Statement

ooInterdisciplinary Commission for Pandemic Research,
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German
Research Foundation)

The Sciences and Humanities in theCoronavirus Pandemic
Insights, knowledge and action gaps, and conclusions
for the preparedness for future pandemics

Information management

DFGDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft e. V.
Kennedyallee 40 · 53175 Bonn
Postal address: 53170 Bonn, Germany
Tel.: +49 228 885-1
Fax: +49 228 885-2777
postmaster@dfg.de
www.dfg.de/en

All DFG publications are compiled with care. Nevertheless, the authors, editors and the DFG do not assume any liability whatsoever, including in relation to this document, for the correctness of any information, references or advice
or for any potential printing errors.
The reproduction of product names, trade names or other distinguishing marks in this document does not give rise to
the assumption that they may be freely used. These may in fact be registered trademarks or other legally protectedmarks, even if they are not specifically designated as such.
The text of this publication is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BYSA 4.0) Licence. For the full text of the licence, see: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode.de.

September 2022
Dr. Anne Brüggemann
Head of Division Humanities and Social Sciences 2: Social and Behavioural SciencesTel. +49 228 885-2213
anne.brueggemann@dfg.de
Further information is also available on the DFG website of the interdisciplinary Commission for Pandemic Research:www.dfg.de/en/research_funding/corona_information/commission
Editorial status: August 2022
DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7043356

1 Summary: Starting points from which to improve the preparedness for future pandemics

Index
1

Summary: Starting points from which to improve the preparedness for future
pandemics...................................................................................................................... 52

Introduction ................................................................................................................... 93

The sciences in the coronavirus pandemic ................................................................10
3.1

Research accomplishments, science support structures and funding policy
measures in the coronavirus pandemic ................................................................10

3.2

Challenges posed by the pandemic to the process of scientific production ...........17

3.3

Science communication and scientific advice for policymakers andadministration .......................................................................................................22

4

Appendix .......................................................................................................................26
4.1

List of references ..................................................................................................26

4.2

Members of the interdisciplinary DFG Commission for Pandemic Research.........31

4

1 Summary: Starting points from which to improve the preparedness for future pandemics

5

1 Summary: Starting points from which to improve the preparedness for future pandemics
As a result of the coronavirus pandemic, the sciences have received much attention and havebeen involved in the events of the pandemic in many ways. The DFG’s Interdisciplinary Commission for Pandemic Research has deliberated on its members experiences and observations inthis connection so as to identify gaps in knowledge and action and to set out what needs to bedone to prepare for future pandemics and other crises.
The sciences and humanities have dealt with the causes and consequences of the pandemic ingreat subject-specific breadth and will have to continue to do so for a long time to come. Interdisciplinary dialogue is of particular importance here, and this is reflected in the composition andwork of the Commission for Pandemic Research.
The “Lessons Learnt” set out here are addressed to the research community, research organisations and research funders, as well as policy-makers, administrators and media representatives.
They identify key starting points and resilience strategies for improved preparedness for future
pandemics in three areas:
I.

Research accomplishments, science support structures and funding policy measures in
the coronavirus pandemic

1. Continue to strengthen knowledge-oriented basic research in the future: The basis

for a rapid response to future, unpredictable crisis situations remains free, curiosity-driven
basic research that produces a broad-based store of knowledge and a sound basis forjudgement. Here lies the key to overcoming crises and the financial burdens they impose.
For this reason, such research must not be weakened in the future compared to programme-oriented funding with a predefined focus.
2. Provide support for the national and international networking of the sciences and human-ities as a building block in crisis management: When opportunities for travel and physicalcontact are limited, institutional and personal researcher networks and collaboration in thesciences and humanities are particularly crucial for crisis management given the global
nature of pandemics. Effective collaboration requires thoroughly prepared and to someextent previously established support structures and international coordination in order toallow the joint development, harmonisation and use of study protocols, survey instruments, endpoints for clinical intervention studies and data sets.

1 Summary: Starting points from which to improve the preparedness for future pandemics

6

3. Strengthen appropriate formats for interdisciplinary cooperation: Interdisciplinary

approaches continue to be vital when it comes to tackling and overcoming complex crises.
Many researchers cooperated in the pandemic in new ways across academic disciplines,
going beyond their traditional subject-specific environment. Research funders are called
upon to pick up on this development and leverage the potential of wide-ranging interdisciplinary research based on appropriate funding formats and processes.
4. Avoid the “Covidisation” of academic research: The temporary concentration of fund-ing on current crises is understandable and necessary. However, longer-term concentration of funding must be avoided in order to continuously fill the store of knowledge for
future and unforeseen pandemics and other crises. Similarly, work on crisis-related issues
does not provide a reliable basis for the development of academic careers.
5. Provide sustainable funding for capacity to address pressing research questionsin the short term: The timely availability of highly qualified staff is essential for the flexible
and short-term handling of new and urgent research topics. This requires the building ofadditional staff capacity (qualification level: postdoc) for research that is not financed fromthird-party funds. It will create greater stability in crisis situations while at the same timeallowing for greater responsiveness within the research system itself.
6. Research and understand the cascading consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic

in the long-term: Research into the pandemic must not finish when the pandemic “comesto an end”: the long-term effects of this watershed moment also have to be recorded andintegrated into strategies to prepare for future pandemics. There is still a need for longterm research in almost all research fields so as to analyse the consequences of the pandemic for healthcare systems worldwide, the education sector, the manufacturing economy, trade and indeed society as a whole.

II.

Challenges posed by the pandemic to the process of scientific production

7. Strengthen the digital infrastructure of the research system: A pandemic not only

generates a great need for knowledge, it also has a massive impact on the production ofscientific knowledge itself. Resilience must be improved through the digitalisation of science administration and research infrastructures.
8. Adjust funding measures to ensure equal opportunity in the research system: Fund-ing measures aimed at ensuring equal treatment should be re-evaluated in order to preventively counteract the unevenly distributed negative effects of a pandemic on scientificproductivity due to the loss of care structures for children and relatives requiring care –especially on female researchers and in particular those in early career phases.

1 Summary: Starting points from which to improve the preparedness for future pandemics

7

9. Establish new forms of quality assurance in the academic publication process: Inorder to be able to publish swiftly on time-critical topics while at the same time ensuring
quality, a culture of pre-publication is needed in as many research areas as possible, also
including peer commentary or open peer review, and established through academic training. Incentive structures provided by research organisations and funding agencies mustbe aligned in such a way that academic reputation can also be achieved via these formsof publication.
10. Clearly convey the limits of scientific evidence in communication: Pandemics requirea rapid response. The basis for decisions made regarding the measures of pandemic
management should be clearly communicated by those with political responsibility. A clear
distinction must be drawn between what is scientific knowledge, what is conjecture andwhat is “common sense” and extrapolation.
11. Create structures for knowledge-based recommendations for action: Supranational

bodies that formulate recommendations for action in crisis situations based on interdisciplinary criteria and synthesised evidence are the prerequisite for an efficient, targeted response that gives rise to as few undesirable societal side effects as possible.
12. Improve access, availability and linkage of data as a matter of urgency: Scientific(health) research in Germany operates on a limited data basis, which has at least delayedurgent analyses and studies. Building digital structures and improving access to public
administration data sets (e.g. social security data, tax data, education data, health data,
data about businesses) and their linkability across institutions, federal states and stateborders is therefore essential for research on the social and economic implications of thepandemic and measures to address its consequences in Germany.

