This was my speech at the memorial event for Jim in Odense on 2 May 2022.

To the day 19 years ago, I started working at the Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research in Rostock.

While my following remarks are certainly personal ones – and from a German perspective –, I think that I speak for many of us who had the opportunity to work with and to learn from Jim in the beginning of their careers. We all owe him a lot.

We have already listened to testimonies today about what an exceptional researcher Jim was – a scientific visionary who has put his mark on an entire discipline. He built up demography to last, that is why he also invested so much in the younger generation.

Jim’s students are literally spread across the world; they have become successful researchers and professors themselves or have moved on to other areas where they excel: statistical offices, ministries, foundations, international organisations, the private sector.

Over decades Jim managed that not only in research but in all these other areas more and more younger people started working – people who had a solid education in demography, and more importantly: Who believe that demographic issues matter across the board.

Jim’s focus was certainly to educate new generations of excellent researchers, but he made it clear that after the Ph.D. other occupations would be fine, too – for example becoming Chancellor of Germany. Actually, one of his former Ph.D. students is working in the Chancellery today.

What I understood early and what always impressed me was the purpose Jim saw behind research. He wanted to make an impact, not only in the scientific world but also for society. He wanted to help understand how people can live longer and healthier lives and what policy makers can do to set the necessary framework; he wanted to heal the ignorance of those decision makers who thought demography did not matter; and he wanted to take away the fear from the others who thought that population ageing would lead to catastrophic outcomes, because nothing could be done to adjust to it.

German Angst was Jim’s favourite metaphor when he spoke about the latter – the trait of people to worry about things, because they do not know enough about them.

Jim was a masterful communicator, especially with the political arena. Often he said that «Truth has to be spoken to power». What he meant was that scientific evidence had to be brought to those who are in charge, even if this evidence was inconvenient for them. Jim clearly saw this as a task for researchers, also already in their early careers.

I remember him giving a speech in the German parliament, the Bundestag, to about 250 members of one of the two big German parties. It was clear to us that his presentation and recommendations would not go down well with them. Before we entered the hall, Jim turned to me, and said: «Harald, I decided that I am going to enjoy this.»

To speak truth to power, to explain evidence to decision makers, Jim used strong images. The straight line of rising record life expectancy being one of his central tools. But he also compared demographic change to a tidal wave that was coming in, slowly but steadily: We know about it, we even know roughly when it will come, so we can prepare for it.

When he argued that we need to rearrange the life course, the division between education, work life and retirement he used a simple bar chart to stack up the time in education and retirement and put it next to the time in active work, which suddenly made the disbalance all clear.

I witnessed often how an audience opposed to adjusting retirement age, suddenly started asking entirely different questions after this chart was shown to them. Jim taught us that the knowledge we produced mattered and that therefore we also had to think about appropriate language and images to convey our message.

In German we call a Ph.D. supervisor a «Doktorvater» or a «Doktormutter». And I think this is a strong image, too, when we take it in the literal sense for a moment. I feel that the term “Doktorvater” encompasses many things that come to our minds when we think about Jim today.

Jim was a true Doktorvater, because he took time to listen to the younger people. He was keen on knowing about our perspective and hear our ideas. I remember the job interview I had with him in January 2003 on a freezing and bright clear winters day in Rostock. The 45 minutes did not feel like a job interview at all, it felt more like a conversation, an exchange of ideas. When later the MPIDR gathered at Schloss Ringberg in the Bavarian Alps for a week-long retreat, it was important to Jim to hear the views of the PhD students on the future of the institute, and we got an own slot for that.

Jim was a good Doktorvater, because he put immense encouragement and trust in his younger researchers. He expected us to ask bold questions that mattered and he believed that we could follow through despite the risks that come with it.

Jim was a good Doktorvater, because he lead by example, by his hard work, his passion for research – and also his joy for life, his humour, his interest in other people – and his great kindness.

All of us who were at the MPIDR certainly have this image in our minds how Jim would come to Rostock with the early ferry from Gedser, and then, when he walked up to the institute and spotted you, he waved from afar, often with a loud «Good morning, my dear friend!» Good bye, dear Jim. And thank you.