Every year, on the occasion of Friedrich Schiller's birthday - the poet and studied
physician was born in Marbach on November 10, 1759 - prominent public figures
give a Schiller speech at the German Literature Archive ibid.
”Neither do I want to explain Friedrich Schiller to you that legions
of literati and historians have done since long thoroughly and convincingly, nor do I want to win over him for myself or put him in front of my cart. But
I do want to deal with him.”
Schiller‘s Freedom
”In the core question of what Schiller means to me personally and to
what extent his life and work are relevant to us today, we will not be able
to ignore the leitmotif of his work: freedom. But we will also have to talk
about responsibility because, for me, both elements are complementary.”
Three Dimensions of Freedom
Continuing, Drosten distinguished three dimensions of freedom. First, there is the freedom of science itself. Nobody gives Drosten a direction or
demands that he should not pursue specific questions or topics, whereas
Schiller had to fight hard for the freedom of his word. He was threatened
with a writing ban and forced to flee.
For Drosten, the second essential element of freedom concerns the method by which he gains
scientific knowledge. A researcher is exclusively committed to the facts -
the scientific experiment, observations, and conclusions. What counts is the own intellect, the collegial exchange, the constant struggle for resilient
progress in knowledge. At the same time, a researcher must always face the challenging scientific debate about his work. This way of working makes him
independent of possible expectations and interests of third parties. This
process takes place worldwide according to established rules and the same
high standards.
For the philosopher of Enlightenment,
Schiller, freedom also meant using
one's intellect. He was certainly not someone who has simply passed on the ideas of others. The freedom of thought was a
pleasurable challenge and obligation for Schiller. In return, he was
personally prepared to accept hardships, to flee, and to start all over again, the latter scientists are often obliged to do.
Finally and
thirdly, Drosten enjoys the freedom to share his research results with
others without hindrance. Only when findings are shared, discussed, and
reviewed, disproved, or further developed in the process do we shall make
progress in research. For society to benefit, researchers must communicate their results understandably and transparently.
Information and Guidance
”In the pandemic, I, like many other scientists, see it as my duty to
provide information and guidance. The better we all understand the virus and
the pandemic, the sooner we will make the right decisions for our behavior. How do we stop the rapid spread of the virus? How do we manage
not to overload our health care system? How can we avoid infections and
severe disease progression up to death?”
”The pandemic is not an inevitable fate. We determine through our behavior whether the situation worsens or improves. Either way,
each of us makes his or her contribution. That's why I believe that
science-based information of the public is as important a strategy in the
fight against the virus as the development of a drug or vaccine.”
Freedom and Society
”This brings us to the second central point, ’What do we do with all the freedom that we value so highly? What do we derive from it for our dealings with other people and society as a whole?’”
”In answering these questions, Schiller seems to me to be particularly
topical. For Schiller, personal freedom cannot succeed in isolation from
society. For the freedom of all to be created and maintained, people must stand up for one another and take responsibility for
one another. The better this works, the less need there is for intervention
from above.”
”The pandemic has shown how relevant this principle
still is.
The more I behave as an individual of my own free will responsibly, the less reason I give the authorities to intervene in
social life. But the more thoughtless and selfishly I act, the more the
authorities must restrict my freedom to effectively protect the
community, i.e., the well-being of other people.”
A Pandemic Imperative
”But what does responsible action mean? Is it enough - according to
Schiller - to make people aware of their free decision to do
the right thing only out of inclination and without external pressure? Will
they participate voluntarily?”
“Or do we - freely according to
Immanuel Kant - need a rather strict reference to duty and responsibility? A
kind of pandemic imperative: ‘
Always act in a pandemic as if you had been
tested positive and your counterpart belonged to a risk group’”
“My role and my contribution as a scientist consists of explaining the
methods of my field of expertise, showing the limits of scientific studies,
classifying what is fact and what is fiction. And of course I feel obliged
to take corrective action and to call a spade a spade. In doing so, I must
translate the language of science into vivid but still coherent images and
analogies that are catchy for everyone.”
Scientists and Public Opinion
“If you, as a scientist, get involved, you are immediately in the
middle of the broad public opinion battle of the coronavirus pandemic.
Scientific results are not objectively and coolly dissected like in the
circle of experts. They are discussed in terms of their political, social
and personal impact and evaluated with a high degree of emotion. This takes place around the clock at high temperatures in the spin cycle of
social media.”
“As a scientist I have the job of communicating unpleasant truths
regarding the coronavirus. The virus is there. It does not negotiate and
does not compromise. It is the task of us virologists to make this truth,
which is supported by scientific knowledge, heard again and again in public.
It is the responsibility of the scientist to draw a realistic picture and
not the desired one.”
“How we can deal with this uncompromising
opponent. We must take responsibility for ourselves and others in the spirit
of Schiller’s spirit. In practical terms, we observe rules of distance and
limit our mobility and contacts as far as possible.”
“Currently,
the restrictive measures enacted by policymakers are still too often judged
on the basis of the status quo. The exponential growth potential of the
virus is only taken into account by parts of society. Accordingly, the
measures are all too often branded as excessive or premature, the occurrence
of infection appears less threatening. Accordingly, many people are
skeptical about further restrictive measures.”