III.

Science communication and scientific advice for policymakers and administration

13. Enable scientists to communicate science: Science and the humanities are not yet

well equipped for communication to society. Researchers who are actively engaged incommunication need both resources and qualification programmes to improve their media
competence and their knowledge of the media system. They also need advice and support
from their institutions. This is especially true in highly dynamic times and when their personal and academic integrity is under attack.
14. Develop and strengthen journalists’ understanding of science and the humanities:

In scientific reporting, the journalistic principle of balancing positions carries the risk of a
distorted perception of the evidence among the public and decision-makers in politics andadministration, with potentially detrimental consequences for the handling and management of the pandemic. Familiarity with scientific knowledge production and the research1 Summary: Starting points from which to improve the preparedness for future pandemics

8

system are therefore essential for good media communication relating to science and thehumanities.
15. Create a central communication structure for effective health and crisis communi-

cation: In order to improve the implementation of knowledge while at the same time counteracting misinformation and disinformation, as well as strengthening trust throughout society at large, communication to the public requires a central communication structure thatis able to answer urgent questions about the current state of knowledge and make information publicly and comprehensibly accessible.
16. Investigate the conditions of implementation for evidence-based health communi-

cation: Further (implementation) research and its translation into guidelines for future use
is needed in order to achieve improved transformation of “lessons to be learnt” into “lessons learnt”.
17. Formulate clear rules for scientific policy advice: Policy advice by science and thehumanities requires bodies (e.g. expert councils, committees) that are bound by rulebased and transparent procedures, structures and processes regarding staffing and decision-making, and they also need the appropriate resources to enable an academic approach to the issues. Scientific advice is supported by the appropriate structures for rapid
evidence generation and synthesis.

2 Introduction

92 Introduction
In the current pandemic, the sciences and humanities have provided an invaluable service. They
were well prepared in Germany in that a broad base of knowledge-oriented research and therelevant research structures were already in place. For example, it was possible to develop vaccines so quickly due to the years of basic research and academic cooperation that went on beforehand. This also led to a powerful and positive public perception of science [1] and therefore
to high expectations.
The purpose for this paper is to illustrate the specific contributions and fields of action of thesciences and humanities in the current pandemic by way of examples and to outline the structuraladjustments required to enable greater capacity for action in future pandemics and other crises.
After all, the coronavirus pandemic has occurred at a time of multiple complex global crises (climate change, loss of biodiversity and related ecosystem resilience functions, armed conflict, etc.)
in which we benefit considerably from scientifically validated knowledge, scientific structures andresources.
This paper by the DFG Commission for Pandemic Research is a synopsis of observations andinsights from the various phases of an ongoing pandemic from the perspective of the researchers
involved. It does not claim to fully represent the diverse range of research and funding activities
in the German research system as a whole and beyond. Rather, it seeks to exemplify “lessons
learnt” based on concrete examples. At the same time, the conclusions are consistent with andlink up to publications issued by other scientific bodies on this topic [2]. This synopsis also identifies further research needs and describes the development of frameworks that are required totranslate these into effective action. The aim is to strengthen future pandemic preparedness1
through the interaction of the various scientific disciplines. This interaction also characterises thework of the Interdisciplinary DFG Commission on Pandemic Research. In accordance with its
statutes, the DFG serves science and the humanities in all its branches. Based on this philosophy,
the pandemic was understood from the outset as a challenge to research that must involve virtually all fields of science and scholarship, and this is reflected in the Commission’s membership.
This led to a profitable interdisciplinary exchange on pandemic-related research needs and therequirements of the sciences and humanities. This paper summarises the status of the discussions as of summer 2022.

1 WHO: Pandemic preparedness is a continuous process of planning, exercising, revising and translating into action

national and sub-national pandemic preparedness and response plans. A pandemic plan is thus a living document
which is reviewed regularly and revised if necessary, for example based on the lessons learnt from outbreaks or apandemic or from a simulation exercise [3].

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

10

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic
In the very early months of 2020, researchers in Germany reacted to the onset of the coronavirus
pandemic simultaneously by engaging in intense research activity and demonstrating a high levelof commitment to providing scientific advice to policymakers and administrators, as well as providing the public with information in the form of comprehensive reports on the current state of research at any given time. Parallel to this, the institutions of the research system created the scopefor research to be conducted into the manifold direct and indirect problems and consequences ofthe pandemic.

3.1 Research accomplishments, science support structures andfunding policy measures in the coronavirus pandemic
In Germany, research and communication initially focused on virology/infectiology, clinical medicine and the mathematical modelling of infection dynamics. Even at the beginning of the pandemic, it was possible to draw on a broad knowledge base and the relevant research structures,and this was immediately put to use in the new situation. For example, the DFG has been funding
research for many years on biological aspects of coronaviruses and other zoonotic viruses aswell as on preclinical and clinical issues in infections with coronaviruses and other pathogens thatlead to diseases with pandemic potential [4]. In addition, DFG-supported projects are dedicatedto a wide range of fundamental questions that may be relevant to pandemics, for example in thefield of biodiversity research, science and health communication, economics and education.
Immunotherapies are an outstanding example of the long-term value of knowledge-oriented basic
research and its funding. The use of research findings emerging from this field enabled the rapid
development of SARS-CoV-2-specific vaccination strategies and formed the basis for the mRNA
vaccine platform used by the Mainz-based company BioNTech for its COVID-19 vaccine developed jointly with the US pharmaceutical company Pfizer. This goes back to preliminary work carried out from 2006 to 2008 as part of a DFG-funded Collaborative Research Centre dedicated tocancer research at the University of Mainz.

Lesson Learnt: Continue to strengthen knowledge-oriented basic research in the future
1. The basis for a rapid response to future unpredictable crisis situations remains free, curiositydriven basic research that produces a broad-based store of knowledge and a sound basis forjudgement. Here lies the key to overcoming crises and the financial burdens they impose. For

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

11

this reason, such research must not be weakened in the future compared to programme-oriented
funding with a predefined focus.

The research-funding institutions responded swiftly to the enormous increase in national andworldwide research activities and the high level of demand for research into the novel coronavirus.
Efforts included activities on the part of the various private and public funding institutions and the
involvement of various ministries and departments in covering the breadth of the challenge posedby the pandemic. The programmes launched included measures dedicated to topic-related, project-based research funding as well as the targeted development and expansion of research
structures.
One example of this is the Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin (NUM) established by the BMBF in
March 2020. With the aim of networking and coordinating medical research into COVID-19, a
structure was established between the 36 university hospitals in Germany under which thirteen
topics relating to pandemic-related clinical care and research are currently being worked on innationwide, multi-site projects. The NUM supports nationwide coordination and exchange among
all university hospitals in order to meet the challenges posed by SARS-CoV-2. By pooling resources, competencies and research activities, data and findings are to be collected and evaluated as completely, comprehensively and promptly as possible [5].
From the very start of the pandemic, it was obvious that there was a need for a global perspective
and international comparative research. Accordingly, in its call for proposals for interdisciplinary
research on epidemics and pandemics (see below), for example, the DFG explicitly encouraged
cooperation with international researchers and made it possible to apply for the necessary funding. Another DFG call for proposals under COVID-19 Focus Funding entitled “Impacts of theCoronavirus Pandemic in the Global South: Health Systems and Society” (see below) targeted
research projects with international partners in the Global South [6]. These international/transnational and in some cases personal (bottom-up) networks formed an essential pillar – not only fora successful proposal submission but also for joint research that remains viable even under pandemic-related restrictions.
The Sino-German Center for Research Promotion (CDZ) – a joint institution run by the DFG and
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) – published a call for proposals in May
2020 in order to support joint research efforts between China and Germany in the field of COVID19 research. 20 German-Chinese research projects are currently being funded within this framework [7]. Initiatives to establish entirely new cooperative ventures were only fruitful to a limited
extent. For example, members of the Commission for Pandemic Research were actively involved

