Contents page 1 — The professionals remained invisible page 2 — interference is possible, page 3 avoided For some researchers it is wanted urgently media training To a page
read should be included in the textbooks – as an example of what can be run in a public dispute from the point of view of science all wrong. The nitrogen oxide-debate shows, as a retired doctor pushing a whole research discipline in the Defensive, well-established findings as to appear unsafe, and almost overnight, the German clean air policy may falter.
The Amazing thing: no new studies were necessary nor results of research, it is a two-page paper was enough. The pulmonologist Dieter Köhler represented the end of January, with a hundred like-minded to the Thesis that there is “no scientific justification for the current limits”, and certain days the headlines. Since then, uncertainty has increased in terms of air quality in this country, especially of:. For many citizens the impression that the science is on this issue at odds, and the risk due to air pollutants, therefore, ultimately a matter of opinion.
In the case of experts, the research in this area, there is in pure bewilderment. Prayer mill-like you to refer now to the fact that there are approximately 30,000 studies about air pollutants and an “overwhelming evidence” about the dangers of fine dust and nitrogen oxides. On individual limits, are always a political setting, one can argue, though. But the air pollutants on the health are detrimental, there is a Consensus among researchers nationwide.
This article dates back to the TIME no 07/2019. Here you can read the entire issue.
This raises the question: Why urge the science with this message? Why got to meet a whole discipline (epidemiology) and of good repute large-scale research organization to the private man Köhler in the behind?
The answer begins with the realization that köhler’s criticism unfolded so a effect, because they fit many car lobbyists perfectly into the concept and all the rules of media art has been escalated. In large letters, the newspaper announced the “Doctors revolt against fine dust-hysteria”, the world as a wonderful private initiative (one of whose authors, among others, the car engineer and Diesel-developer-Thomas cook) even made an official “paper of the German society for pneumology and respiratory medicine (DGP)”. Only around 100 have signed 3800 DGP-members of the paper, 97 percent of the lung specialists lined up behind köhler’s views.
for A week the researchers for their opinion – a half eternity
But such niceties were in the General excitement needed. Some science journalists tried bravely, the thing belonging, and to let other voices come to word. Editors of the ZDF magazine Frontal21, and the 3sat science magazine nano took the trouble, the signatories of köhler’s list, contacting them and asking how they had themselves occupied with the danger of nitrogen dioxide or particulate matter. Result: None of the Respondents was able to refer to their own research publications on the subject; the vast majority were, to the dangers of Diesel exhaust fumes at all, have no scientific Expertise.
However, since Köhler was long gone in today’s journal on the air, had been delivered in hard but fair to his limit-criticism, and thus set the theme that was commented on in the social media and on Twitter for so long, until hardly anyone was interested in the underlying evidence.
