On Tuesday, August 10th, a familiar picture emerged: Once again, the Prime Ministers of the federal states will meet with the Federal Chancellor, and once again decisions will be made on how to deal with the pandemic.
And it was also foreseeable beforehand that there would be discussions again about whether politicians could base their measures on conclusive justifications and, in particular, on valid data.
Science can - and should - give the reasons. We have many excellent scientists in Germany, as the past year and a half have clearly shown us. However, all too often this expertise is not yet reflected in scientific policy advice. This is problematic both for those who advise and for those who are advised, and thus for the political system as a whole. Some are accused of being responsible for unpopular measures to contain the corona pandemic. The others are assumed to be “subservient” to science, choose at will and ignore unpleasant voices outside the “mainstream”. Both sides are deeply convincedthat the newly created communication space functions according to its rules: Politics needs long-term valid and reliable decisions, while science makes new decisions at short notice according to advances in knowledge.
At the end of last year, a study by the European Council on Foreign Relations made it clear that the increasing demand for advice does not automatically translate into a higher appreciation of scientific work - or even greater trust in the advice and recommendations of experts.
Ultimately, the assumed arbitrariness undermines trust in democracy, because it fuels prejudices about political actors.
How the dialogue between politics and science can be improved
The state of scientific policy advice and the relationship between politics and science in Germany are therefore a serious problem - let's take it seriously. Of course, there is no single solution to changing an entire system. But some measures have the potential to improve it sustainably in dialogue with science and politics, far beyond the current pandemic.
First: A permanent, interdisciplinary structure for policy advice should be created that can react quickly in times of crisis and offer well-founded advice. Such a structure can build up expertise outside of times of crisis and thus create trust - both in politics and in the population. In the event of a crisis, these reservoirs can then be drawn upon. The inclusion of very different scientific disciplines also helps to avoid blind spots, as we often experienced at the beginning of the pandemic.