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

12in the digital workshops run by Science-Europe and the National Natural Science Foundation ofChina (NSFC) in 2021. The aim here was to bring together European and Chinese researchers
working on COVID-19 and initiate new research collaborations. However, concrete joint research
on a significant scale hardly emerged from this and also failed to materialise within other initiatives, not least because it was not possible to exchange data, for example because Chinese
institutions do not share their infection figures.
The joint statements issued by the national academies of the member countries for the 2022 G7
Summit emphasise the importance of better integrated, interdisciplinary, international and transdisciplinary cooperation in science from an international perspective, as well as international coordination in the harmonisation of clinical trials, for example, with a view to ensuring improved
global pandemic and health preparedness [8].
Lesson Learnt: Provide support for the national and international networking of the sciences andhumanities as a building block in crisis management
2. When opportunities for travel and physical contact are limited, institutional and personal researcher networks and collaboration in the sciences and humanities are particularly crucial forcrisis management given the global nature of pandemics. Effective collaboration requires thoroughly prepared and to some extent previously established support structures and international
coordination in order to allow the joint development, harmonisation and use of study protocols,survey instruments, endpoints for clinical intervention studies and data sets.

Very early on in the pandemic, it became clear that addressing the pressing scientific questions
required diverse expertise drawn from different disciplines. For this reason, the DFG facilitatedthe submission of supplemental and follow-up proposals for consortia projects such as Collaborative Research Centres and Research Units already in receipt of funding, and pandemic-specificresearch questions were taken up and addressed within already funded Coordinated Programmes wherever possible. On this basis, for example, researchers on Transregio TRR 266“Accounting for Transparency” published statements and reports as early as March 2020 dealing
with pandemic-related liquidity problems and other challenges facing numerous companies, also
assessing support measures [9]. These received attention in the legislative process, for example.
In addition, the DFG responded with a large-scale, interdisciplinary call for new research projects
into epidemics and pandemics at the end of March 2020 [10]. The aim was to promote a broad
spectrum of research projects, ranging from the medical and biological foundations, including
preventive and therapeutic measures, to questions of epidemiology, economics, logistics andcommunication, as well as the social, psychological, cultural, legal and ethical implications.

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

13

Furthermore, the DFG established COVID-19 Focus Funding in August 2020 – a new, streamlined and accelerated funding opportunity to work on scientific issues that the Interdisciplinary
Commission for Pandemic Research, established in 2020 by the DFG Executive Committee, hadidentified as particularly urgent. In this way, seven calls for proposals were issued between August2020 and May 2021 covering a wide thematic spectrum and aiming to respond as quickly as
possible to the need for knowledge generated by a dynamic pandemic [11]. Numerous nationaland global funding agencies proceeded in a similar way.
A statistical report by the DFG on funding activities in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic
illustrates the subject and thematic diversity and breadth of the research projects submitted to the
DFG between 2020 and 2021 under the above-mentioned calls for proposals and funding programmes that were not subject to topic restrictions. During this period, decisions were issued fora total of 907 funding proposals for research into epidemics, pandemics and COVID-19 with a
total funding volume of around €343 million. Of these, 242 proposals were approved with a funding volume of some €80 million. Proposals covered all academic disciplines and research areas,
with a particular focus on the life sciences and on the social and behavioural sciences. The analysis of proposal topics contained in the report indicates that the pandemic is perceived by theapplicants as a multidimensional challenge and is dealt with both on an interdisciplinary basis andbroken down according to subject specialisations [12].
Examples of the exceptionally broad networking and interdisciplinary cooperation between theacademic disciplines in the pandemic include the network “Aerosol particles and their dispersion”[13], the nationwide study CORONA-MONITORING [14] and the project LOKI [15]. In order tosupport interdisciplinary exchange under COVID-19 Focus Funding, the network “Aerosol particles and their dispersion” was established in 2021 on the initiative and under the leadership of amember of the Pandemic Commission. One particular area of investigation here were questions
concerning the formation of aerosol particles during breathing, speaking, coughing, sneezing andtheir evaporation kinetics and dispersion dynamics in connection with efficient removal of aerosol
particles from indoor air. Only by engaging in interdisciplinary research into fluid mechanics, process engineering and medicine is it possible to generate new insights into the infectiousness ofaerosol-borne viruses and their control. For the nationwide study CORONA-MONITORING, biosamples were collected as part of a special survey run by the Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP) in
collaboration with the Robert Koch Institute to examine them for SARS-CoV-2 IgG antibodies and
SARS-CoV-2 RNA with regard to a past or current infection. By linking this with existing longitudinal personal and household data collected by the SOEP, it is possible to identify additionalsocial and health-related differences in infection status and their socioeconomic consequences
over time. The first findings were published as a preprint at the end of 2021 [16]. Another example

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

14of wide-ranging interdisciplinary cooperation is the project LOKI coordinated by the Helmholtz
Centre for Infection Research (start: 1 July 2022), in which a total of five Helmholtz Centres arecollaborating with healthcare institutions on an application-oriented basis. The structures to be
developed will serve to prepare for future pandemics and establish an infrastructure within the
public health authorities that will enable a local response that is optimised in terms of the working
environment and demographics of the districts and district-free cities. This includes an early warning system for rapid response and the recommendation of measures in the event of local outbreaks.
In terms of interdisciplinary cooperation, the linking of perspectives from clinical and natural science with those of the social sciences and not least jurisprudence still remains a desideratum,
although precisely this combined perspective is of key importance when it comes to the questionof the feasibility and practicability of what appears necessary from an epidemiological and virological point of view in combating a pandemic, for example.
Positive examples include the following: collaboration to combine epidemiological and economic
modelling for data-based simulations in a pandemic [17], and the use of economic tools to analyse
the installation and follow-up costs of indoor air filters for individually optimised fitting [18]. However, obstacles to interdisciplinary cooperation exist in particular due to the differing disciplinary
cultures; given its lower funding requirement overall, for example, the subject area of law still
makes comparatively little use of third-party funding and when it does, then mainly in collaboration
with other humanities. Another hurdle lies in the structures for the review of projects and theawarding of funds if the projects are organised in a very discipline-oriented manner based on alogic of their own, making any interdisciplinary perspective difficult or indeed impossible. For thisreason, suitable funding formats have to be evolved to promote far-reaching interdisciplinary collaborations.
Lesson Learnt: Strengthen appropriate formats for interdisciplinary cooperation
3. Interdisciplinary approaches continue to be vital when it comes to tackling and overcoming complex crises. Many researchers cooperated in the pandemic in new ways across academic disciplines, going beyond their traditional subject-specific environment. Research funders are called
upon to pick up on this development and leverage the potential of wide-ranging interdisciplinary
research based on appropriate funding formats and processes.

