The Institute for Science and Ethics (IWE) has created the new position of Managing Director to support the institute’s continued growth and its evolving role at the intersection of research, ethics, and public engagement.

In the following interview, our new Managing Director, Şebnem Yardımcı Geyikçi, reflects on what this role means for IWE. 

The Institute for Science and Ethics has recently created the new position of Managing Director. Why was this role introduced, and how do you understand its significance?

Şebnem Yardımcı Geyikçi: The creation of the Managing Director position is actually a moment in which the Institute for Science and Ethics is both growing and changing. Over recent years, IWE has expanded in terms of research ambition, international visibility, and engagement with policy and public institutions. This expansion makes it necessary now to think more carefully about how research environments are sustained, how collaborations are supported, and how institutional capacities are developed.

In this context, I understand the Managing Director role as one that sits between research, organization, and institutional development. It is not only about administration in a narrow sense, but about creating the conditions under which research can actually flourish. Administration, coordination, and institutional design shape the ways in which people work together, the kinds of projects that are possible, and also how research connects to society. In that sense, the role is closely tied to the intellectual direction of the institute.

Your professional background spans both academic research and organizational leadership. How have these experiences shaped the way you approach this role?

I have taken several academic positions over the last twelve years in different countries, and in different institutions. I can say that my academic background has strongly shaped how I think about institutions, power, and responsibility. As a political scientist, I am used to thinking about how structures shape behavior, how rules and norms matter, and how institutions evolve over time. These questions are also highly relevant to how academic organizations also function.

At the same time, my experience with project coordination, research management, and international collaboration has made me very aware of the practical side of academic work. I personally have experiences on funding structures, application processes, and institutional routines. And these are not neutral. They influence who can participate, how teams are formed, and what kinds of research agendas are possible to be realized. Bringing these two perspectives together allows me to approach the Managing Director role in a way that is both analytically informed and practically grounded.

The Managing Director position at IWE combines administrative leadership with an independent research focus. How do you see these dimensions informing one another in practice?

I do not see administrative leadership and research as competing with each other. On the contrary, they inform one another. Being actively involved in research helps me stay close to the everyday realities researchers face. As a researcher, I know the challenges  in developing projects, building teams, or navigating funding and institutional constraints.

I also know very well that administrative and organizational decisions have real consequences for research. How projects are structured, how collaborations are supported, and how resources are allocated all shape the kinds of questions that can be asked and the kinds of knowledge that can be produced. I, therefore, see administration not as a constraint, but as part of the research infrastructure itself. Having my own research agenda allows me to remain grounded in these dynamics and to approach organizational decisions with a clearer sense of their intellectual implications.

Furthermore, in order to help shape the intellectuial direction of the institute, it is critical to remain closely connected to ongoing scholarly debates through an ambitious and independent research agenda.

Could you describe your research focus and how it connects to the broader mission of the Institute for Science and Ethics?

My research focuses on the political, institutional, and democratic implications of technological change, particularly in relation to artificial intelligence. I am interested in how AI-driven decision-making affects democratic governance: how political power is exercised, how accountability is organized, and how citizens interact with public institutions.

These questions are closely aligned with IWE’s mission to examine the societal implications of science and technology. At IWE, sustainability is not understood as a purely technical or ethical issue, but as something that cuts across ethical, political, social, and institutional dimensions. This perspective has made it possible to develop a core research area around AI, Politics, and Power, structured around a research group that I lead and that brings together scholars from different disciplines and institutional contexts. So I would say my research focus is very well connected to the IWE’s mission.

From your perspective, what role should institutes like IWE play in contemporary debates on science, ethics, and society?

I believe institutes like IWE have an important responsibility that goes beyond academic debate. Of course, they must remain spaces for critical and independent research. But the challenges we face today whether the democratic implications of AI or broader transformations in governance, cannot be addressed through research alone.

Academic institutions need to become active contributors to societal change. This means engaging with policy-makers, institutions, and the public; helping to shape debates; and translating research into forms that can inform decision-making. At the same time, this kind of engagement requires an open and intellectually safe research environment, where different perspectives can be articulated, challenged, and developed collectively.