Christian Drosten about Friedrich Schiller

Many people regard Christian Drosten, a virologist at Berlin's famous Charité, where Robert Koch discovered the tuberculosis bacterium in 1882, as Germany's Anthony Fauci. Drosten is probably the most well-known German scientist due to his coronavirus research.

He had the PCR test for the coronavirus ready by the beginning of March and completed it recently by a parameter on viral load. This parameter will allow medical people to further judge the risk that a positively tested person presents to further spread the infection.

In March, Christian became known and famous to the greater public for his podcasts. He explained the pandemic to laypeople in the most descriptive and scientifically accurate way.

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.

Speakers so far included artists, authors, economists, and politicians. This year, Professor Drosten held the discourse, and the event occurred virtually due to the corona pandemic. Here is a video recording of Christian Drosten's speech. What follows is a translation of his most remarkable statements:

"Of all people, you invited me - a virologist - to give the traditional speech on Friedrich Schiller's birthday. In doing so, you have made an extremely unusual choice - undoubtedly one that demonstrates openness and genuine courage to take risks."

"I can also see the curiosity behind this invitation. Curiosity to leave familiar territory. And curiosity about something new, unknown, and perhaps even uncomfortable. I find this appealing, also because curiosity is precisely what has always driven other researchers and me anyway."

"Schiller and I have one thing in common: we studied medicine. We also left practicing medicine behind - albeit with different motivations and goals. He was drawn to literature, I to medical research."

"My interest as a researcher is directed towards gaining useful scientific knowledge. I want to conclude based on experiments, observations, and studies that everyone can verify. I do not pursue any political intentions in my work. It is up to the authorities to cast scientific recommendations into executive orders or laws."

"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.

*