For the infallible Dr. Drosten there are very special rules

FOCUS columnist Jan Fleischhauer

Sunday, 07.06.2020, 16:35

Even the Greta Thunberg enthusiasm cannot compete with the admiration that the Berlin chief virologist Christian Drosten enjoys. One wrong sentence about the man from the Charité and you're stung into a hornets' nest.

I need to work on my prejudice structure. I always thought the virologist was more of the cuddly type, who hides behind his test tubes in the laboratory because he can't get his teeth apart during a conversation. How a columnist can be fooled. If there are divas in science, then there are divas in virology. What egos, what an urge to communicate, what sensitivity!

Professor K., virologist in Halle, says about the latest publication of Professor D., virologist in Berlin: "Well, if you ask him, he thinks the study of the colleague should never have been published like this. He wouldn't have published something so thin. So Professor D. picks up his mobile phone and tells us on Twitter that Professor K. is not a member of the scientific community. And secondly, one could not criticize K.'s studies because Professor K. had not published anything for a long time. That's what you call to diss someone.

Dr. Drosten: Explainer of the wondrous world of viruses

Actually, I didn't want to write anything about the Drosten case. Why deliberately take a storm of indignation on your neck? One wrong sentence on the subject and you're stung by a hornet's nest. Even Greta Thunberg's enthusiasm for the man from the Charité is no match for the admiration he enjoys. From the "taz" to the "FAZ", they ironically stick to the likeable doctor with the boyish smile who explains the wondrous world of viruses to us like no other.

I wouldn't be surprised if the first people wrote in the near future that he should become chancellor. Or President. Just now the "Spiegel" has raised him to his title. Only two scientists have made it to the front page in the 73 years since the magazine was founded: Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking. This is the level on which we move.

Drosten as Virus Pope? Obviously delicate

Besides, I have already been reprimanded once, this should be an additional warning to me. In March, we published a drawing for a column of mine that showed Christian Drosten as the virus pope. I found the drawing successful. Drosten as pope? There are more unfavorable comparisons.

Drosten knows how to put others to shame. Julian Reichelt? Never heard that name. Hendrik Streeck? We're waiting for the manuscript with the results. But the aggressiveness is subliminal, so it's easy to overlook.

Dr. Drosten himself, however, did not find the illustration at all funny. He complained that there were newspapers that painted caricatures of virologists. If this does not stop, we will reach the point where science will have to withdraw from the public. Whew, lucky again. If I had suspected that I might be to blame in the end when not only the famous virologist falls silent, but with him all the science he stands for, I would have let them cut off my fingers rather than give my placard for such a drawing. I don't want to end up like the "Bild" editor-in-chief Julian Reichelt, who has been considered a journalistic scum since his controversy.

On the other hand, as a columnist you can't always choose your topics. Sometimes the topics come to the columnist.

The tone is set

Even people who have never bought a "Bild" newspaper in their lives are likely to be aware of the dispute, whether Drosten and his team miscalculated when they counted the viruses in children's throats (as the "Bild" claims) - or whether the deficiencies that have come to light are ultimately a few insignificant statistical distortions (as Team Drosten claims).

The question of how infectious children are is not insignificant. It depends on the answer whether politicians can dare to return to the regular operation of schools and daycare centres. This is one of the reasons why the study, which the Charité research team presented at the end of April, received such attention. Drosten himself tweeted: "No significant differences between children and adults." This set the tone that was then taken up in countless articles and headlines.

The publication was only a preprint, it is now said, since there are doubts about its validity, a preliminary publication that virtually invites a critical review. Poor Hendrik Streeck from Bonn, however, was not treated so leniently when he presented a preliminary version of the so-called Heinsberg study at the beginning of April. Streeck was accused of having gone public prematurely in order to influence political decisions.

Dr. Drosten as Streeck critic

Dr. Drosten from Berlin appeared as a particularly committed critic. On the evening of the presentation day, he was a guest in the "Heute Journal", where, after "congratulations to the colleagues" from Bonn, he dissected the study according to all rules of art. It was not clear whether laboratory tests had been carried out to exclude false results. There were also statistical deficiencies. "If everything is technically correct and statistically correct and really representative of Germany..." A typical Drosten sentence: gentle but devastating.

The final results of the investigation are now available. They essentially confirm the interim results, but that does not help Streeck any more. He is now considered the author of the "controversial Heinsberg study". I have learned from "Der Spiegel" that the Bayerischer Rundfunk has stopped its podcast on scientific issues.

The Robert Habeck of medicine

That can't happen to Dr. Drosten. Drosten is the Robert Habeck of medicine. Everything about him meets with approval. The appearance ("those sweet black curls!"). The mischievous smile that gives him something youthful. The language, of course, which never becomes sharp or hurtful.

Drosten knows how to put others to shame. Julian Reichelt? Never heard that name. Hendrik Streeck? We're waiting for the manuscript with the results. But the aggressiveness is subliminal, so it's easy to overlook.

A colleague said Drosten reminded her of a passive-aggressive mother-in-law, under whose kindness lies this slightly offended tone that others might see it differently. Well, I make my dough with lots of raisins. If S. or K. think they can do without raisins, that's their business. Everybody makes their own dough the way they like it. I just think a good dough should have raisins in it.

Part of the political game

This peculiar impressiveness is also found in the way political power is handled. Drosten was present several times at important meetings, in the Federal Ministry of the Interior, at meetings with the prime ministers and the chancellor. When asked about this, he says that he is only presenting the results of his research and that others must draw conclusions from them. Let us take it as an attempt by a scientist to preserve his innocence, even though he has long been part of the political game. Dürrenmatt would have enjoyed it.

In the matter of "Bild" versus Drosten, there is much to be said for "Bild". Last week the industry service "Übermedien" ("Overmedia") run by media critic Stefan Niggemeier, who is certainly no friend of the Springer press, came to the conclusion that the tabloid had largely correctly reflected the reservations about the children's study: "The fact that almost all scientific critics distance themselves from the "Bild" coverage is not because they withdraw their criticism, but because they do not want to be part of a tabloid campaign that threatens to discredit scientific research as a whole.

It won't change your admiration for Dr. Drosten. Robert Habeck has also missed the mark on several occasions, without it harming his reputation. Just as Habeck will be back on the talk show of your confidence next Sunday, Christian Drosten will present us with the latest results from corona research next week. Can one resist such eyes?

Translated and reblogged Version - Original here