To the University Administration,

As students of the Technical University of Munich (TUM), a University of Excellence
that has proudly held this distinction since 2006, we want our university to
continually evolve. Taking a proactive approach to ethics in research is the next
step into the future. We wish to see our university continue to uphold the standards
and values set forth in its Agenda 2030 mission statement. TUM itself affirms these
commitments, stating:

“With the TUM Agenda 2030, which is to be implemented as part of the ExStra funding
program, the institution is positioning itself for the future. Under the guiding
principle of ‘Human-centered Engineering,’ we are integrating the humanities and
social sciences with technical disciplines. Here, technological questions are
approached with political, ethical, and economic considerations in mind.”

We stand by these values and seek to ensure they are reflected in the university’s
actions and partnerships.

These values are not merely aspirational; they are rooted in a historical context
that reminds us of the vital role universities play in upholding peace, ethics, and
responsibility in research. Universities in Germany have always held a place at the
forefront of political and social advancements. We as students and academics have a
responsibility to uphold these principles as well as maintain academic freedom.

In this spirit, it is essential that cooperation between universities, government,
and industry remains transparent and guided by human rights, ethical integrity, and
social responsibility.

We warmly welcome President Hofmann’s recent guest article and his call for
universities to take responsibility in safeguarding freedom, democracy, and peace
[1]. As students, we share this vision of a society built on scientific excellence
and the liberation of human potential. Yet alarming reports by the United Nations and
other international bodies documenting atrocities in places such as Congo, Sudan, and
Palestine remind us that universities cannot remain indifferent when research or
partnerships may be applied in ways that undermine human rights [2]. In today’s
context of global instability and rapid technological advancement, the line between
research for peace and research for war is dangerously blurred. To protect the
integrity of our institution and ensure its work serves the common good, we strongly
urge the creation of an independent ethics committee to review collaborations and
dual-use research.

Preserving TUM’s values, and its reputation for academic excellence, requires a clear
safeguard against misuse. The need for such a body becomes clear when we consider
that:

-   academic knowledge can be exploited by state and non-state actors in ways that
   infringe upon fundamental human rights, making systematic review of partnerships
   essential;
-   collaborations often occur in complex contexts where academic freedom and soft
   diplomacy are valuable but insufficient to address ethical risks;
   national authorities explicitly expect universities to evaluate knowledge
   security continuously, particularly in light of dual-use technologies and
   sensitive security contexts;
-   geopolitical tensions, sanctions, or international rulings can directly affect
   academic partnerships, requiring universities to act responsibly;
   preventive action is less costly than damage control, making early ethical
   oversight essential to avoid reputational, legal, and financial risks.

Taken together, these factors reinforce the need for a dedicated, independent
mechanism that enables the university to navigate sensitive contexts without
compromising its values, academic freedom, and standing as a leading global
institution.
[29.04.2026 13:33] Robin Marchart: TUM has already established an ethics committee which plays an important role in
supporting medical research as well as non-medical. However, its scope is limited to
ethical expert opinion with respect to the proposed methodical implementation of
research and an impact assessment, especially for humans, animals and the
environment, focusing on right for privacy and personal data as well as other
research values. However, this committee only focuses on the methodology and process

of research and does not review other dimensions of the research. Especially for non-
medical research the potential impact of the research goal may be far more relevant
than the methodology. Since members are nominated within the leadership structure,
the committee may not appear fully independent to the wider academic community.

of research and does not review other dimensions of the research, amongst them dual-
use technologies, data privacy, and participants health. Especially for non-medical
research the potential impact of the research goal may be far more relevant than the
methodology. Since members are nominated within the leadership structure, the
committee may not appear fully independent to the wider academic community.

An expanded and independent ethics body that is democratically formed,
multidisciplinary, and accessible is therefore necessary.

