that is a problem: the Ernst-Klapp Future Prize for the best lecture by a young scientist. It has been awarded by the Society for Plant Production Sciences (Gesellschaft für Pflanzenbauwissenschaften e. V.) since 2005. Ernst Klapp's textbook on arable farming and crop production was the authoritative textbook on crop production in agricultural university studies for several generations of students. Ernst Klapp in his young academic carreer joined the NSDAP in 1933 after the National Socialists “seized power” and in 1934 also the SS.

Klapp was an co-worker of SS Oberfuhrer and agronomist Konrad Meyer. In June 1942, the agronomist and member of the SS Konrad Meyer sent a memorandum to the Reichsfuhrer SS Heinrich Himmler. This document has become known as the "General Plan East". It stands for the criminal character of National Socialist politics and for the unscrupulousness of the experts involved. The "General Plan East" provided for the settlement of five million Germans in annexed Poland and in the west of the Soviet Union that was to be conquered. Millions of Slavic and Jewish residents were to be enslaved, expelled or murdered. The agricultural sciences, including Konrad Meyer and his research service, were convinced of this policy. Meyer was indicted in 1948 as a member of the SS Race and Settlement Main Office and found guilty of having been a member of a criminal organization.

Unfortunately, the processing of the participation of agricultural research and teaching in strengthening the ideology of the Third Reich and the crimes in World War II is only very patchy. The current digitization of archives may bring new documents to the public that will shed new light on the judgments of high-ranking scholars during the Third Reich.

"Can Fritz Scheffer's life be a role model for promising young scientists?" -

I do not think so, absolutely not. Since I know that he was SA member, I have been wondering how Fritz Schaeffer could be eligible for DBG to name their young academic career award in the first place.

Why should an award be named after a (long-forgotten) scientist after all?

This is just a leftover 19th century heroism, with the idea that a single person can move the whole scientific community and should be honored for it by putting his/her name on an award.

In my opinion, the awardee should be in the spotlight.

Best suiting for this would be an award title that highlights the criteria/achievement for which the awardee was awarded, like "Posterpreise 2022" or "outstanding young soil scientist of 2023"

This would also avoid a lot of future trouble, when the new "name" appears to be not so great after all.

I agree that an award should rather relate to the qualities and achievements of the awardees. Naming awards after a certain person contributed to the construction of "lighthouse" scientists, which were often straight white men and thus did not represent the (diverse) scientific community well. Besides, these "human lighthouses" (e.g., Fritz Scheffer) might have been personalities granted their high-reputation roles (and hence assets for high-class research) because of supporting the establishment. Thus, the question is also were they really that brilliant or did they shine because they were granted the opportunity to do so where others were not. A question difficult to answer in retrospect, and maybe futile. I would be happy if young professionals could be encouraged to appreciate controversial ideas more than conformism. Besides, I am skeptical that this role model thing still works, especially with people from so far in the past that they could even be from another planet. It should be rated higher if people are shaping an own profile instead of copying someone else.

I have once again dealt intensively with the life of the scientist Fritz Scheffer, especially during the National Socialist era. I noticed the following points:

1. Fritz Scheffer was the son of a farmer - the rural milieu had shown close ties to the NSDAP. A commission of historians presented a report in 2020 with the quintessence: the peasantry was a basis of the National Socialist state. To what extent there is a relationship here is difficult to prove.

2. Fritz Scheffer comes from the Schwalm-Eder district. Katharina Stengel wrote the book "Nationalsozialismus in der Schwalm" in 2016, which shows the close connection between the area where Fritz Scheffer grew up and National Socialism. The Schwalm was a stronghold of the NSDAP, the rural population was committed to the party and as early as February 1933 the police, the judiciary and the district administrator were on the side of the NSDAP. The author came to the conclusion that “most of the associations, clubs and institutions in the Schwalm had willingly or even enthusiastically submitted to the “Gleichschalt”. To what extent there is a relationship here is difficult to prove.

3. Fritz Scheffer's membership in the SA, i.e. the Sturmabteilung as a paramilitary department of the NSDAP, could be related to his experiences as a soldier in World War I. The SA included members of various Freikorps as well as members of the Reichswehr. To what extent there is a relationship here is difficult to prove.

4. From 1938 to 1945 Fritz Scheffer was Dean of the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences in Jena. The University of Jena was to be expanded into an "SS"-University. Historians have repeatedly found that the universities did not lead a life of their own, they did not form an academic island untouched by the war, they were completely included in the gears of the fascist war machine. The dean was important for leading his faculty in the context of Nazi ideology. An important concept in Nazi ideology is mobilization: "mobilization" in this sense aimed at influencing people and their political attitudes or their willingness to get involved in to engage in the channels set by the regime. In the case of academic elites, the "self-mobilization" is worked out again and again, in which an at least partially existing or manufactured approval and affirmation of the National Socialist state can be taken into account. In the strict sense, this can be about acted as a “self-contribution” that not always had to be demanded or mobilized, but was shaped by the willingness of the actors to put their cooperation and resources at the service of the regime, even without being asked. The rector of the University of Jena was the notorious physician Karl Astel, who held a professorship with the title "Human Breeding Theory and Genetic Research". At the University of Jena, the National Socialists found the ideal ground to advance racial research in their own way. Dean Fritz Scheffer worked with Rector Astel for more than 7 years. A starting point for historians would be to examine the documents in the archive of the University of Jena, how Fritz Scheffer behaved in his work as dean and how he acted in university operations.

5. Fritz Scheffer was dismissed as dean and professor in 1945 by the American military government in Jena. This was common for professors who had been members of the NSDAP. It is only surprising that in October 1945 he became professor of agricultural chemistry and soil science at the University of Göttingen. How did his appeal process go? Was his Nazi past dealt with in Göttingen? Was there a "Entnazifizierung" before a tribunal? Only the documents in the archives of the University of Göttingen or the State Archives of Niedersachsen can provide information on this.

6. Fritz Scheffer was honored in 1958 by the University of Jena: he received an honorary doctorate from the agricultural faculty of the University of Jena. What was the background? Does the university archive in Jena still have the documents and the reasons for the award? 1958 was a difficult year for the University of Jena: In connection with the 400th anniversary of the University of Jena, Rector Hämel fled to West Berlin on August 21 and later to the Federal Republic. In the run-up to the 400th anniversary, the West German Rectors' Conference refused to take part in the celebrations due to the increasing ideologization at the university in the GDR. In 2018, this honorary doctorate became a political issue because of unkown facts that Fritz Scheffer was a former member of the SA and that this was probably not known at the ceremony in 1958. The University Jena does not know whether this honorary doctorate can subsequently be revoked.

While the first three points of my list could only be clarified by an autobiography by Fritz Scheffer, which as far as I know does not exist, the last three points can be examined by studying various archives. I would recommend the German Soil Science Society to deal with Fritz Scheffer's vita between 1936 and 1945, including his appointment at the University of Goettingen. This is mandatory when the Fritz Scheffer Prize is awarded to young scientists.