What is now renowned worldwide as the Max-Planck-Society was established on January 11th, 1911, exactly 100 years ago in Berlin. At first it was the “Kaiser-Wilhelm-Gesellschaft” (KWG). The today 80 institutions (with about 5000 scientists) make it one of the most successful scientific endeavors in Germany. The Berlin Tagesspiegel has the general story, explaining that it was quite an innovation. Its founder, too, was unusual politically: Adolf von Harnack (a theologist and director of the Royal Library), who set up this basic research institution using (at least partly) private money. Harnack’s concept of science management was to find a brilliant scientist and build an institute “around” him. Although inherently authoritarian and hierarchical it succeeded. The article does not spare the dark times of the Kaiser-Wilhelm-Society during the first world war, when its Haber Institute was engaged in toxic gas research, or under the Nazi-regime, when the KWG did not resist expulsion of Jewish scientists.
However, the article lacks a deep assessment of the KWG’s and MPG’s past and, first and foremost, its current role in the German society. And that’s not a surprise, because the author is a scientist from the Max-Planck-Institute for Science History in Berlin. An independent journalist might have been a better choice and could have asked more uncomfortable questions, in my opinion. I mention this here, because Newspapers like the Tagesspiegel tend to allow more and more “guest authors” (well, they do write for free, you know). Sometimes it might be fine to get an inside view from an expert or the perspective of authors other than journalists. But this topic is one that may have been served much better by a journalist – and not what Germans call a “Hofberichterstatter”.
Also: Flatulence a disease?
The Austrian Standard published a story about flatulence, based on a survey from the food company Danone Activia (which, what a surprise, sells products with claims against flatulence). Nine out of ten Austrian women, according to the “study”, are said to know the feeling of a bloated stomach. The article explains early on, that flatulence is a normal condition and not a disease. But than, why is it worth to be printed, anyway? This is not a scientific study, but it will be read as such, if journalists frame it the same way as peer-reviewed studies. Of course, such a survey (and the accompanying press release) might serve as the starting point for a journalist story. But than the author should hint the reader, that last year Danone drew back an application to get approval from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) for a health claim for their yoghurt products Actimel and Activia? And that the British advertisement agency ASA stopped Actimel spots claiming a positive health effect of the yoghurt for kids.
We just shouldn’t make it too easy for companies to get their (unproven) messages out to the consumers.
Worth to mention: One against Big Pharma
Is it worth to spend hundreds of millions of tax money every year for influenza vaccines? The Neue Zürcher Zeitung published a profile of the British-Italian doctor Tom Jefferson from the Cochrane Collaboration, who try encourage evidence based decisions in medicine and health care. Jefferson, part of the Concrane’s Acute Respiratory Infections Group, claims, that the evidence for the widespread use of influenza vaccines and medications is weak. The article not only explains the reasons for Jefferson’s doubts regarding the “influenza pandemic” but also his personality.
Sascha Karberg
Leave a Reply