Eugen Seibold was born on 11 May 1918 in Stuttgart, Germany, and was reared under difficult economic conditions. An early interest in geology was encouraged by an outstanding school teacher and he went on to study natural sciences at the Universities of Stuttgart, Esslingen and Tübingen. Between 1939 and 1944 he was assigned to military service in France, Russia and Italy, and was twice wounded. After the war he continued university studies in Tübingen and Bonn, earning a PhD in stratigraphy and tectonics in 1948. He served as Docent in Tübingen 1951 and in Karlsruhe from 1952 to 1954, returning again as Associate Professor in Tübingen, and he became Full Professor in Kiel 1958. Since 1986 he has been an honorary professor at Freiburg University where he studies mainly the history of sciences. Seibold's early geological research in Southern Germany and the Alps was followed by extensive work on marine geology with many expeditions on various research vessels in the Baltic, North Sea, North Atlantic, Persian Gulf and Indian Ocean, accompanied by 50 PhD students, and thus he became involved in a number of international scientific organizations. He has received many awards and honours, including the Japanese Blue Planet Prize in 1993. He was President of the International Union of Geological Sciences from 1980 to 1984 and Vice-President of the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation from 1980 to 1985. He was Vice-President of the European Science Foundation from 1980 to 1983 and President from 1984 to 1990. In this capacity he played a vital role in the founding of Academia Europaea.

When Anne Buttimer asked me to contribute a report about the early history of the Academia Europaea (AE), it was the first time after more than 20 years that I looked for the notes I had kept about its planning and preparations in the years 1984–1988.

During those years, I was not only President of the European Science Foundation (ESF) in Strasbourg (from January 1985 to 1990), but was charged with many other demanding international and national commitments. I was President of the Deutsche Forschungs-gemeinschaft (DFG) in Bonn from July 1980 to the end of 1986, and Acting President of the International Union of Geological Sciences (IUGS) in Ottawa, because William Hutchinson had unexpectedly passed away. I served on the Balzan Price Committee in Milan, several commissions in the German Geological Survey and the Alexander von Humboldt-Stiftung. For these reasons, my notes concerning the AE are often short and may have some omissions.

I was first informed about the AE in the DFG office in September 1984. On the occasion of a meeting of European research ministers in Paris, Peter Brooke (UK) had proposed a European Academy of Sciences ‘to strengthen the influence of science against Brussels bureaucracy’. In October 1984, the British Royal Society became active, most notably in the person of Sir Arnold Burgen. The need for ‘a common unity of distinction in research to rediscover European identity’ was emphasized.

This activity was not discussed at either Board or Executive meetings of ESF until Autumn 1986. Robert van Lieshout and David Spearman had visited me in Bonn in 1985 to discuss the eventual participation of ESF in the US Deep Sea Drilling Project. Perhaps the plan for AE was also mentioned. My first talks with Sir Arnold about AE are noted in September 1986 and October 3 on the occasion of an ESF Committee meeting in Strasbourg and during the General Assembly of ESF, 18–20 November. The first general topics were the structure and names of possible founding members for a ‘European Association of Scientists’. At a meeting in the Royal Society in London, 21–22 October 1986, Sir Arnold presented a memorandum about a ‘European Academy’, ‘acting notably in concert with ESF’. Participants were Lord Flowers, van Lieshout, Magnusson, Canovas, Cappelletti, Curien and Seibold.

As far as I can remember, I had earlier proposed a Think Tank Meeting for the ESF Executive Council with some guests to define the further development of ESF in general. This took place in Marlenheim near Strasbourg, 29–30 October 1986. Discussions about the AE were also included. As a result, Michael Posner, the Secretary-General of the ESF since the summer of 1986, wrote a letter to Sir Arnold on 11 November, outlining some possible problems:

1. (1) It seemed doubtful whether eminent active scientists in their 40s or so would attend more generally-oriented assemblies rather than participating in smaller meetings of their specialities;

2. (2) Furthermore, it seemed difficult to define the number of members who should represent the elite of European scholars.

I still feel that these arguments illustrate ongoing problems.

The memorandum was officially addressed on 17–18 December 1986 in Strasbourg at a meeting where all those who had attended the earlier London meeting were in attendance. Unfortunately I had to stay in a Freiburg hospital for surgery.

In the January 1987 issue of Nature, an article by Robert Walgate dealt with the situation in Brussels regarding ‘Eureka’ and other matters. He said that the activities will only be successful if a European framework for upstream research was improved by a ‘Researcher's Europe’, but this is hampered by lack of funds and national egos. This article was clearly in favour of AE.

