Follow the science
Climate activists have popularized the phrase “follow the science.” Rightly so. At least if you understand that politicians must not close their eyes to what is obvious, what the scientific sparrows are whistling from the rooftops. When politics burns the future of humanity out of consideration for powerful economic interests or for ideological reasons, science has to become loud and political.
During the Corona crisis, the sentence was put forward less offensively. It was often not clear what “science” says and where to follow it. Close schools? Wear simple cloth masks? Ban visits to nursing homes? Disinfect tables in restaurants? Order a lockdown, and when and for how long? Keep unvaccinated people out of public life? Politically respond to small fluctuations in incidence by tightening or easing measures?
Politicians often had to make decisions under uncertainty, with science speaking in several voices, accompanied by the pseudo-scientific discord of the lateral thinker scene. More democratic discourse would have been desirable here. The current demands for a “reappraisal” of Corona policy reflect this deficit.
Two worlds
In any case, politics is not simply the translation of science into action. The often observed “epistemization” of the political fails to recognize that science and politics are two worlds in which payment is made in different coins: on the one hand it is about the search for truth, on the other hand it is about the search for a balance of interests. In the health sector, for example, people are increasingly talking about “evidence-informed public health” instead of “evidence-based public health”. This takes better account of the fact that political decisions must also be politically responsible and legitimized as democratically as possible. The rule of philosophers does not fit into a democratic society: science is not a democratic event, the truth is not the result of a balance of interests, and it also has no protection for minorities. This does not contradict the preliminary nature of all empirical findings in science, ie the possibility of revising results is certainly common to both worlds.
Swabian Sunday market meeting
Today one of the “Markt Schwabener Sunday meetings” took place again in Markt Schwaben. The CSU parliamentary group leader and former health minister Klaus Holetschek discussed science and politics with the president of the Technical University of Munich, Prof. Thomas Hofmann.
The discussion began with a brief review of the role of science in the corona crisis and the problem that public trust and scientific uncertainties do not naturally come together. More could have been done with this point, for example with regard to the challenges of scientific policy advice, the interaction between departmental research and university research, the relationship between science-based and policy-explanatory communication or the role of the media and science editorial teams.
However, after Thomas Hofmann referred to the “TUM Think Tank” and a suggestion from Klaus Holetschek that this think tank could reflect on the Corona crisis again, the discussion took a different course. Thomas Hofmann spoke about the need to improve in Germany when it comes to converting research into economic innovations and that bureaucracy here is making things more difficult. That’s certainly true, but it set a trigger that the discussion couldn’t get away from. The two discussants as well as the audience reported bureaucratic anecdotes from their everyday lives, ranging from amusing to frightening, but not necessarily at the level of organizational sociological research and only partially illuminating with regard to the topic of science and politics.
On the edge
What was also of little use to the discussion was that, with reference to a survey by the market research institute “Trendence” that the majority of young people wanted to become civil servants, prejudices about today’s youth were more likely to be served. On the one hand, education and labor market research works differently, and on the other hand, one should have questioned what might stimulate such answers in opinion surveys, for example what this could have to do with social insecurities. Here it would certainly have been more informative not to talk about young people, but with them. The unchallenged polemic of a well-known management consultant against company medical care for even smaller companies was also not exactly science-based. His statement that the obligation applies from a number of employees of 50 was not even knowledge-based – the obligation applies from a number of employees of 1, but a company doctor does not necessarily have to be hired. At a time when healthy and efficient employees are becoming increasingly important, this is a polemic that is out of time.
Nevertheless, this Sunday meeting was stimulating, like many before it, and nothing stands in the way of deepening the discussion on the topic of science and politics on another occasion.
——————
Addendum April 22, 2024: The nice thing about events like this is that they have an impact. Yesterday, Thomas Hofmann briefly praised the Bavarian high-tech agenda, a billion-dollar funding program that, among other things, will support 100 professorships in AI. This could have been followed by a discussion about the goals and instruments of state research regulation, or the consequences of intensive third-party funded research, and to what extent the coin “truth” is converted into this. On the one hand, funding programs, endowed professorships, etc. would have to be considered, and on the other hand, research restrictions, for example with a view to gain-of-function research with dangerous pathogens or human cloning. Could anyone of the discussants have commented on the old “Starnberg finalization thesis”?