While the focus of the research community on pandemic and epidemic research was necessary
and still is, the potential risks of a crisis-driven “covidisation of academic research” were discussed
as early as April 2020 [19]. This means that there has been a strong focus by funders and3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

15

researchers on infection research at the expense of other topics, including health research inareas such as non-communicable diseases and the consequences of climate change [20].
There is no doubt that thematic funding is justified and has been initiated by many agencies,
including the DFG. However, the COVID-19 pandemic has also shown how quickly the results ofbasic research can be put to use to address concrete problems of global relevance. These areresearch outcomes from projects that were identified as relevant by the research community itself– and not based on a benefit-oriented funding logic.
Lesson Learnt: Avoid the “Covidisation” of academic research
4. The temporary concentration of funding on current crises is understandable and necessary. However, longer-term concentration of funding must be avoided in order to continuously fill the store
of knowledge for future and unforeseen pandemics and other crises. Similarly, work on crisisrelated issues does not provide a reliable basis for the development of academic careers.

Ultimately, it was only possible to a limited extent within the existing research structures to use
funding available at short notice to pursue urgent research questions in a prompt manner: this isbecause many researchers in their qualification phase are involved in third-party funded projects
dedicated to specific topics, where rapid reorientation is not readily possible.
In view of this, the Commission for Pandemic Research carefully assessed the urgency of a research question when identifying research topics in connection with calls for proposals under
COVID-19 Focus Funding. Here, for example, it assessed the Long COVID syndrome as a multidisciplinary challenge that could not be addressed based on short-term impulses. Instead, there
is a long-term need for research here that can be targeted under regular DFG funding formats(e.g. Priority Programmes, Clinical Research Units). For this reason, the Commission’s statement
on Long COVID addresses the need for research while at the same time linking this to the possibilities of research funding [21].
Lesson Learnt: Provide sustainable funding for capacity to address pressing research questionsin the short term
5. The timely availability of highly qualified staff is essential for the flexible and short-term handlingof new and urgent research topics. This requires the building of additional staff capacity (qualification level: postdoc) for research that is not financed from third-party funds. It will create greater
stability in crisis situations while at the same time allowing for greater responsiveness within the
research system itself.

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

16

Where understanding begins: future research needs relating to the COVID-19 pandemic
The COVID-19 pandemic marks a turning point in many respects, so in retrospect, a number of areas insociety will be divided into “before” and “after” the pandemic. The pandemic has brought about and accelerated fundamental processes of change – often in conjunction with other sudden upheavals. One example here is the change in the working world: the nature and consequences of this have to be assessed in
the future. This is something that could only occur in conjunction with digitalisation. A second example issocietal discourse on the pandemic. Here again, analysis in retrospect will be essential in order to gain anunderstanding of the pandemic and learn from it. A third example is the increase in inequality – between
and within countries: this has resulted in setbacks in the achievement of global development goals suchas reducing poverty and hunger [22]. A fourth example is the impact of the pandemic on supply chains:during a pandemic, the disruption of supply impacts on the economy and society as a whole. It will be
crucial to tap into existing funding formats and raise their visibility with a view to promoting specific topics
in these areas, or if necessary create new funding formats for this purpose.
There is also a need for scientific research into the effects of pandemic control measures and measures
for support in the various sectors of society, for example in the economic domain. Here, differentiatingcost-benefit analyses of alternative packages of measures will be important when it comes to preparing
for future crises. How sustainable are the comprehensive measures to support the economy in the longterm, or in the case of recurring/new pandemics, how can the administrative costs and misuse of thevarious programmes be assessed, who uses these programmes, what are the distributional effects in the
population, which sectors benefit, which lose out? What are the consequences of the pandemic for supply
chains, for the labour market, for sustainability and for the resilience of the economy overall? What impact
does pandemic policy have on trust in the state, and how does the uncertainty caused by pandemic andambiguous measures affect entrepreneurship as a whole? This list of questions can easily be extended
and expanded to include other areas.
The study of the causes and effects of the COVID-19 pandemic will be key to understanding social processes in many areas – firstly in terms of understanding concrete changes and secondly in order to understand how social systems function at different scales, from the local to the global level. Making it possible to learn from the pandemic in this way – not just while it is in progress but also after it comes to an
end – is fundamental to understanding the scale of its impact. A whole range of academic disciplines cancontribute here, including educational studies, sociology, history, economics, geography, area studies andsocial and cultural anthropology.

Lesson Learnt: Research and understand the cascading consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic
in the long term
6. Research into the pandemic must not finish when the pandemic “comes to an end”: the causes
and long-term effects of this watershed moment also have to be recorded and integrated into

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

17

strategies to prepare for future pandemics. There is still a need for long-term research in almost
all research fields so as to analyse the consequences of the pandemic for healthcare systems
worldwide, the education sector, the manufacturing economy, trade and indeed society as awhole.

3.2 Challenges posed by the pandemic to the process of scientificproduction
The sciences and the humanities continue to provide fresh insights into the coronavirus pandemic.
At the same time, the pandemic has a powerful impact on the research system itself and thescientific production process beyond the thematic areas described above.
Since autumn 2021, a DFG Senate working group has been looking into the consequences of thepandemic for all academic disciplines and will present its findings and recommendations successively in the course of 2022 and 2023. For example, there were and still are many restrictions onfield access in empirical social science research and for researchers working internationally, suchas in the context of ecosystem and biodiversity research and area studies. Furthermore, at times
there has been only limited access or none at all to research laboratories, literature and archives
as well as non-digitised research objects and materials. In the area of health-related research,
research opportunities continue to be hampered due to lack of field access and pandemic-related
protective measures. Obstacles of this nature also apply in prevention research and in the areaof data collection from patients in the outpatient, inpatient and rehabilitative sector as well as in
the area of long-term care. Recruitment in ongoing clinical trials is slowing down noticeably, too,and newly starting trials are subject to significant delays.
Where access to the “field” has been severely restricted by the pandemic, it has been possible topursue alternative research approaches in some cases. There were considerable obstacles toprimary social science data collection at times, combined with a simultaneous pressing need forresearch in this area: this was taken into account in the drafting of the COVID-19 Focus Funding"Education and COVID-19: Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Educational Processes in theLife Course”, which called for use to be made of quality-assured data sets available from longitudinal studies [23].
The pandemic created and exacerbated structural bottlenecks at research institutions that continue to have an obstructive impact on research projects; these include the slowing down of administrative processes in the area of staff recruitment as well as the procurement and accessing3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

18of equipment. Structures for handling ethical approval and data protection requests likewise continue to be overburdened. As a consequence, there were usually delays in the capacity of ethics
committees to deliberate on proposals that were not of direct relevance to COVID-19.
According to the Senate Working Group, such restrictions have a particularly powerful impact on
the setting up of new projects and on researchers in early career stages. The Senate Working
Group has prepared a paper on the impairments inflicted on research projects and academic
careers by the pandemic: this explains to applicants the possibility of highlighting pandemic-related restrictions in DFG proposals, also due to individually exacerbated family and personal circumstances during lockdown; it also raises reviewers’ awareness of this issue [24].
Lesson Learnt: Strengthen the digital infrastructure of the research system
7. A pandemic not only generates a great need for knowledge, it also has a massive impact on the
production of scientific knowledge itself. Resilience must be improved through the digitalisationof science administration and research infrastructures.

Lesson Learnt: Adjust funding measures to ensure equal opportunity in the research system
8. Funding measures aimed at ensuring equal treatment should be re-evaluated in order to preventively counteract the unevenly distributed negative effects of a pandemic on scientific productivity
due to the loss of care structures for children and relatives requiring care – especially on female
researchers and in particular those in early career phases.