Sir Arnold informed me in a letter of 5 January 1987 about the results of the December meeting. Ten days later he came for a visit to Freiburg. The general opinion within the ESF was still one of ‘no objections, but no hurry’. The most important point was to avoid overlapping activities. Nevertheless the discussions with Sir Arnold went into many details. Important points were the nomination and number of founding members. Sir Arnold had wide knowledge about personalities through his position in the Royal Society and his activities in ESF, but more proposals from humanities and social sciences were still needed.

The next meeting took place in London on 27 January 1987. In order to prepare for it, I drafted a scheme for private use. Therein I emphasized two basic tasks for AE: (1) to improve links among individual top scientists in Europe, and (2) the organization of annual multi-disciplinary meetings. The result of the meeting was a comprehensive questionnaire which Sir Arnold drafted afterwards. In my mind it was a masterpiece, concerning all topics from generalities down to the very fine details. It was sent to the members of the founding group. The comments received became the base for a ‘clear document’ drafted again by Sir Arnold, defining aims, structure, activities, number of members, relations to other organizations and funding of the ‘European Society of Scientists’. We thought that such a document was needed, especially to approach sponsors. It was distributed on 31 March 1987. In a letter of the same day, Sir Arnold asked me for comments. Due to a number of long trips I was only able to answer briefly, on 20 April, with some short personal remarks:

1. (1) Multi- and inter-disciplinary: information, communication, establishing and improving contacts and eventually initiating projects. Special fields are very well covered by European learned societies, as I observed during the IV Congress of the European Union of Geology (EUG) some days before (about 1800 participants and mostly young scientists!). Additionally, EEC and ESF are active in these special branches. COLMAR-type activities were not too encouraging, however.

2. (2) Cooperation in scientific activities seems to be well covered by ESF, ERC, ESA, CERN ILT, etc.

3. (3) The ‘voice of European science’ to media, politicians, governments etc is very weak.

Both (1) and (2) are improving mobility and the ‘Euro-sense’. Therefore, I think that improvements in (1) and (3) could well be a base for ‘the European Society of Scientists’. However, I would prefer a Latin translation of this title.

More details were addressed in London on 29 May. In this meeting, additional proposals were discussed by the founding group.

1. (1) It was agreed that the name of the society should be in Latin.

2. (2) Europe was defined geographically. The ordinary members from these countries could be complemented by foreign or associated members. For the first few years some 5000 ordinary members should be elected. At the beginning, the founding group should be enlarged to about 20, later to 100 members responsible for the election of the first 1000 members.

3. (3) The next group meeting should include a presentation of a theme of general scientific interest. To finance the planned activities a total budget of £900,000 was proposed for 1988, £280,000 for 1989 and £430,000 for 1990. In the discussion of additional names for founding members, I strongly recommended Jacques Tits (Maths/France) and Renate Mayntz (Sociology/Germany).

On 2 July 1987, I presented the results of the meeting to the ESF, based on a detailed report from Sir Arnold.

On 11 December 1987, 12 founding members, including Tits and Mayntz, met in London. The age of officers and council members should be restricted to 70 years. Van Lieshout and Magnusson were proposed to become AE Vice-Presidents. This was a gesture of goodwill for excellent relations with ESF. The functions of the AE were finally defined and the group, including myself, was optimistic and ambitious. The AE should act as a ‘voice for European scientists providing independent non-political advice in scientific matters’.

After this meeting I had fewer opportunities to contribute to the AE's further developments. In my position as Acting President of IUGS I had to attend to business in Ottawa and prepare for the next International Geological Congress in Washington DC, together with the preparations for the election of its new President. That meant that I was often abroad in China, the two Americas and Europe. Additionally, by 1988, I had reached the age of 70, and due to the new rules (which I also supported) I retired – with some real regrets – from the official founding group.

However, I continued to observe events, although with only scanty personal notes, and assisted wherever I could in answering criticisms of the AE. In July 1988, Sir Arnold had to answer a letter from the President of the Académie des Sciences in Paris, Alain Horeau, who had expressed some concern about the AE. Being a member in Paris, I was also approached on the subject. Sir Arnold responded, summarizing that the birth of the AE was certainly not hasty, with discussions going back to 1984. These discussions are continued to guarantee a balance of specialists and nationalities of the founding members and also in general. Many existing academies – like other European organizations – did not seem to be very influential and others, like the efforts of Prigogine in Brussels, are only in statu nascendi. The mostly very ancient national academies are of very different importance.

A possible cooperation with them should be discussed during the founding meeting of the AE in Cambridge in September 1988 where all the presidents would be invited. Finally, all the founding members would do their best to ensure that no single nationality would dominate either in the number of members, in the location of meetings, or in funding.

Looking back, I am pleased that I had the chance to support in many ways, and under sometimes difficult conditions, the start of a new initiative to bring Europe together.