No. 113/2021

26 HUMBOLDT KOSMOS 113/2021 FOCUS ON GERMANY to representatives of foundations and funding organisa- tions like the Humboldt Foundation through to universi- ties and communication researchers. The goal was to incite discussions and draw up recommendations. Of course, the discussions were held against the back- drop of the current pandemic, which lent them added topicality. The Berlin virologist, Christian Drosten, for example, who more or less became the scientific face of explaining the pandemic and is probably the most famous researcher in Germany at present, received death threats. The Robert Koch Institute – which with its almost daily reports on infection rates has also seen extensive media coverage since the beginning of the Corona crisis – was the subject of an arson attack. And the most important German academy of science, the Leopoldina in Halle, was threatened and targeted by hackers. In this situation, scientists may well ask themselves whether they really want to tell a story to someone in a pub. Who knows whether it won’t end in a violent pub brawl? Christian Drosten, who, amongst other things, regularly explains the newest research findings on the Coronavirus and the developments in the Covid-19 pandemic in a highly popular podcast, is not to be intimidated and sees science communication as part of his job. But he does understand why some colleagues hold back from engaging with con- troversial or potentially contentious scientific topics. “Most scientists are not used to dealing with public reflexes. It’s not part of their training, nor of their everyday experi- ence,” he says at the final #FactoryWisskomm meeting. Drosten’s creed is transparency. And this is equally true when the situation itself is unclear, when – if in doubt – people must rely on their own professional experience or that of specialist committees. “In a case like that, we have to say that we judge the situation to be so and so, even if we don’t have the evidence to back it up at present.” UNCOMPREHENDING POLICY MAKERS At times during the pandemic, provisional statements of this kind have repeatedly met with a lack of understand- ing – even amongst politicians who have sometimes openly complained about science changing its mind. The situation has not been helped by some of the media which, in a bout of false balance, have given equal exposure to contradic- tory voices from research without differentiating between broad scientific consensus on the one hand and a minor- ity view on the other. Recipients get the impression that science is divided. Drosten therefore calls on the media to urgently follow this up and reflect on the way they have been communicating during the pandemic. But all in all, so far, the Corona period can also be interpreted as a genuinely encouraging success story. The general public’s scientific literacy, for instance, has increased exponentially. Germans seem to have become a nation of experts on infection research. Terms like R num- ber and incidence rate, viral vector and mRNA vaccines have become ubiquitous. People know about the difficul- ties involved in modelling infection events and can name the virus variants currently doing the rounds at the drop of a hat. Christian Drosten’s above-mentioned podcast, which is now recorded on alternate weeks by Drosten and the Frankfurt virologist Sandra Ciesek, has been accessed more than 100 million times to date. For each broadcast, listeners dedicate a full hour to listening to explanations of scientific details and discovering how the process of acquiring scientific knowledge works. But the Corona pandemic has also brought forth the sceptics. Climate change deniers have not disappeared, they have simply been drowned out by the people protesting about mask wearing and vaccinations. The group that, in Germany, calls itself the Querdenker (lateral thinkers) sus- pects the “system” of large-scale conspiracies. From their point of view, the system not only refers to the state, but also to the media and, indeed, to large swathes of science. Against this backdrop, scientific expertise and science communication also play a role in maintaining social cohe- sion and dealing with political extremists. This means sci- entists are expected to bear a lot of additional responsibil- ity, which is more than some can cope with. If you engage in communication, especially about hot topics and contro- versial issues, you not only need the expertise but, above all, the time to do so, which not everyone is willing or able to invest. And not everyone has the necessary skill either. There has thus been a good deal of disquiet in the scien- tific community about the pressure to communicate. The “ UP TO NOW, THE CORONA PERIOD CAN ALSO BE INTERPRETED AS A SUCCESS STORY.”