We propose that committee members will be established through an open and transparent
process that combines student and faculty representation with external expertise and,
where appropriate, public calls for applications. Public calls for applications
should allow individuals from both within and outside the university to apply, with
appointment procedures modeled after professorial hiring: involving student, faculty,
and staff representation in decision-making. Students should have a substantial say
in appointments, ensuring that it is recognized as a credible institution in its own
right rather than as an extension of management. Non-student members of the committee
shall serve 3-4 years, while student representative(s) shall serve for 1-year terms.
Measures must be taken to protect and support members. Staff members should be able
to allocate enough time to properly serve on the committee. Regular training in the
field of ethics and international law should be available to all committee members in
regular intervals to ensure their ability to make adequate decisions.

The committee should include experts in ethics, law, human rights, research
integrity, and technology, along with student representatives, academic staff, and
professors, selected with diversity guidelines to ensure the body reflects the
university’s demographic and disciplinary makeup. For specific cases when committee
members have a conflict of interest with a reviewed case, the committee member should
recuse themselves and may be replaced, as needed. For research that may present
ethical concerns not immediately apparent, or that involves complex implications, an
independent investigator shall be appointed to conduct a thorough review.
[29.04.2026 13:33] Robin Marchart: The committee should not only react to requests but also actively seek out
problematic research or high-risk areas. If only one committee is created, it must be
supported with sufficient staffing and infrastructure; alternatively, subcommittees
per faculty may be established to distribute workload and expertise. Depending on the
severity and the plausibility of possible ethics violations, the committee may
recommend to the Senate that a project under investigation should be paused. We are
aware that this might cause delays or slowdowns for the research process, which is
why we want the committee to have enough resources to do its work efficiently and
effectively, enabling it to make timely decisions. While we acknowledge that full
enforcement powers may be contested, the university must bear the burden of proof in
justifying the continuation of any ethically contentious project. Allowing such
projects to proceed unchecked poses reputational, legal, and moral risks. A
reasonable position is to require temporary halts while ethical reviews are underway,
particularly where breaches of EU or international law may already be occurring.

We believe transparency is vital. All research should be made publicly accessible,
starting with already disclosed projects not protected by NDAs. The committee should
have the legal authority to investigate even those collaborations involving NDAs if
they raise red flags, in alignment with EU and international law. A secure and
anonymous reporting system should be created, enabling students, staff, or
whistleblowers to report suspected unethical research. Reporting forms and procedures
should be made easily available, and protections (such as NDAs for the reporters
themselves) should be put in place. The Ethics Committee's operation must also be
transparent, with the composition of the committee being easily viewed by the public
where possible, substantial summaries of its advice made public, and full
documentation archived internally for accountability. Staff and students should have
the opportunity to provide input, and the committee must also have the ability to
raise concerns on its own initiative in response to global developments or emerging
risks.

The committee’s jurisdiction should extend to research, education, consultancy,
exchanges, societal partnerships, and the provision of goods or services, as well as
sensitive cases of independent research where the context itself raises concerns.
Where collaborations are found to pose serious ethical risks, the committee should
issue clear recommendations, positive, negative, or conditional, which are forwarded
to the Senate or Executive Board for decision, ensuring institutional accountability
and follow-up. Where necessary, the committee should have the access to processes to
halt projects or collaborations that it finds to be in contradiction to the guiding
principles.

All assessments must be grounded in established ethical and legal standards,
including international human rights frameworks, research integrity codes, data
protection laws, dual-use regulations, and TUM’s own mission statement and values
(excellence, responsibility, academic freedom).

Safeguarding ethical standards is inseparable from academic excellence. By
establishing a truly independent, proactive, and transparent ethics body, TUM can
lead by example in Germany and beyond, upholding its values, protecting academic
freedom, and ensuring that research and partnerships consistently contribute to
peace, democracy, and the common good.

1.
www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/aufruestung-universitaeten-sollten-die-
militaerische-forschung-verstaerken-meinung-a-6b9f95e1-cb78-4193-8668-a35799155119

2.
www.un.org/unispal/document/a-hrc-59-23-from-economy-of-occupation-to-
economy-of-genocide-report-special-rapporteur-francesca-albanese-palestine-2025

Proposed Framework for the Independent Ethics Committee
1. Trigger and Investigation Process
[29.04.2026 13:33] Robin Marchart: When a concern is raised (“flagged”) by a group of students, staff, or other members
of the TUM community regarding a research project, collaboration, or partnership, the
Ethics Committee shall initiate a preliminary investigation.

