German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/175, pp. 22653-22654.
Frau President. Honored colleagues.
Science is when a phenomenon is unclear and contested. Everything else is textbook-learning. The result of a scientific study applies until it is disproved by the next study.
Götz Frömming (AfD): Right!
It is beyond question that this characteristic of science as a conflict of differing positions and interests is much too little communicated. Much more are supposedly scientific facts used as clubs so as to defend political decisions.
Götz Frömming (AfD): Clearly!
Who thus proceeds, he not only abuses science but also damages its authority [Ansehen]. And yet no man can live in a modern society without taking into consideration scientific knowledge in regards his own decisions. A communication of science which puts the people in the position for that requires two prerequisites: First, the mature, enlightened and sufficiently educated citizen and second, a non-valuating, non-selective conveyance, open to result, of all scientific standpoints. Neither are posited to a requisite extent. The education level finds itself in free fall. Before we speak on a successful communication of science, the rapid downfall of the education system needs to be reversed.
Götz Frömming (AfD): Ja!
Yet much more questionable is that we nevertheless experience a selective communication in regards to many themes like Corona, climate, yes, even in regards biological facts, which more strongly reflects the present government’s agenda than the factual scientific debate.
Götz Frömming (AfD): It is precisely
so!
Who clearly contradicts will be delegitimized and thrown out of the public discussion.
Inquire for once in that regard of the Netzwerk Wissenschaftsfreiheit which you have deliberately kept out of all debates on the themes of the communication of science.
Götz Frömming (AfD): Yes! Indeed
why?
Let us take the Corona crisis as an example. This you bring up as a fine example of a communication of science. Yet the opposite is the case, which we most lately knew from the RKI [Robert Koch Institute] protocols. Who then warned, which was also discussed by the RKI interns, that namely school closings, the isolation of people or continual wearing of masks, are followed by serious harms, was defamed as a Corona denier. That was no communication of science, that was a dictatorial suppression of a scientific discourse.
Rupert Stüwe (SPD): Whom do you now reproach for living in a dictatorship?
Yet where possible, is exactly that wanted; exactly that is wanted. Karl Lauterbach, in any case, pleads for that in his book, Bevor es zu spät [Before it it too late],
Götz Frömming (AfD): Gott!
in case of an emergency, to place at the rear democracy,
Beatrix von Storch (AfD): Hear!
Hear!
and establish a dictatorship of science. That is not only scientifically blank nonsense,
Bruno Hönel (Greens): That is a
calumny!
it would be a violation of the constitution.
Götz Frömming (AfD): Defend the
constitution! Stop the Greens!
You demand in your motion a plethora of instruments and formats for the communication of science. To what end? We have the public broadcasting, so esteemed by you. Therefore, commit yourself to that is fulfilled in your education mission, instead of fighting the opposition.
With Scicomm, you recruit a new instrument to protect scientists from hostilities. There, I have good news for you. This instrument already exists; it’s called police and justice. Contradiction supports the threshold of culpability, whereas any grown man may persevere – just so in science, where dispute and discourse are the norm.
Thanks.
Götz Frömming (AfD): A very good
speech!
[trans: tem]