In addition to the limitations mentioned above, the pandemic continues to be a period that has
seen significant momentum in terms of knowledge gain. Rapid political decisions became necessary in order to counter the exponential dynamic of the pandemic, and these had to be made on
a data basis that was as reliable as possible. Here, there was an increasing conflict between theconsiderable pressure of time and the quality of the findings. The scientific production process
was accelerated and altered to some extent, too, especially in the life sciences. For example, thepandemic led to a massive increase in the pre-publication of study results via preprint servers inthis field – without such results being subject to systematic quality control. At the same time, thereview of journal articles without relevance to COVID-19 slowed down significantly in some cases.
Rapid availability of data and information was crucial, especially in the early phase of the pandemic, but this sometimes involved a loss of quality [25, 26].

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

19

Lesson Learnt: Establish new forms of quality assurance in the academic publication process
9. In order to be able to publish swiftly on time-critical topics while at the same time ensuring quality,
a culture of pre-publication is needed in as many research areas as possible, also including peercommentary or open peer review, and established through academic training. Incentive structures provided by research organisations and funding agencies must be aligned in such a waythat academic reputation can also be achieved via these forms of publication.

It became apparent that there is a lack of sound structures for collating empirical knowledge fromstudies into evidence syntheses: among other things, this would improve information and advice
for policymakers and society. In this connection, a round table discussion on rapid evidence generation during the COVID-19 pandemic was held in January 2021 at the initiative of the Commission. It became apparent that the challenge for science and the humanities in a pandemic is toreview new findings in the short term, assess them comprehensively and subsequently to updatethem continuously (so-called living systematic reviews) in order to synthesise evidence relating
to complex problems. This process involves significant methodological demands and a need forresearch on new methodological approaches such as realist reviews [27]. Unlike conventional
forms of evidence synthesis, which are concerned with the effectiveness of interventions, realist
reviews ask how, why and for whom such interventions are effective. This explicitly focuses on
the role of context in terms of mechanisms for achieving specific outcomes. Such an approach
would be helpful in understanding why vaccination campaigns have been more successful insome settings than others, for example. Further issues to be resolved are prioritisation and the
avoidance of redundancy. In the medium term, the establishment of such structures could also
support the sciences and humanities with regard to identifying research potential and gaps inknowledge.
One point which is ultimately impossible to resolve entirely is that effective pandemic control requires the rapid introduction of measures [28] even though these cannot always be introduced
based on well-supported evidence. For this reason, it will be crucial to undertake an ex post assessment of the measures taken during the COVID-19 pandemic that can inform guidelines for
future pandemic preparedness. Also: only in the future will it be possible to find out how viable
analyses were of recent social events and processes, given that these analyses were conducted
at great speed. Some judgements and decisions had to be made – and are still being made –based on knowledge drawn from the application and transfer of general theories (e.g. about human behaviour and social processes) as well as empirical evidence from other research contexts
or from experience of similar situations (e.g. historical knowledge of previous pandemics). In the3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

20

early months of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, for example, there was no specific evidence on
whether it was possible to reduce infection rates by having people constantly wear masks inschools. Knowledge was available that could be adapted and applied analogously, however: infection occurs via the aerosol route and is facilitated by loud speech and lack of spacing; masks
can be effective in reducing aerosol transmission indoors.
Lessons Learnt: Clearly convey the limits of scientific evidence in communication
10. Pandemics require a rapid response. The basis for decisions made regarding the measures forpandemic management should be clearly communicated by those with political responsibility. A
clear distinction must be drawn between what is scientific knowledge, what is conjecture andwhat is “common sense” and extrapolation.
Lesson Learnt: Create structures for knowledge-based recommendations for action
11. An efficient, targeted response with as few undesirable societal side effects as possible requires
supranational bodies that formulate recommendations for action in crisis situations based oninterdisciplinary criteria and synthesised evidence.

Throughout the pandemic to date, there has been a significant demand for health-related data,
whether to evaluate specific interventions or to assess outbreak events. Two central, interlinked
problem areas are digitalisation and also the lack of (health) data, the fact that such data is notmachine-readable, and that it is too slow to access or is only linkable to a limited extent. Theselong-known problems that impede or prevent necessary improvements in the healthcare systemand the planning of prevention measures became even more apparent during the pandemic. Despite current efforts under the NUM, for example, this data is still very inadequately accessible inGermany compared to other countries and is difficult to link. There are significant organisational
and legal hurdles here. Lack of access, lack of machine readability and difficult linkability – ofhealth data and data from official registers, for example – are key barriers that prevent urgently
needed progress in health-related research [29, 30]. The Commission for Pandemic Research
discussed the structural problems in February 2021, including the lack of access to routine data,
the lack of nationwide registers and the only very cursory data contained in the electronic healthrecord. In doing so, the Commission found that Germany lags far behind now established standards compared to many countries in Europe and globally, causing problems in all scientific disciplines. Improved availability of standardised data would therefore be a great desideratum for research as well as for the medical care of the insured in Germany. With regard to the pandemic, it
was almost impossible – or only with a delay – to answer questions on transmission, risk factors
in relation to the severity of the disease, and also vaccination reactions, especially in comparison

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

21

to other European countries. The DFG’s Interdisciplinary Commission for Pandemic Research
has issued a statement on this subject which identifies five fields of action2 that are to enable
better accessibility and linkability of health-related data [31].
Similar challenges apply in other fields, for example in the social sciences and economics withregard to questions of the economic and social implications of protective measures and measures
to support the economy in the pandemic environment. There are great opportunities to be gained
if access to public administration data and the linkability of different data sets can be improved infederal Germany, including across the borders of the federal states – also going far beyond pandemic research, e.g. in the area of the targeted development of public health measures.
Another issue that has emerged in the context of the pandemic is the collection, registration andtransparency of ongoing studies on non-pharmaceutical public health interventions (NPIs). This
concerns studies on information and education programmes, the restriction of mass events, testing and screening strategies and hygiene management. In reviews, it is often assumed that such
NPI studies are centrally recorded in clinical registries, e.g. at ClinicalTrials.gov or on the WHO
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, in the same way as pharmaceutical Interventions
and other clinical trials [32]. However, NPI studies are in fact conducted in very different disciplines (including sociology, education, psychology, economics), and the studies are registeredwith the various subject-specific associations or institutions. Systematic reviews and other reviews should do even more to take this multidisciplinary nature into account in the future.
Lessons Learnt: Improve access, availability and linkage of data as a matter of urgency
12. Scientific (health) research in Germany operates on a limited data basis, which has at least delayed urgent analyses and studies. Building digital structures and improving access to public
administration data sets (e.g. social security data, tax data, education data, health data, data
about businesses) and their linkability across institutions, federal states and state borders istherefore essential for research on the social and economic implications of the pandemic andmeasures to address its consequences in Germany.

2 These include the following: i) set up a systematic consent concept that ideally follows an “opt-out” approach forconsent to data collection; ii) ensure clarity and use existing data so as to avoid duplication; iii) establish a central data
integration office that enables both legal and organisational data access, also acting as a trustee in enabling the linkage
of different data sets; iv) introduce uniform federal regulations so as to create legal certainty for research as a requirement for access to and the linking of health-related data. In the Commission’s view, Germany requires research data
legislation for this purpose. v) for the linking of different items of personal data, the introduction of a “unique identifier”
appears to be expedient, acting as a central factor for the harmonisation and merging of data.