The Gain of Scientific Knowledge
“Another challenge arises from the limited public understanding of the
logic behind the gain of scientific knowledge. Original theories and assumptions
can prove to be wrong. For people who are not used to this, it is sometimes
difficult to understand, especially if - as is now the case with the
pandemic - they hope to obtain valid information on which to base their
actions.”
“For political decision-makers in particular, our scientific activities are
a real imposition. Political action follows a fundamentally different logic.
It is aimed at creating framework conditions that are sustainable in the
long term. The fact that political decision-makers had to constantly improve
or correct the measures based on new scientific findings - just think
of mouth-and-nose protection - was not always well received. But such course
corrections were foreseeable and obvious. If there is something new, you
have to adapt your assessment accordingly. This is the way science
works.”
Scientists, Politics, and Society
“We as responsible scientists must
actively explain this development process to politics and society if we want them to trust and
support us. This is what drives me in my communication efforts. I
want people to be informed. Recourse to this information puts them in a
position to participate in the discussion about what is necessary and required in each case actively and thus to help shape the fight against the
pandemic. The opportunity to participate will hopefully ensure broad social
acceptance.”
“The same applies to all major global challenges of
our time: If we want to preserve our freedom and well-being, we must take
the trouble to take the entire society with us. We must also prepare complex
issues for the general public and provide them with appropriate
information.”
Take a Stand with Facts
“At the same time, we must not stand by and watch when facts are
ignored, twisted or shortened. If science is politicized, instrumentalized
or its standards violated, we must take a stand with verifiable facts.”
“And this by no means only applies to infection research in a pandemic. It
applies to all fields of science that address urgent problems with
decision-making pressure and far-reaching consequences, such as climate
research, which deals with another treacherous development on a global
scale.”
“Therfore, for free science, responsible communication is a social
obligation. It is the duty that arises from freedom, which Friedrich
Schiller reminds us of today on his birthday.”
“Let me conclude
my speech by returning to Friedrich Schiller, because he has another
important piece of advice for us scientists and our work. It is about how we
raise our voice and in what attitude we make our contribution.”
“Each
of us is called upon to act not only out of duty and responsibility. The
inclination and the desire belong inseparably to it. And even if Kant
admonishes us that man should not obey his reason out of joy alone: He may
well do so. The joy of knowledge may therefore also drive our responsible
actions in the present situation. From this, I am quite sure: Friedrich
Schiller would also wear a mask.”
“I will leave it at that.”
“Preserve the freedom and joy of
thinking. Show responsibility. And above all: Stay healthy.”
Trouble started when Bettina Schulte, cultural editor of Freiburg’s
Badische Zeitung, wrote a review titled:
Why Drosten hasn’t understood
anything on Schiller.
“In what times we are living when virologists are allowed to talk
about the poet Friedrich Schiller? Sure: The son of an officer from Marbach
studied medicine and worked as a military doctor for two years before he
fled to Thuringia to escape from his sovereign, Duke Karl Eugen, and
exchanged the scalpel for the pen forever.”
“Christian Drosten
did not address this issue in his twenty-minute Schiller speech. Instead, he, who has become ‘virtually’ famous overnight with his Corona podcast,
picked the topics ‘freedom’ and ‘responsibility.’
“Drosten is less
interested in Schiller’s intellectual freedom than in his own concept, i.e.,
freedom of research. The virologist repeats his credo in a downright
prayerful manner. As a researcher, he is obliged only to his own interest in
knowledge and to nobody else. That is beautiful and also very reassuring to
hear. Drosten, who has repeatedly complained about being misunderstood, also
wants nothing to do with politics. The researcher researches, the politician
acts.”
“It is as simple as that. As simple as that?”
“The virologist is
convinced that Schiller would have worn a mask. What else! Don Carlos can
mumble the famous sentence "Sire, geben Sie Gedankenfreiiiuheit!” well with
mouth-nose protection. Christian Drosten didn't understand a thing about
Friedrich Schiller - and the German Literature Archive threw itself at the
bosom of the zeitgeist with this speaker.”
*Sorry, Frau Schulte: In Goethe’s drama Don Carlos, it was not the
eponymous hero but Marquis Posa who demanded King Phillip II of Spain,
“Sire, give freedom of thought!”
“And then Drosten moves smoothly from the ‘freedom of thought’
to the (ethical) ‘duty to give orientation’ and to the (political-moral)
appeal to ‘stand up for one another.‘ Keyword: responsibility. In a stricter
interpretation, this finally leads to the ‘pandemic imperative’: ‘Act as if
you were Covid-19 positive.’ Does Mr. Drosten mean to say that we should all
put ourselves in permanent voluntary quarantine?”
Bravo Bettina.
Did you aim to be funny? There were several letters to the editor. Here
is the one I wrote:
When I read the title of Bettina‘s review, I
had expected a lot and was disappointed by its superficiality and attempted
satire. Question: Did the author read Christian Drosten's lecture at all
and, if so, did she understand it? Even Goethe had his difficulties with the
concept of freedom: "
Freiheit ein schönes Wort; wer's recht verstände.”
That's why I was impressed by the surprising statements of a medical doctor
about Schiller, both in content and form.
*Freedom a beautiful word. Who understands it right? Duke Alba, Spanish
Governor of the occupied Netherlands, on Egmont’s question, “Who guarantees
freedom?
Our federal president awarded Christian Drosten the Federal Cross of Merit.