Michael Kaufmann, June 13, 2024, The Communication of Science

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]

Michael Kaufmann, March 15, 2023, Vaccination Side-effects

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/990, p. 10773. 

Right honorable Herr President. Esteemed colleagues.

You, dear colleagues of the CDU, in your motion focus almost exclusively on the research on the so-called Long Covid Syndrome. The research on the vaccination side-effects, named Post-Vac, you appear to regard rather as a kind of additional matter [Beifang]. Yet you thereby presume to already anticipate the results of the research animated by you. Science initially proceeds from observed phenomena and from there seeks origins and relations, yet does not previously anticipate these.

Solely ascertainable today is that in the wake of the Corona epidemic there arrived an enormously increased number of lasting, manifest, in part very distinct pathologies [Krankheitsbilder]. Yet whether these various pathologies are to be traced back to an infection or to the vaccination, serious research must first determine.

Contrary to the emphasis in your motion, the vaccination side-effects are not marginal phenomena. The EMA’s data bank as of February 18 lists almost 2.2 million cases of side-effects of the Covid shots throughout Europe, around 630,000 of which are serious. It comes to 27,669 fatal cases. And those are only the reported cases!

Let us recall: Especially Herr Lauterbach – he is not here today; the government bench on the whole is astonishingly empty – and with him the entire previous and current government bench spoke at the time of a highly effective vaccination free of side-effects. Today we know that both were not right, not to say were lies. Had not this government been so resistant to advice, then they would have listened to the numerous, worldwide warnings of recognized scientists like the co-inventor of the mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone. Instead, the citizens were driven to this experimental gene therapy with a mixture of false promises and massive pressure.

Even still in November of last year, to my written individual inquiry, Herr Lauterbach had informed me – I cite: “Accordingly, there are now no risk signals for the complaints designated by the term Post-Vac Syndrome”. In that regard, at that point in time the sparrows were already whistling from the roofs that the Covid shots are entirely other than free of side-effects.

            Rupert Stüwe (SPD): It’s vaccinations!

Sunday evening, the so-inclined viewers needed to watch Herr Lauterbach’s embarrassing squirming on the ZDF’s “heute journal” as he finally under stress for once addressed his seriously false descriptions of the Covid vaccination. A supposed health expert and then Health Minister who has to answer for such catastrophic mis-estimates must immediately resign.

Your motion, dear colleagues of the Union, sets false priorities. The tens of thousands of people in our country who suffer under the side-effects of the shots need finally to be helped. For the research on Long Covid preferred by you, considerable means have already been made available. For that, there are no fewer than ten research associations. On the other hand, the Health Minister was so far not ready to commit even one euro for the research on vaccination side-effects. That is a mockery of the people who once trusted him.

We are anxious for the deliberations in the committees, but we now say to you that we will not vote for your motion in this form.

Many thanks.

 

[trans: tem]

Michael Kaufmann, March 1, 2023, Research Strategy

German Bundestag, Plenarprotokoll 20/87, p. 10392.

Right honorable Frau President. Esteemed colleagues.

Honored Frau Minister, I repeatedly remonstrated to you that the research policy lacks a clear strategy and alignment. My expectations for the future strategy put forward were correspondingly high.

And now? What a disappointment! Here, generalities alternate with flowery phrases and vague intentions. It is a series of ever the same statements on the importance of research, on the transfer from research to application and on international cooperation. I ask myself: Do you want to disguise with this wordy work how little you have to say substantially on the future of research and science, or is this just one of many voluminous marketing brochures? From a strategy deserving of the name, I in any case expect very much more substance and less verbiage.

You call this strategy – I cite: “The basis upon which we want to continue to build in the course of the legislature”. May I remind you that 17 of 48 months of this legislature are already past? Yet you, ja, write you will “accelerate the tempo”. Oh ja, here one can become quite dizzy after putting forward in just 17 months 86 pages of printed paper.

Nevertheless, let us look at a small selection from your deliberations. You want to more strongly delineate variety in regards to sex, migration background, etc. Should that now mean that more should be promoted not according to performance but according to quota? You certainly act as if we had scientific talent like sand by the sea which has not previously had a chance on account of an alleged discrimination.

In another place you speak of a “continual further development of the education system”. “Further development” is here indeed a euphemism when one considers the requirements for those starting studies in math and science subjects ever again need to be reduced because those studying for the Abitur no longer bring with them the necessary tools.

You want to “further raise our attractivity as a country of immigration” and “construct and make more attractive immigration opportunities”. That is, ja, one of the few points at which this government has long since succeeded. Only plainly not for well-qualified skilled labor and academics.

You finally also identify “limiting or constraining factors” like a lack of transfer culture, a skilled labor shortage and others. Only the most constraining factor you disregard: A dark mood of despondency which lay like mildew on our country in 16 years of Merkel government [eine düstere Stimmung der Mutlosigkeit, die sich in 16 Jahren Merkel Regierung wie Mehltau auf unser Land gelegt hat] and which by the present government has again been reinforced.

In the end, all that you have contrived is under a general finance reservation. The solution of our problems thus lies according to your own words in education, research and innovation; yet this solution is under a finance reservation. Do you fail to recognize, does the Federal government so much fail to recognize the priorities, or is that your colleague Lindner, who still has not recognized what hour has struck?

I fear this work shall verbosely cover up that, basically, your hands are tied. Your hands are tied because our resources, instead of securing the future, are preferably expended for weapons in the Ukraine and uncontrolled migration into the social system.

            Maja Wallstein (SPD): That must come! Naturally!           

Gabriele Katzmarek (SPD): And here we have it again! Is nothing                                            too stupid for you, or?

In the present situation, we require an authentic mood of change [echte Aufbruchstimmung], the concentration on essentials and the unchaining of all powers. To that, this so-called strategy unfortunately makes no usable contribution.

 

[trans: tem]