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

22

Excurse: Field of activity “Quality in clinical research”
Clinical trials are the central interface of translational research. Yet in the course of the last two years,
the implementation of such studies in Germany has particularly been seen to exhibit weaknesses, as
was previously pointed out by the DFG [33], the German Science and Humanities Council [34] and the
BMBF’s health research forum [35]. Rapid implementation of clinical trials was barely possible given theexisting framework conditions. In order to be able to exploit the existing potential in the medium term,
investments in infrastructure and network-building are required that enable and support the implementation of academically initiated clinical trials. All decisions on the funding of infrastructures, networks andclinical studies should always be quality- and science-driven and should be subject to an institutionallyindependent procedure.

3.3 Science communication and scientific advice for policymakers
and administration
A pandemic is an unexpected event but it is also an initially poorly understood event that nevertheless requires explanation. This poses a particular challenge for researchers, since they needtime to conduct research in order to gain understanding as quickly as possible, thereby limiting
resources allocated to science communication and outreach. In addition, they often lack experience of dealing with the media. In the case of socially controversial topics, there is also the riskthat representatives of the sciences and the humanities are publicly criticised or even attacked
for their statements relating to specific problems. This issue was already addressed in detail in aposition paper published by the German Science and Humanities Council in 2021 [36]. The members of the DFG Commission for Pandemic Research have also contributed in a variety of ways
to relaying the knowledge available at the given time on a wealth of pandemic-related topics. Even
though public trust in science and research has increased significantly in the context of the coronavirus pandemic and scientific information is regarded as very important by the public [37], individual researchers have nonetheless suffered severe personal attacks in certain media and fromthe public, and not least from representatives of their own academic community, too. The Allianceof Science Organisations reacted to this in December 2021 with a “Call for greater objectivity incrisis situations” [38].
Lesson Learnt: Enable researchers in science communication
13. Science and the humanities are not yet well equipped for communication to society. Researchers
who are actively engaged in communication need both resources and qualification programmes3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

23

to improve their media competence and their knowledge of the media system. They also need
advice and support from their institutions. This is especially true in highly dynamic times andwhen their personal and academic integrity is under attack.

Since the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus and the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic at
the beginning of 2020, there has been an ongoing need for readily available scientific informationthat is comprehensible to the non-expert. Under pressure of time, researchers developed levelsof knowledge that – given the novelty and sheer momentum of this pandemic – were often fraught
with uncertainty and quickly outdated or only moderately evidence-based, yet were made available and communicated as quickly as possible nonetheless. For example, NDR-Info broadcast thefirst Coronavirus Update with Christian Drosten as early as 26 February 2020: over the course of
two years, this programme provided a regular response to the generally high level of demand for
information in a very dynamic situation, always putting the information available appropriate into
perspective. The changes in the publication process that arose as a result of the dynamic of thepandemic – as explained above – meant that findings from scientific papers that had not undergone peer view were also discussed in the press. This increased the risk of a false balance in the
media, i.e. the equal treatment of minority and majority scientific positions. The risk of a false
balance was high anyway, since many journalists applied the principle of balanced reporting onsocial issues to scientific issues, providing a mouthpiece for those representing points of view thatwere opposed to consensual scientific positions.
The “infodemic” [39] that accompanied the pandemic, i.e. the abundance of both good and bad
information, underlines the need for evidence-based communication that pre-filters this wealth of
information and presents it in a way that is geared towards action and user consumption [40]. In
the run-up to the approval of the novel mRNA vaccines in Germany, for example, the Commission
for Pandemic Research foresaw an urgent need for rapid, nationwide education and information
to strengthen vaccination readiness and behaviour, and in January 2021 published the dossier
Know more, make informed decisions on the subject of vaccinations against SARS-CoV-2 [41].
Nonetheless, information provided in this way was no substitute for targeted communication by acompetent institution, nor was this its intention.
Lesson Learnt: Develop and strengthen journalists’ understanding of science and the humanities
14. In scientific reporting, the journalistic principle of balancing positions carries the risk of a distorted
perception of the evidence among the public and decision-makers in politics and administration,with potentially detrimental consequences for the handling and management of the pandemic.
Familiarity with scientific knowledge production and the research system are therefore essential

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

24

for good media communication relating to science and the humanities.
Lesson Learnt: Create a central communication structure for effective health and crisis communication
15. In order to improve the implementation of knowledge while at the same time counteract-

ing misinformation and disinformation, as well as strengthening trust throughout society
at large, communication to the public requires a central communication structure that isable to answer urgent questions about the current state of knowledge and make information publicly and comprehensibly accessible.
Since human beings in particular influence the emergence of zoonoses with pandemic potential
and are also hosts to the virus, understanding human behaviour is highly relevant when creating
protective measures and the relevant communication measures. For this purpose, it is important
to collate existing [42] and crisis-generated data on attitudes, behaviours and other crisis-relatedparameters such as trust or stress [43]. Research in these areas is helpful for crisis, risk, andhealth-communication, as well as in connection with handling of misinformation in the media. Prepandemic research findings are already available, as well as guidelines that apply the insights
gained (issued by health organisations such as the WHO [44] or by academics, e.g. The Debunking Handbook [45]). It is also known that drawing on the findings of research conducted in thearea of psychological and communication science into health and crisis communication can havepositive effects on compliance with protective measures and the public’s trust in health authorities
in the context of political action and health communication [46]. The implementation of such findings and principles was often lacking, however, not least due to the fact that no structures werein place (see Lesson Learnt 15). There is clearly a need for research into the conditions that are
required for existing knowledge in the area of social and behavioural science to be applied inestablishing the relevant political structures and crisis communication. For example, there is alack of relevant research into practical implementation and political science relating to the conditions, structures and processes that are required for this type of evidence to take effect. A comparison with other countries can be useful here; some have made use of “Behavioural Insights
Units”, for example, and the WHO advises creating this type of structure (47), too – yet the effectof such structures in enabling the implementation of insights from social and behavioural science
is not yet known.
Lesson Learnt: Investigate the conditions of implementation for evidence-based health communication

3 The sciences and humanities in the coronavirus pandemic

25

16. Further (implementation) research and its translation into guidelines for future use cases isneeded in order to achieve improved transformation of “lessons to be learnt” into “lessons
learnt”.

From the very beginning, politics and administration were advised by scientific experts. However,it was often not transparent according to which criteria the individual voices of science were being
listened to or by which entire panels were assembled. In its final report, the Swiss National
COVID-19 Task Force – which spent 24 months advising Swiss policymakers and informing the
public – draws attention to four key points [48]: Firstly, there are no established processes for thecomposition of an interdisciplinary scientific body, raising questions of legitimacy and operational
procedures. For this reason, academic institutions had a key role to play in the nomination andselection process in Switzerland. Secondly, a clear mutual understanding of the roles of the individual actors is crucial in order to be able to clearly distinguish between the consultation process
and the decision-making process – and this must be communicated to the public, too. Anotherpoint highlighted by the Task Force is coordinated communication. Scientific findings can be disseminated to the public in a rapid, transparent and uncomplicated manner, especially if there isconsensus among members. In addition, participation in the Task Force requires a high level ofvoluntary commitment as well as the support of additional specialised staff. Similar observations
were made by the scientific panel convened by the federal and state governments in Germany inDecember 2021 to develop recommendations for pandemic response. The federal government’s
Council of Experts on COVID-19 is made up of academics from various disciplines. The nomination procedure for this body requires the greatest possible transparency, as does the work doneby it. For this reason, the Council of Experts set out its tasks and processes in a set of procedural
regulations, which was then published [49]. Another example is the guide published in 2014 by
the National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina on the general principles behind its science-based
policy advice, in which it outlines its working methods and the principles that inform the preparation of its statements [50].
Lesson Learnt: Formulate clear rules for scientific policy advice
17. Policy advice by science and the humanities requires bodies (e.g. expert councils, committees)
which are bound by rules and transparent procedures, structures, staffing and decision-making
processes, and they also need the appropriate resources to enable an academic approach tothe issues. Scientific advice is supported by the appropriate structures for rapid evidence generation and synthesis.

