Why behind the Drosten-armed a big misconception is

As it is now, the dispute among scientists, the disciplines of debate, Drosten against the "image", Kekulé contra Drosten, scientists per Drosten. Although Ch

Why behind the Drosten-armed a big misconception is

As it is now, the dispute among scientists, the disciplines of debate, Drosten against the "image", Kekulé contra Drosten, scientists per Drosten. Although Christian Drosten, Director of Virology at the Charité hospital in Berlin, was anything other than belligerent.

Rather, he deeskalierte as the Bonn virologist Hendrik Streeck at the beginning of April for his between the results of the Heinsberg-study has been criticized, and wrote on Twitter: "There is no reproach to the gentlemen, only a demand. Discourse allows for a scientific opinion. Even if some people wish to be taught to the dispute.“

In this Post to sounds what shows are currently all the more clearly: science explanations need. Again and again. Just when all the talk about it.

The big misconception of many: All of the publications present findings that apply in General. However, it always depends on the nature of the study, the scientists are doing, their approach, etc. to a Problem, to be able to interpret the results. A scientific debate on the study results, is not uncommon.

  • All the important news to the Coronavirus pandemic, you read in the News-Ticker of FOCUS Online
Who against whom? Christian Drosten against... and why criticism is important

An article with the Headline "Questionable methods: Drosten-study of infectious children grossly wrong," sparked the current debate. Many are now discussing the investigation made by Christian Drosten, head of Virology at the Charité hospital in Berlin, about how infectious the children are well.

The whole story of the scandal that is second to none, you can read here in Detail.

statisticians criticized in one or the other of the methods used. The pandemic-researchers Alexander Kekulé, and said in his Podcast, the Interpretation of the result was "simply wrong". Similar to Hendrik Streeck said. "The method has been criticized by five statisticians, and this criticism is no accident," said the scientist in an Interview with the editor-in network in Germany (RND).

Now it's part of the scientific Work, suggestions for improvement and criticism from other scientists, to get learning. For this you would have open ears, like Drosten said in his Podcast (episode 43): "Yes, This is just part of a scientific publication. Even if one is already on the Preprint stage, there is a formal review process.“ His Team can see the feedback on Twitter and so on, "as a preliminary assessment notice".

you can read on the topic: "is The completely misleading": Drosten defended in the Podcast against the "picture"report,

A statistician, who have practiced well-founded criticism, would you have included in your Team: "We are now in the process with our Team and to work together on an Update of this study, before we submit it formally for publication."

This is the usual process of scientific progress. Which leads to the next point: What makes a scientific study of a good scientific study? What are the stages it goes through?

Who knows what? So scientific processes are running – usually,

Ultimately for scientists to begin with the questions: What should be studied? What is the appropriate method for that? What data need have we? The design of the study can vary greatly. For example, there are observational studies in which no treatment occurs, but the subjects are merely observed. In drug research, there is Placebo also about so-called randomized controlled trials, in which randomly a part of the study, a treatment with a drug, a control group, in contrast, only one. Also meta-analyses in the medical industry. The studies that analyze the results of several already published Works and to provide an Overview. These types of studies are just examples, there are many more.

it is Important for the publication of study results, so-called Peer Reviews, so the discussion of the findings in professional conferences. In this process, independent experts will assess a submitted work. In time-consuming expert opinions you give points to the study's authors feedback – for example, to criticism. Thus, various disciplines have the possibility of improvements. A good study will ultimately be published in a renowned scientific magazine.

Up to a study the Peer-Review process has gone through, and in a specialist magazine is published, it can six months. An infinitely long period of time in the dynamic Corona pandemic. In this respect, it seems logical that the so-called Preprint Server for fast publications are very popular.

Where are we today? So scientific processes in Corona-times

In the Corona-crisis now, a lot is different. Scientists have switched to the Turbo mode. Both with regard to the search of medicines and the development of a vaccine, as well as in the research about Sars-CoV-2. Established standard schedules to be streamlined before. In mad speed on popping daily new publications on the so-called Preprint servers. The most popular for the Coronavirus research hot bioRxiv and medRxiv. On these platforms, for Prior publications, only professionals – view usually, in the meantime, however, lay people and journalists.

without the control of the scientific writings are not to land there. The above-mentioned Server, for example, have describes a two-stage review process, such as "spektrum.de": "First of all submitted Papers by in-house staff on plagiarism and incomplete, and tested. Then, scientists and specialists who have volunteered to take the manuscripts under the magnifying glass and browse the Work according to the unscientific content or statements that could present a risk to the health or biosecurity.“

the advantage of The quick publications – the Drosten and his colleagues took advantage of The results fast scientists around the world are available and can be discussed. This shows where potential weaknesses lie and improvements can be made. Exactly this is happening.

This created a special Situation, said Rainer Bromme, Senior Professor of Educational psychology at the Institute for psychology, Westfälische Wilhelms-Universität Münster, in a press conference. Any misunderstanding, and any criticism of the work of the Berlin virologists would be perceived as "an indication of a real Problem". This, in turn, reasons to "either ignorant or malicious misunderstanding of how science actually works".

Drosten, however, the technical criticism, and takes it into account. The scientific practice.

The views of the Public and the proximity to the policy

Never before have the Virology to stand in such a way in Public as in the current crisis. Incredibly, many people are interested in currently, for viruses, how they are constructed, who is what time is contagious and how they spread. In order for specialized knowledge – and yet not similarly, the use of scientific methods.

Therefore it is very important to make this again and again in a transparent, explained Bromme. Because science communication is to bring a variety of dilemmas with it. One of them is that "there is a legitimate public expectation that scientific results are clear, provide guidance. But often it is a stop in the process, where you must produce this uniqueness only“.

In this Drosten, the children study also. The showed their analysis of infected children, which is similar to many of the Sars-CoV-2 viruses in the throat had as an adult.

a virologist Kekulé criticised the fact that the Charité researchers had published the investigation, even before the Peer-Review process and added: "If you make such a Public, get the public criticism." This is the same thing that happened with the Heinsberg-study. Already at that time, Drosten had defended the actions of the colleagues:

Hendrik Streeck informed, in turn, the methodological critique of the Drosten-study, but solid, the linearized, at the same time. It was difficult "to separate between legitimate criticism and what is then made medial to it," said the Director of the Institute for Virology at the University hospital of Bonn the RND to the controversial report of the "Bild"newspaper. "The type of reporting I would distance myself."

Ultimately, were Drosten, and he, as well as statisticians that were critical, "in a Team, in Team science". And added: "I feel for him, this is a very unpleasant Situation in which he is located." As a scientist, one is sometimes "not clear, in which political and media situation, one goes there." The had fared with him even in the course of the Heinsberg-study similar.

All the latest info on Coronavirus pandemic, you can find in the News Ticker.

current Corona-Radar: Pentecost is coming – all the rules for beach visitors

Updated Date: 28 May 2020, 14:26

You need to login to comment.

Please register or login.

RELATED NEWS