To the public: the advice of the most famous German virologist: I am forced to tell unpleasant truths

Ch. Drosten, like Father Schiller, studied medicine, but both did not become practicing physicians: one was drawn to literature and the other to research.

The speech of a famous virologist was by no means occasional: he used the literary platform as an opportunity to appeal to the understanding of the country’s population. “It is up to us if the situation improves or worsens”, individual freedom and responsibility with society, especially in these times of coronavirus, are inseparable, the researcher stressed.

In the widely echoed speech, Ch. Drosten also addressed other sensitive topics: the pathways and misconceptions of scientific cognition of the coronavirus, the fierce criticism on social media, the complex relationship between scientists and politicians.

On freedom of investigation: “I do not serve anyone”

It is no secret that the director of the Berlin Charité Institute of Virology, Professor Ch. Drosten is the German government coroner. In late September, the country’s government even awarded him the Federal Cross of Merit.

And here are the professors of virologists Hendrik Streeck and Jonas Schmidt-Chanasitas, who are often opposed to Ch. For Drosten, the German leaders are not being criticized but criticized, for fear that their call not to dramatize the virus and, as in Sweden, to depend more on the personal responsibility of citizens, contribute to the relaxation of society.

In this context, Ch. Drosten’s inferences about the freedom of the scientist sounded almost like an excuse. He said that the investigation did not pursue any political objective: “Nobody points me in the direction of the investigation and demands that I do not take any topic or topic better.”

In that sense, he compared himself to F. Schiller, who was “a citizen of the world, serving no duke.”

However, Ch. Drosten concealed the dependence of the research on its sources of funding, be it individuals and companies or the government, Christian Gampert rightly commented, commenting on a speech by a virologist on German radio.

Scientists can’t ‘tweak’ the virus

In the coronavirus pandemic, one of the important tasks of the scientist Ch. According to Drosten, it is about explaining to the public “the methods of the research field and revealing the limits of the investigation, indicating what is fact and what is fiction. “.

The researchers would be forced to “paint a realistic picture, not the one they would like to see themselves.” So he feels committed to “correcting the intervention and calling nonsense a worthy name,” he said, indirectly arguing with his critics, perhaps biting into his younger colleague, virologist H. Streeck, who was overly optimistic.

“Speaking of coronavirus, as a scientist, I am forced to communicate unpleasant truths. I cannot retouch the virus, make it invisible. He is here. He is just waiting for an opportunity and he will definitely take advantage of it, as long as we do not stop him, ”warned the scientist.

Fight in the media: statements are spun in high temperature mode

Ch. Drosten is concerned about the fact that “scientific works, instead of being studied in a practical and calm way by specialists, are discussed in public, taking into account their political, social and personal consequences, and evaluated in a very emotional way . Everything happens all day long, spinning on social media in high heat mode. “

One such mass in the media is often declined Ch. Drosten’s claims criticized his statement about the accuracy of polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assays, which are widely used to detect coronaviruses.

It turns out in 2014. In an interview with the business magazine WirtschaftsWoche about the then relevant MERS coronavirus, he described the test method as too sensitive: “Yes, but this method is so sensitive that it can detect even a single genetic molecule of the virus. If, say, such a pathogen flies rapidly through the nasal mucosa of a nurse several times a day, without causing her illness or otherwise appearing, then we already have a case of MERS. If we used to register fatal patients, now suddenly there are mild, otherwise healthy people in the statistics. This is how we can explain the real explosion of infections recorded in Saudi Arabia. ” (In April 2014, there were a large number of cases of medical infections of patients in Saudi hospitals – ed.).

Now for some Ch. Drosten opponents use the scientists’ observation to criticize what they believe to be exaggerated infection statistics.

Scientists a ‘real test’ for politicians

The public must understand that the scientific approach to new viruses is changing. He compared the path of knowledge of the virus with an expedition into the unknown, mistakes and failures during it, inevitable.

As an example, ch. At the beginning of the pandemic, Drosten mentioned the opinion expressed by many scientists, including himself, that “masks are no longer necessary. And now they are considered an important security tool. “

Changing your scientific position in the research process is the most natural thing to do. But for decision makers, scientists are “real proof,” says virologist Ch. Drostenas. Politicians would like to find a longer-term strategy. Instead, they are forced to improve and correct pandemic measures in light of new scientific evidence.

Unfortunately, “in politics, course adjustment is always seen as a failure of a political decision.” However, this, according to ch. Drosten, “is wrong, in a pandemic, we should move to a policy of small steps.”

The scientist, who has repeatedly portrayed in the media almost as a strict dictator of the coronavirus, has repeatedly emphasized in Schiller’s speech that he is just a virologist: he does not have the legitimacy to make political decisions.

However, it is clear to the critical observer that as much as he emphasizes that he is only an academic and not a politician, his scientific findings still have a direct impact on political decisions, notes the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. Finally, it cannot be denied that his position and that of Chancellor Angela Merkel on managing a pandemic are very similar.

Instead of I. Kant’s categorical imperative – Ch. Drosten’s “pandemic imperative”

One of your most important tasks as a virologist in a pandemic is Chap. Drosten believes it possible to communicate the results of the investigation to the public in an understandable and clear way: “The better we understand all of the virus and the pandemic, the easier it will be for us to make the right decisions and act accordingly at our own risk. How do we stop the rapid spread of the virus? How do we manage not to overcrowd the hospitals? How can we prevent serious infections and diseases that can even be fatal? “

In seeking answers to these questions, Capt. Drosten reminded Fr. of Schiller’s concept of freedom: “It was clear to him that personal freedom is impossible isolated from society.” Freedom has its limits, and in a pandemic, it’s especially important not to forget that.

“The more reckless and selfish my behavior, the more the state will be forced to restrict my freedom to effectively protect the community and the welfare of others,” a virologist told the German Literary Archive in Marbache last Sunday.

But what does it mean to act responsibly in a pandemic? I ask. And, paraphrasing the categorical imperative of the philosopher Immanuel Kant, he proposed his, a “pandemic imperative”: “In a pandemic, act as if your coronavirus test is positive and the person in front of you is at risk.”