Prof. Beisiegel, how do you assess – from a scientific and ethical point of view – the current situation? Are we not in an insurmountable dichotomy between the desire for relaxation and the fear of a second wave of infection?
This is one of the most difficult questions at the moment. On the one hand, we have so far experienced a very responsible policy in Germany. Nevertheless, the opening up must now be designed in such a way that not only the ethical aspects – that we protect all people so that they do not die – but also certain rights of freedom are definitely taken into account, and, to this end, critically important social interaction can restart. All this with the responsibility of keeping one's distance and wearing masks – a very difficult balance. I do not want to be in the shoes of politicians.

At the moment it is really trial and error.
Yes. Scientifically, on the one hand, you want as little infection as possible, and on the other hand you want herd immunisation. I don't think anyone, either in politics or in science, can make decisions on their own at the moment. We need a good balance with a sense of proportion.

And a scientific/philosophical/ethical council on this ...
...which exists with the Leopoldina, for example. Unfortunately, there are few women represented though, although women are very pragmatic on many issues. In this respect, such bodies should definitely involve more female colleagues.

General trust in science and research has increased significantly in recent weeks. Will this be sustainable? Or can it be quickly gambled away again?
I am quite hopeful that it will be sustainable. But for this to happen, we need scientists who speak the language of the people. Christian Drosten is a good example. The head of virology at Berlin's Charité Hospital is understood when he explains something. From my experience as president of a university, I know how difficult it is to promote science communication in this sense. So, researchers: Tell the public what you do. And in a language that people understand.

I have the impression that science has come under some pressure in the meantime; from some media, from politics, society and research itself. Does that worry you?
Of course I am concerned about making scientists responsible. It is difficult to make the population and sometimes also the politicians aware of the differentiation. But the social responsibility that we have as scientists has not been used for a long time. We must now all train ourselves to deal with scientific statements. We are on the right track in this respect. But I also believe that the demands on science are justified. And we should also take on the responsibility that we have.

To generate knowledge and to communicate it – is that also a question of ethics? So when will we talk about results? Who assesses the relevance for society?
Knowledge of any kind must be communicated. And that too has an ethical component. At universities and research centres we are doing research with public money. In this respect, I can see that this is a real challenge that we have to address, even if it is not easy.

Will scientific responsibility have to be redefined?
Yes, I hope that this kind of slowdown has given us food for thought. In science, too, it is not just about faster, higher, better – but also about quality. So think first, then act. When saying that, I also mean that we have forgotten how to doubt. We have forgotten how to question things and accept errors. For me, these are all ethical aspects. And that is why I hope that we have now learned to take a step back, so that we can do even better and sustainable science that is societally responsible.

What is your advice to scientists in this context?
My advice, especially to young researchers, is something for which I am sometimes criticised: Take time to think, to discuss, to doubt and allow yourself to make mistakes. That is one of the most important messages for really good science.

And to everyone else?
I would like to encourage everyone. Each and every one of us is at a point where we can question ourselves. How would it be, for example, to transform our hunt for personal fulfillment and use that power and creativity for society? Now would be the time for it!

Which question is currently preoccupying you personally the most?
You will be surprised: climate change and inactivity on that issue impels me even more than the coronavirus. I am convinced that we as leaders must think very carefully about what lessons we can learn from the COVID-19 crisis to solve climate issues.

And what have you learned from the crisis?
As a biochemist and science manager, I draw the following conclusion: science must also act much more strongly in the run-up to a crisis. This means that politics and science must collaborate in a much more preventative fashion in the future.

How do you think things will continue? Are we at the beginning of a new world order?
Yes. In my opinion, the economic sciences and politics must work together to find ways of achieving 'healthy globalisation' as well as 'healthy capitalism', as I would like to call it now. It cannot go on like this, that we all buy masks in China or have medicines produced there to save a few cents. That too is an ethical question. We have to get away from "money talks." The market must serve the people – not the people the market. This also means that we all have to learn to change our consumer habits.

Is this the big opportunity in the crisis?
Absolutely! It is also our last chance! Both for the climate and for society. We must seize it now. After what we've just experienced, we know exactly where the screws are. We have to turn them now. Of course, science is also called for here.

 

Interview: Christina Mänz