"This young generation is worth its weight in gold."

The renowned geneticist speaks with Simon Book and Claudia Panster about how companies can find the talents of tomorrow and why Europe needs to act quickly.

Fortunately, the authorities didn't look too closely: It's hot in Vienna, one of the last summer days, 36 degrees - but a cool breeze blows from Markus Hengstschläger's office. The head of the Institute of Medical Genetics at the University of Vienna has illegally equipped the more than hundred-year-old building with a mobile air conditioner to be able to think clearly even in the heat. Only in one room is this even better than in his office - in the venerable large auditorium. There, the professor invites for the conversation.

Professor Hengstschläger, you are a geneticist. Nevertheless, for years you have also been dealing with economic and sociological issues, such as Europe's talents. Why?

Let's start with personal motivation. It is my profession to care for patients, to research, and to teach young people. Besides, I am also an entrepreneur. And both in the lecture hall and in a company, one must consider: Who are the people sitting in front of me introducing themselves? Who is the best at what, how do I find the best, and how do I turn them into real freaks?

And what interests the human geneticist in talents?

A large part of what people imagine as talent, they attribute to my field. This has amazed me. They often say: Talent is something you either have or you don't. It comes from the father, the mother, from grandpa, grandma. That Lionel Messi plays football so well is also a matter of his genes.

Is that true?

Let me tell you a story. Konrad Lorenz, the last Austrian Nobel Prize winner in Medicine, received the prize, among other things, for such observations: He placed a duck egg in a nest with four chicken eggs. The hen - believing there were five chicken eggs - hatched them all. So, four chicks and one duckling hatch. They all believed they were the same. The next day, the duckling hopped out of the nest and ran towards the pond to swim. The mother hen was in a panic, caught up with the duckling, and brought it back to the nest. She probably thought, "You are a chicken, and chickens can't swim."

And what did Lorenz do then?

He observed the following: The next day, the duckling hopped into the water without the hen being able to stop it. And behold: It could swim. A duckling comes into the world genetically equipped with the ability to swim - even if no one has ever shown it how.

So, is talent innate?

All humans are genetically more than 99 percent identical, perhaps only 0.1 percent are individual genetic performance prerequisites. That's where we differ. For example, genes play a significant role in height, gender, and eye color.

And in intelligence, aggression behavior, or teamwork?

That's not the case there - genes are pushed into the background. The 0.1 percent genetic performance prerequisites are worth nothing if we don't discover them and develop a special skill through practice, practice, practice.

Assuming one practices exactly what one has a genetic talent for.

That would be the coolest. Strengthen strengths - and under no circumstances spend a lifetime practicing where you have weaknesses. Of course, as a company boss, I can say: I have developed guidelines and requirements that all employees must meet. But it will take me a lot of time and effort to bring everyone in the company to the same level - that would then be mediocrity.

What does the geneticist do instead?

I have the ambition to correlate existing talents and practice as much as possible. However, our education system is constantly trying to eliminate weaknesses in young people.

So should I tell my child: Forget about math, geography, and English if you're not good at them, and focus on art?

Of course, everyone needs a certain basic knowledge. But one thing is clear: Europe will truly have success and innovations again when the next generation is allowed to give up on things they are not good at in order to focus on what they really excel in.

But don't we have universities for that?

And what is the prerequisite for studying? In Germany, for example, often the high school grade. Therefore, we should start much earlier with talent development, even before and then in school. After everyone has a certain general education, they should focus on what they really can and want to do.

How would the school system need to be specifically restructured for that?

Knowing what the educational standards are, we should search for the extraordinary. With the help of scouting. We should push the entire education system further in areas where educational standards need to be met. But then the child in math only needs to know as much as is currently needed, not be "equally" good as the others - if another subject is their talent.

So, besides the teacher, should there be someone solely dedicated to scouting for talents and nurturing them?

Exactly how I would design it. Or they could rely on extracurricular activities and hope that talents are fostered in all areas. However, I find that to be quite unlikely and also not socially just.

But isn't there also a right not to use one's talent?

Indeed, there is. But only in exchange for doing something else. It's not possible to do nothing at all. Even in the so-called socially disadvantaged classes, there are huge talents.

Suppose that works: Then we would have a completely specialized society of nothing but experts.

For example, being a generalist and bringing together different disciplines is also an important talent. This, for me, is also a top performance.

So, shall we make General Studies a separate field of study?

Why not? We could include a bit of everything. And the generalist doesn't need to be number one in Biology or Business Administration. But in the combination of both, they must excel, not be average. Today's top managers are exactly that.

But what if someone trains all their life to become the best nuclear physicist - and when they become the best, no one wants nuclear power plants anymore?

At the moment, everyone says we need people in mathematics, computer science, natural sciences, technology. So, if someone wants to become an art teacher because they have a talent for it, telling them: You should rather study natural sciences because that is needed, is short-sighted and certainly not visionary. Times change, and the extent of change is increasing exponentially - and suddenly, something completely different is needed. Believing to know the future is dangerous and often a waste of Europe's most important resource - the individuality of its talents.

Now you're getting quite emotional.

When I started studying genetics in the 1980s, there were voices saying: Nobody needs geneticists, you're crazy if you study that. Today, we need genetics more than ever, Vienna is developing into one of the life science hubs of Europe. I believe that we don't even know the names of half of the jobs that will exist in 20 years. We need people who think anew, as innovation arises only in this way, and only then can Europe compete in the global market.

Okay. Mercedes invented the car. But it's through competition with BMW that it keeps getting better.

I have nothing against that. And of course, BMW has also delivered a lot of innovations. But for major breakthroughs like the car itself, we need to take new paths, not just improve the old ones. And by the way: the era of the car is foreseeable coming to an end - we need a new idea for transportation. Let's see if it comes from Mercedes, BMW, or a third party.

Does everyone have the opportunity to become an exceptional talent?

Absolutely. The Austrian poet Peter Rosegger said in essence: "Every person has talent, only the light of education and hard work brings it to light."

So, how can companies recognize and nurture talents?

If someone has already recognized their talent and taken a first step in that direction, then praise is the best motivator. If they are constantly encouraged, the likelihood is high that they will make something out of their talent and think anew. This is exactly what certain companies are doing today when they allow their employees to spend a quarter of their working time coming up with new ideas - that is the incentive to explore new paths with their talents. Those who want to take new paths must leave the old ones.

It sounds simple. But what do I do as an entrepreneur if my employees have talents that I don't need?

An entrepreneur who has to make personnel decisions must ask themselves: right time, right place, right person?

Even at the risk of losing a talent?

If I am looking for a goalkeeper, I can't hire a striker. Unless, of course, he is better than my current striker. Then I would gladly take the opportunity to get the best striker and openly discuss this with my current striker. But that doesn't solve the goalkeeping problem.

How do