Corona superstars Alina Boyks and Melanie Brinkman discussed in Re: Publica On scientific communication. Accordingly, they would like the media to serve as affirmation platforms, but not as critical authorities.
After two and a half years of pandemic politics, we can all sing a long song about the relationship between science and society. Until the spring of 2020, many people naively assumed that science was committed to a fact that would be contested within science in a competitive, argumentative, fact-based bidding process until the most responsible theory and the best practical applications of that theory were finally found. Since spring 2020, we all know better. Because we have since tested day in and day out how much political water is boiled in science as well, making the soup of truth thinner and thinner and in the end leaving only a tasteful brown broth for politics.
So it is time to discuss the social responsibility of science in the most prominent place possible, not forgetting that society also has a responsibility to science. This is what happened in Re:Publica this year in Berlin-Kreuzberg, where on June 9, 2022 a conversation was taped between moderator Geraldine de Bastion, Alina Buicks and Melanie Brinkmann.
Brinkman and Boyks no longer need to provide: they are scientific role models who have legitimized the federal government’s policy on epidemic control over the past two and a half years, with all sorts of data and talk shows based on the scientific expertise they claim. Thus, they bear a large part of the responsibility for the closures that have been imposed since the spring of 2020 based on the concepts of zero infection with the Covid virus and for the vaccination campaign that was conducted as a viral drug.
Attractive public statements
Now if you believe in Re: Publica I had a discussion with two eminent scientists about the precarious relationship between the scientific claim of truth and the use of science by the state in order to understand the depths of their responsibility, then I must disappoint you. Not a word was said about it. Instead, there is a lot of talk about something the moderator puts it this way: “Society’s responsibility to scientists [mit glottal stop gesprochen]who take their time for scientific communication” (from minute 1:05).
Here, then, the arc of the dialectical tension between responsibility in science and society is resolved and transformed into a discussion of society’s reaction to scientific communication practiced by Brinkman and Boyks. But even here dialectics of such communication is not pursued – for example by asking how social knowledge relates to private knowledge of science and how both depend on each other. Instead, right in the beginning, the presenter asserts that Buyx and Brinkmann “accepted a lot of hostility” for trying to inform and inform the community about the current search results (from the 00:40 minute).
He makes this clear right from the start: It’s not about Buyx and Brinkmann’s responsibility for ongoing emergencies, but about their role as victims of the controversy. The fact that this alleged victim role is a direct consequence of the public statements of Boyks and Brinkman, which have been highly criticized by the media system, and the significance of these statements in turn is directly related to the status of the two women on the political-related advisory bodies, does not happen to the director nor to the worlds.
Ego enhancers and affirmation pads
Thus, the outcome of such a conversation is completely meaningless in a very precise sense: the two women want “scientific communication” – that is, the skilled and widespread presentation of science in social media – to be valued, rewarded in appointment negotiations and subsequently financial support from the university management from In order to get a professorship, but they don’t want to be criticized for their actions on social media and they certainly don’t want to attract dirty storms.
In other words: Buyx and Brinkmann want the media to be ego-reinforcers and affirmation platforms, but they do not want them as critical situations in which one has to defend one’s position with arguments and by using the person himself even during an unpleasant confrontation. stages. It suffices them if they were allowed to proclaim their truths through the media, and then, thanks to their evangelistic achievements, they also attained a similar status; But it bothers them that the media has a back channel where things can get hot and statements and standing are called into question.
In other words: Brinkman and Boyks do not have a concept of “communication” that goes beyond the function of a declaration. Because this is the case, they essentially have no concept of “science” beyond declaring dogmatically defined facts. That will be in the conversation on Re: Publica It’s very clear the moment Buyx starts talking about the fact that she was a victim of the “silencing effect” (starting at min 18:00).
What Miss Boyx means by this is: as a representative of the Ethics Board “to the outside world” (meaning she has been chair of the Ethics Board since 2020) “things are devastating” “so one was afraid too”, “also it ruins your day”, “it doesn’t put you In a good mood “,” It’s really affecting you ‘- even after two years you can no longer, ‘Then I stopped, Twitter more or less shut down’ “And what happened next was that the voice disappeared, and this is called the ‘silencing effect.’ This hatred and this personal approach – and it was done in a very coordinated way, and this is agreed upon, planned and deliberate – that is exactly what it is supposed to do with people who are silent “..
Hate as a legal fact
Please read the above paragraph again. If I’m not so wrong, you read nothing more than a public person’s complaint that in the debate about Corona, procedures, curfews and compulsory vaccination – on all this and especially in relation to the latter, Mrs. Those affected in the media are sometimes less than friendly and of course reflect heavily on those responsible for the threat to life and parties from the stress of lockdowns and even more so than compulsory vaccination.
What was Mrs. Boyx thinking, if you please? It seems that a little more than that is enough to introduce some dogmatic truth into the media system some committee has put in and then wait for applause. When that didn’t happen and violent boos could be heard from the back rows and Olympus, Mrs. Boyx’s voice not only stole, but she transformed from the responsible offender to the unfortunate victim in the face of strong headwinds.
but that is not all. Because Ms. Buyx is of course not just a victim, but thanks to her volunteer work (and she stresses this often) on the Ethics Board, she is a special victim. I want to say: by publicly attacking her as a representative of the Ethics Council on social media, the Ethics Council in her person is attacked, and of course the state is attacked with it. And because that’s, she says, “a real danger,” you have to “shoot all the guns” (from minute 20:10): “You have to start with the platforms,” which reinforce polarization through their tap logic, “you have to do something organizational. , I think”, that is, the application and implementation of criminal law tools on the Internet, after which a large number of people have to “step in” in order to weather the dirty storms: “civil courage” is therefore required. The audience thanked Mrs. Boyks with applause. Mrs. Brinkman could blow the same trumpet.
Celebrate with mutual applause
There is no doubt that “Network” is full of insults, and no one enjoys starting a storm of bullshit. Ms. Buyx is certainly right when she asks for applicable law to be enforced “on the internet”. But what makes Mrs. Boyks’ speech so interesting at the time is the identification of the arduous debate, which always threatens to quarrel forcefully on the sidelines, with “hate”, which as such is not a legal fact. And if you then exaggerate this “hate” by confusing the person and the office with “real danger” – to whom? Alina Buyx? Ethics board? Federal government? Even the state as a whole? —, implicit dogmatism, which punctuates Buyxen and Brinkmann’s contributions with beautiful continuity, penetrates in such a way that one can “shoot all guns” to defend the dogmatic position.
What it means when the country “burns” to silence unpleasant voices, Boyx seems to be able to successfully suppress them. Since it is unlikely that in the past few months they have not noticed how state media authorities have robbed radio and television (and podcast) stations of their existence, many of the representatives who publicly opposed the political science represented by the bank accounts at Buyx and Brinkmann terminated, that the judges who issued “False” rulings face home searches and accusations that make fun of the law, and that critics of the proceedings are often early in the morning when uniformed visitors from the apartment appear kicking the door with official permission and leaving behind chaos not only in the affected apartment.
These are the real victims who experienced really “horrible things” and not only “blew up the day”. Brinkman, Boyks, Presenter and those who want them Re: Publica-People don’t know anything. Their civic courage is limited to deeming loyalty to the state’s proclaimed Corona dogmatism and agreeing to dismantle democracy and the rule of law as a united resistance. That is why they celebrated each other in Berlin-Kreuzberg with applause.