The committee will first assess whether the case may involve potential violations of
international law, human rights standards, or ethical research principles. If the
case is deemed relevant, an investigative subcommittee is formed to gather
information, consult relevant experts, and evaluate the matter in accordance with
TUM’s values and international frameworks. During the investigation, the research
activity in question may be temporarily paused until a decision is reached, ensuring
that no potential harm or violation occurs while the review is ongoing.
2. Decision-Making Structure

Once the investigation concludes, the findings are presented to the Senate.

The committee should include one ethics expert (chairperson), representatives
of students, staff and professors and external members with expertise in human
rights, public ethics and law. Committee members serve fixed terms(3–4 years for non-
student members and 1 year for student representatives). All members must receive
training in ethical review standards, confidentiality, and conflict-of-interest
policies. A sufficient number of replacements should be appointed in case a member
can't attend the meeting or has a conflict of interest.
3. Committee Responsibilities and Powers

The committee’s core responsibilities include:

   Investigating flagged research projects or partnerships that may pose ethical,
   legal, or human rights concerns.
   Recommending suspension (“pause”) of projects under review until ethical
   clearance is granted.
   Approving or rejecting research before publication or collaboration proceeds,
   based on ethical, legal, and human rights standards.
   Ensuring compliance with EU and international regulations, including dual-use
   and export-control laws.
   Publishing anonymized reports and summaries of its decisions to promote
   accountability and institutional trust.

4. Transparency and Public Accountability

Transparency is central to the legitimacy of the Ethics Committee. The framework
should ensure:

   Open meetings (where appropriate) and publication of annual public reports
   summarizing reviewed cases and outcomes.
   A clear and accessible reporting system that allows students, staff, and
   whistleblowers to raise concerns safely and anonymously.
   An open formula for decision-making, where the criteria used for review—such as
   compliance with international law, human rights, and TUM’s ethical
   guidelines—are explicitly documented and available to the university community.
   Continuous dialogue between the flagging parties and the committee, to maintain
   a transparent and trust-based relationship throughout the review process.

5. Guiding Principles

All committee deliberations and decisions should be grounded in:

   International human rights and humanitarian law,
   EU research ethics and dual-use regulations,
   The TUM Agenda 2030 and ExStra principles of Human-Centered Engineering,
   TUM’s mission of acting “with respect for others and transparency in accordance
   with our shared values.”

All final decisions and recommendations regarding flagged research, collaborations,
or partnerships shall be made within the Ethics Committee following a transparent
deliberation and voting process.

In order to follow these guiding principals, the first action of the ethics
committees should be the creation of a "TUM Ethics Policy". This policy should
outline the types of research and partnerships, the committee considers and what
ethics framework should be used to judge a given project or collaboration.
[29.04.2026 13:33] Robin Marchart: If the university administration or Executive Board has concerns or
objectionsregarding a specific decision, these shall be communicated to the Ethics
Committee. In such cases, the committee and the administration will engage in an open
discussion aimed at reaching a resolution grounded in the university’s ethical
standards, legal obligations, and guiding principles.

Should further clarification be required, the committee may submit its investigative
findings and evidence to the administration for review. This exchange should take
place with the shared goal of suspending or terminating collaborations or research
projects that are found to contravene international law, human rights standards, or
TUM’s declared values.

The decision-making process must remain transparent, evidence-based, and oriented
toward preventing harm, ensuring that ethical considerations are prioritized over
external pressures or financial incentives. By following this framework, TUM can
ensure that its research, partnerships, and institutional actions are transparent,
accountable, and aligned with the university’s ethical and social commitments.

To ensure accountability on all sides, an appeals process should established.
Researchers may appeals to the Senate if the feel a decision by the comitte was
unjustified. Further consideration has to be taken for the consequences of
terminating violating research and collaborations. The university should make
provisions in case costs arrise from such an event.