The Corona-crisis has made the science to another. This applies not only to new practices of accelerated and more open to international collaboration, this also applies to the self-positioning of science in the field of tension between economy, politics and the Public. The gap between a self-circle research and the societal challenges require, more than ever, to Bridge-builders.
Sibylle Anderl
editor in the features section.
F. A. Z. Twitter
The questions that the researchers in the context of the crisis, but for most of them far beyond their core expertise: How can and may be accepted in the role as a policy Advisor and designed? What are the substantive compromises in the communication to the outside in purchase to? How to deal with the responsibility of learning the science so unexpectedly given, become?
self-reflection on the Online-platform
The Lindau meeting of Nobel prize winners seems to be a suitable framework for the necessary crisis-inspired self-reflection. With an annually changing focal theme would have brought in this year, for the seventieth Time, dozens of Nobel laureates with hundreds of young researchers on lake Constance, together, to summon together what it wants to be science in its purest Form. Shared curiosity in the foreground, enthusiasm for the research, the cross-border collaboration and the awareness of their own responsibility for social challenges. The pandemic has thwarted a Meeting in Lindau, instead, a digital Version of the conference took place in the last week as an “Online Science Days” with about a thousand young scientists and economists, as well as about forty Nobel prize instead of carriers.
How big are the challenges that are currently being provided to the scientists and their internal and external communication, showed in all clarity, a discussion dedicated to the role of science in times of crisis. The astrophysicist Saul Perlmutter and the immunologist Peter Doherty designated the difficulties in the dialogue with the policy, the discrepancies in language and approaches, the contrast between the clear political messages, and probabilistic, always subject to the scientific results.
failure of science
the discussion was Dominated by the biophysicist Michael Levitt, the settlement seemed to overcome the crisis of science in their aggressiveness, all of the participants. The science system had proved its inadequacy, the “illustrious institutions,” such as Lindau, the Nobel Foundation or the national academies of Sciences and Humanities had not responded appropriately. Not in these institutions, but on Twitter, the Intel would be more intelligent conversations. The science have failed. The deep personal Frustration, the language from these Statements, came, apparently, from his lack of success to his Position as a Lockdown critics in scientific circles.
Indeed, many of his statements seem, as, for instance, be to Promote the strategy of herd immunity, given the gap in information for the long-term impact and dissemination of Sars-CoV-2, and against the Background of the meanwhile worldwide more than half a Million dead a little reality to adhere to remote. Similar to his statement, Covid-19 “is exactly as dangerous as the flu.” The latter misunderstanding been able to put the Peter Doherty, referring to him only too familiar to medical Details of the disease quickly. Other, the factual research and data, conflicting and not further substantiate claims Levitts, such as the wegmoderiert a herd immunity of 15 per cent, were from the Moderator Adam Smith’s conflict avoidant.