26

4 Appendix
4.1 List of references[1]

Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar, Wissenschaftsbarometer 2021, 2021; to the document at
wissenschaft-im-dialog.de[2]

Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science (KNAW), The pandemic academic. How
COVID-19 has impacted the research community, Advisory report, 2022; to the document
at storage.knaw.nl[3]

World Health Organization, definition of “pandemic preparedness”, accessed 30 August2022; to the definition at who.int[4]

German Research Foundation, DFG-funding with pandemic reference, accessed on 30 May
2022; to the website at dfg.de[5]

University medicine research network on COVID-19 (“Netzwerk Universitätsmedizin”), tasks
and goals, accessed on 30 May 2022; to the website at netzwerk-universitaetsmedizin.de[6]

German Research Foundation, COVID-19 Focus Funding “Impacts of the Coronavirus Pandemic in the Global South: Health Systems and Society”, Information for Researchers No.
5, 2021; to the information for researchers at dfg.de[7]

Sino-German Center for Research Promotion, Funding Results Announcement for the SinoGerman Center Call for Bilateral Collaborative Proposals between China and Germany in
COVID-19 Related Research, accessed 30 May 2022; to the website at sinoger-manscience.dfg.nsfc.cn[8]

Science7 Dialogue Forum 2022, G7 Science Academies’ Statements, accessed on 17 June
2022; to the statement at leopoldina.org[9]

TRR 266 Accounting for Transparency, COVID-19: TRR 266 Research Insights, accessedon 30 May 2022; to the website at accounting-for-transparency.de[10] German Research Foundation, Call for Multidisciplinary Research into Epidemics and Pandemics in Response to the Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2, Information for Researchers No. 20,
2020; to the information for researchers at dfg.de

4 Appendix

27[11] German Research Foundation, COVID-19 Focus Funding in the Research Grants Programme, Information for Researchers, No. 51, 2020; to the information for researchers at
dfg.de[12] German Research Foundation, The DFG’s funding activities in the context of the COVID19 pandemic, 2022; to the document at zenodo.org[13] German Research Foundation, Aerosol Particles and their Dispersion - Scientific Network
to Support Interdisciplinary Exchange in the DFG Focus Funding COVID-19, Project Description, 2021; to the project at gepris.dfg.de[14] Robert Koch Institute, Seroepidemiological study on the spread of SARS-CoV-2 in Germany: Study protocol of the ‘CORONA-MONITORING bundesweit’ study (RKI-SOEP
study), Journal of Health Monitoring, Special Issue 1, 2021, DOI: 10.25646/7852; to the
document at rki.de[15] Helmholtz Centre for Infection Research, LOKI – Local Early Warning System for Control
of Infection Outbreaks, News, 2022; to the project at helmholtz-hzi.de[16] Hannelore Neuhauser et al., Germany’s low SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence confirms effective containment in 2020: Results of the nationwide RKI-SOEP study, medRxiv, 2021, DOI:
10.1101/2021.11.22.21266711, this article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed; tothe document at medrxiv.org[17] Dorn, F., Khailaie, S., Stoeckli, M. et al., The common interests of health protection and theeconomy: evidence from scenario calculations of COVID-19 containment policies, The European Journal of Health Economics, 2022, DOI: 10.1007/s10198-022-01452-y; to the document at link.springer.com[18] Luftfilter Rechner (“Air filter calculator”), homepage, accessed on 30 May 2022; to the website at airfiltercalculator.com[19] Pai, M., ‘Covidisation’ of academic research: opportunities and risks, Coronaviruses: Past,
Present and Future, News and Opinion, 2020; to the document at microbiologycommunity.nature.com[20] Pai, M., Covidization of research: what are the risks?, Nat Med 26, 1159, 2020, DOI:
10.1038/s41591-020-1015-0; to the document at nature.com

4 Appendix

28[21] Interdisciplinary Commission for Pandemic Research, German Research Foundation, Long
COVID as a Multidisciplinary Research Challenge, No. 92, 2021; to the information for researchers at dfg.de[22] Narayan, Ambar et al, COVID-19 and Economic Inequality. Short-Term Impacts with LongTerm Consequences, Policy Research Working Paper 9902, 2022; to the document at documents1.worldbank.org[23] German Research Foundation, COVID-19 Focus Funding: Education and Corona – The
Impact of the Coronavirus Pandemic on Educational Processes in the Life Course, Information for Researchers No. 18, 2021; to the information for researchers at dfg.de[24] German Research Foundation, Begutachtung, Bewertung und Entscheidung: Umgang mit
den Folgen der Coronavirus-Pandemie für Forschungsvorhaben (“Review, assessment anddecision-making: dealing with the consequences of the coronavirus pandemic for research
projects”), Information for Researchers No. 28, 2022; to the information for researchers at
dfg.de[25] German Council of Science and Humanities, An impulse from the COVID-19 crisis:
strengthening the resilience of the research and higher education system, position paper,
2021; to the document at wissenschaftsrat.de[26] German Research Foundation, Academic publishing as a foundation and area of leveragefor research assessment: Challenges and fields of action, position paper, 2022, DOI:
10.5281/zenodo.6538163; to the document at dfg.de[27] Pawson, R., Greenhalgh, T., Harvey, G., und Walshe, K., Realist review – a new method ofsystematic review designed for complex policy interventions, Journal of Health Services
Research & Policy, Vol. 10 Issue 1, 2005, DOI: 10.1258/1355819054308530; to the doc-

ument at journals.sagepub.com[28] Federal Government Council of Experts on COVID-19, Die Notwendigkeit kurzer Reaktionszeiten zur Bekämpfung infektiöser Gefahren (“The Need for Short Response Times to
Combat Infectious Hazards”), 8th statement, 2022; to the document at bundesregier-ung.de[29] Federal Government Council of Experts on COVID-19, Dringende Maßnahmen für eineverbesserte Datenerhebung und Digitalisierung (“Urgent Measures for Improved Data Collection and Digitisation”), 4th Statement, 2022; to the document at bundesregierung.de

