We are at the midpoint in the "Decade of the Brain." Why do we know so much and yet understand so little about the brain? The field of neuroscience has exploded, and anyone who attends one of the large meetings has the impression of drinking from a fire hydran- as so aptly put by the late neuroanatomist Walle J. H. Nauta. Part of that feeling is a general-information problem, experienced in other fields of scienc as well. In brain research, however, the problem is accentuated by the rapid advances of molecular and cellular brain research. The dynamics created by these lines of research have multiplied published output, but have inevitably entailed a compartmentalization of scientific interests and research strategies. If the cost of gaining knowledge is a shrinking horizon of the individual scientist, neuroscience must develop strategies for organizing the acquisition of knowledge. Some of this guidance is given by the society -by medical and, perhaps, commercial needs. But who provides the backbone for establishing a generally accepted "schema" for basic brain research -a frame of reference onto which the millions of information fragments can be fitted, in a way acceptable to a multicultural and polymethodical neuroscience community? We believe that developmental and evolutionary biology has the potential to provide a commonly accepted frame of reference for that multilevel system approach needed to understand the workings of the brain.

We are at the midpoint in the "Decade of the Brain". Why do we know so much and yet understand so little about the brain? The field of neuroscience has exploded, and anyone who attends one of the large meetings has the impression of drinking from a fire hydran- as so aptly put by the late neuroanatomist Walle J. H. Nauta. Part of that feeling is a general-information problem, experienced in other fields of scienc as well. In brain research, however, the problem is accentuated by the rapid advances of molecular and cellular brain research. The dynamics created by these lines of research have multiplied published output, but have inevitably entailed a compartmentalization of scientific interests and research strategies. If the cost of gaining knowledge is a shrinking horizon of the individual scientist, neuroscience must develop strategies for organizing the acquisition of knowledge. Some of this guidance is given by the society -by medical and, perhaps, commercial needs. But who provides the backbone for establishing a generally accepted "schema" for basic brain research -a frame of reference onto which the millions of information fragments can be fitted, in a way acceptable to a multicultural and polymethodical neuroscience community? We believe that developmental and evolutionary biology has the potential to provide a commonly accepted frame of reference for that multilevel system approach needed to understand the workings of the brain.

This book constitutes the thoroughly refereed conference proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Trusted Systems, INTRUST 2013, held in Graz, Austria, in December 2013. The revised full papers focus on the theory, technologies and applications of trusted systems. They cover all aspects of trusted computing systems, including trusted modules, platforms, networks, services and applications, from their fundamental features and functionalities to design principles, architecture and implementation technologies.

Es gibt Dinge, die muss man nicht lernen, die kann man eben: Sehen, hoeren, sprechen, einen Fragebogen formulieren . . . Weil wir beim mundlichen Befragen glauben der Wahrheit fruher oder spater auf den Grund zu kommen, meinen viele, das musste auch fur Fragebogen g- ten. Das stimmt aber nicht. Denn anders als bei einer unstrukturierten - fragung etwa eines Zeugen vor Gericht oder eines Pruflings in der Prufung erlauben Fragebogen in der Regel kein Nachhaken bei Unklarheiten, keine Klarstellungen missverstandlicher Formulierungen, keine Ruckfragen bei off- sichtlichen Versprechern; anders als offene mundliche Befragungen erfordern sie viel Nachdenken, bevor man mit der Fragerei beginnt. Die Reihenfolge der Fragen, die Wahl der Worte, selbst die Farbe des Fragebogens haben Einfluss auf die Antwort, und die Frage: Sind Sie - glucklich - unglucklich - weder/noch wird einen anderen Prozentsatz glucklicher Menschen liefern als die Frage: Sind Sie - glucklich - zufrieden - eher zufrieden - eher unzufrieden - unzufrieden - unglucklich. Als amerikanische Meinungsforscher einmal fragten: "Stimmen Sie der Beha- tung zu: Fur die zunehmende Kriminalitat in unserem Land sind in erster Linie die Menschen mit ihrem individuellen Fehlverhalten und nicht die gesellscha- lichen Verhaltnisse verantwortlich?" sagten zwei Drittel der Befragten "ja". Als sie statt dessen fragten: "Stimmen Sie der Behauptung zu: Fur die zunehmende Kriminalitat in unserem Land sind in erster Linie die gesellschaftlichen Verha- nisse und nicht die Menschen mit ihrem individuellen Fehlverhalten vera- wortlich?" sagten wieder zwei Drittel der Befragten "ja".