Every year, on 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 both elements are complementary for me."
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 how he gains
scientific knowledge. A researcher is exclusively committed to the facts -
the scientific experiment, observations, and conclusions. The intellect, collegial exchange, and constant struggle for resilient
progress in knowledge count. At the same time, a researcher must always face the challenging scientific debate about his work. This way of working makes him
independent of third parties' possible expectations and interests. This
process occurs 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 had 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, flee, and start all over again, as the latter scientists are often obliged to do.
Finally and
thirdly, Drosten enjoys the freedom to share his research results with
others without hindrance. We shall progress in research only when findings are shared, discussed, reviewed, disproved, or further developed. 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 healthcare 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 freedom to be created and maintained for all, people must stand up for each other and take responsibility. The better this works, the less need for intervention
from above."
"The pandemic has shown how relevant this principle
still is.
The more I behave responsibly as an individual of my own free will, 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? According to
Schiller, is it enough 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, 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 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, and classifying what fact is and what is fiction. And, of course, I feel obliged
to take corrective action and 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 occurs 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, supported by scientific knowledge, heard again and again in public.
The scientist is responsible for drawing a realistic picture rather than the desired one."
"How can we deal with this uncompromising
opponent? We must take responsibility for ourselves and others in the spirit
of Schiller. In practical terms, we observe distance rules and
limit our mobility and contacts as far as possible."
"Currently,
the restrictive measures enacted by policymakers are still too often judged based on the status quo. The virus's exponential growth potential is only considered by parts of society. Accordingly, the
measures are 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 gaining scientific knowledge. Original theories and assumptions
can prove to be wrong. For people 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, our scientific activities are
a real imposition. Political action follows a fundamentally different logic.
It aims to create 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 actively in discussing what is necessary and required in each case. Thus they help to 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 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."
"Therefore, for free science, reliable 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 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. Therefore, the joy of knowledge may also drive our responsible
actions in the present situation. From this, I am 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 has Drosten not understood
anything about Schiller?
"In what times are we 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 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. A stricter
interpretation 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.
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 is why I was impressed by the surprising statements of a medical doctor
about Schiller, both in content and form.
*On Egmont's question, "Who guarantees freedom to the Dutch?" Duke Alba, Spanish Governor of the occupied Netherlands, answered, "Freedom is a beautiful word. Who understands it correctly?"
Our federal president awarded Christian Drosten the Federal Cross of Merit, although not for his speech.
*