4 Appendix

29[30] Wissenschaftsrat, Impulse aus der COVID-19-Krise für die Weiterentwicklung des Wissenschaftssystems in Deutschland (“Impulses from the COVID-19 crisis for the advancementof the science system in Germany”), position paper, 2021; to the document at wissenschaftsrat.de[31] Interdisciplinary Commission for Pandemic Research, German Research Foundation, Daten für die gesundheitsbezogene Forschung müssen besser zugänglich und leichter verknüpfbar sein (“Data for health-related research must be better accessible and easier tolink”), statement, 2022; to the document at dfg.de[32] Hirt J., Janiaud, P. and Hemkens, L.G., Randomized trials on non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19: a scoping review, BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2022, DOI:
10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111825; to the document at ebm.bmj.com[33] German Research Foundation, Erkenntnisgeleitete Forschung stärken, von Wissensspeichern profitieren (“Strengthen knowledge-driven research, benefit from knowledge
repositories”, impulse paper for the 20th legislative period of the Bundestag, 2021; to the
document at dfg.de[34] German Council of Science and Humanities, Empfehlungen zu Klinischen Studien (“Recommendations on clinical trials”) 2018, Drs. 7301-18; to the document at wissenschaftsrat.de[35] Working Group “Infrastrukturen in den Lebenswissenschaften” (“Infrastructures in the Life
Sciences”), Forum Gesundheitsforschung, Strategie für den Aufbau von Forschungsnetzwerken für klinische Studien in Deutschland („Strategy for the Establishment of Research
Networks for Clinical Trials in Germany“), 2018; to the document at projekttraeger.dlr.de[36] German Council of Science and Humanities, Wissenschaftskommunikation (“Science communication”), position paper, 2021; to the document at wissenschaftsrat.de[37] Wissenschaft im Dialog/Kantar, Wissenschaftsbarometer Corona Spezial, 2020; to the
document at wissenschaft-im-dialog.de[38] Alliance of Science Organisations, Aufruf zu mehr Sachlichkeit in Krisensituationen (“Callfor greater objectivity in crisis situations”), 2021; to the document at dfg.de[39] Zarocostas, J., How to fight an infodemic, The Lancet, Vol. 395, Issue 10225, 2020, DOI:
10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30461-X; to the document at thelancet.com

4 Appendix

30[40] Federal Government Council of Experts on COVID-19, Zur Notwendigkeit evidenzbasierter
Risiko- und Gesundheitskommunikation (“The need for evidence-based risk and healthcommunication”), 5th Statement, 2022; to the document at bundesregierung.de[41] Interdisciplinary Commission for Pandemic Research, German Research Foundation,
Know more – make informed decisions, 2021; to the document at dfg.de[42] Bavel, J.J.V., Baicker, K., Boggio, P.S. et al., Using social and behavioural science to support COVID-19 pandemic response, Nature Human Behaviour, Vol. 4, 2020, DOI:
10.1038/s41562-020-0884-z; to the document at nature.com[43] Betsch, C., Wieler, L.H., Habersaat, K., Monitoring behavioural insights related to COVID19, The Lancet, Vol. 395 (10232), 2020, DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30729-7; to the document at ncbi.nlm.nih.gov[44] World Health Organization, Vaccination and trust. How concerns arise and the role of communication in mitigating crises, 2017; to the document at who.int[45] Lewandowsky, S. et al., The Debunking Handbook 2020, 2020, DOI: 10.17910/b7.1182; tothe document at skepticalscience.com[46] Beattie, A., Priestley, R., Fighting COVID-19 with the team of 5 million: Aotearoa New Zealand government communication during the 2020 lockdown, Social Sciences & Humanities
Open, Vol. 4, Issue 1, 2021 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssaho.2021.100209; to the document at sciencedirect.com[47] World Health Organization, Behavioural insights units, 2022; to the document atapps.who.int[48] Swiss National COVID-19 Science Task Force, final report of the Swiss National COVID19 Science Task Force (ncs-tf), 2022; to the document at sciencetaskforce.ch[49] Federal Government Council of Experts on COVID-19, Geschäftsordnung des ExpertInnenrates der Bundesregierung zur Begleitung der Covid-19-Pandemie (“Rules of Procedure of
the Expert Council of the Federal Government for Monitoring the Covid-19 Pandemic”)
2022; to the document at bundesregierung.de[50] German National Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, Von der Idee zur Stellungnahme(“From the idea to the statement”) guide, 2014; to the document at leopoldina.org

4 Appendix

31

4.2 Members of the interdisciplinary DFG Commission
for Pandemic Research►

Professor Dr. Frank Allgöwer, Head of the Institute for Systems Theory and AutomaticControl at the University of Stuttgart and former Vice President of the DFG;►

Professor Dr. Marcus Altfeld, Head of the Department of Virus Immunology at the Leibniz
Institute of Virology in Hamburg and the Institute of Immunology at the University Medical
Center Hamburg-Eppendorf;►

Professor Dr. Christian Apfelbacher, Director of the Institute of Social Medicine and
Health Systems Research at the Medical Faculty of Magdeburg University Hospital;►

Professor Dr. Cordula Artelt, Director of the Leibniz Institute for Educational Trajectories(LIfBi) and Chair of Longitudinal Educational Research at the University of Bamberg;►

Professor Dr. Katja Becker, President of the German Research Foundation, Bonn, andChair of the Commission for Pandemic Research;►

Professor Dr. Cornelia Betsch, Heisenberg Professor of Health Communication and
Health Behaviour at the University of Erfurt;►

Dr. Carsten Butsch, Research Associate at the Institute of Geography, University of Bonn;►

Professor Dr. Christian Drosten, Director of the Institute of Virology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin;►

Professor Dr. Eva Grill, Professor of Epidemiology at the Institute for Medical Information
Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology at LMU Munich;►

Professor Dr. Susanne Herold, Professor of Infectious Diseases of the Lung at the University of Giessen and Head of Department of the Infectious Diseases Unit at the University
Hospital in Giessen-Marburg;►

Professor Dr. Stefan Liebig, Professor of Sociology at the Free University of Berlin;►

Professor Dr. Stephan Ludwig, Director of the Institute of Virology at the University Münster;►

Professor Dr. Michael Meyer-Hermann, Head of the Department of Systems Immunology
at the Braunschweig Integrated Centre of Systems Biology (BRICS) at the Helmholtz Centre
for Infection Research (HZI);►

Professor Dr. Jörn Müller-Quade, Chair of IT Security at the Institute for Theoretical Computer Science at Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT);►

Professor Dr. Carla Nau, Director of the Clinic for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care
Medicine at the Lübeck Campus of the University Medical Care Center Schleswig-Holstein;►

Professor Dr. Karen Nolte, Professor of the History and Ethics of Medicine and Directorof the Institute of the same name at the University in Heidelberg;

4 Appendix►

32

Professor Dr. Michael Schlüter, Head of the Institute for Multiphase Flow at the Universityof Hamburg-Harburg and member of the DFG Review Board 404 since 2019;►

Professor Dr. Jonas Schreyögg, Holder of the Chair of Business Administration, in particular Management in Health Care, at the University of Hamburg and Scientific Director of
the Hamburg Center for Health Economics;►

Professor Dr. Britta Siegmund, Director of the Medical Clinic for Gastroenterology, Infectiology and Rheumatology at Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Vice-President of the
DFG and Chair of the DFG Senate Commission on Basic Questions in Clinical Research;►

Prof. Dr. Simone Sommer, Director of the Institute of Evolutionary Ecology and Conservation Genomics at the University of Ulm;►

Professor Dr. Caren Sureth-Sloane, Professor of Business Administration, esp. BusinessTaxation at the University of Paderborn;►

Professor Dr. Uwe Volkmann, Professor of Public Law and Philosophy of Law at the University of Frankfurt am Main.

33

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
Kennedyallee 40 · 53175 Bonn
Postal address: 53170 Bonn, Germany
Tel.: + 49 228 885-1
Fax: + 49 228 885-2777
postmaster@dfg.de
www.dfg.de/en

DFG