By D. Bode, A. Jäger, B. Lohr, M. Mühlfenzl and S. Wejsada, Neubiberg
A sensible investment or an expensive waste of money? The discussion about the extent to which mobile air filter systems help prevent the spread of corona infections in classrooms has been nourished. After researching the Süddeutsche Zeitung have shown that studies by a professor at the Bundeswehr University in Neubiberg were partly financed by manufacturers of the filter devices, the question arises whether some cities and municipalities may have prematurely purchased superfluous systems. Especially since experts have questioned the recommendations of the physicist Christian Kähler, on the basis of which local politicians decided to buy.
The district also recently entered into a cooperation with Kähler. On behalf of the district office, he had investigated in which classrooms in the district’s own schools mobile air purification devices could help protect against infection. Some municipalities worked with Kähler much earlier. Neubiberg was the first municipality in the district that, following a lecture by Kähler, decided to equip the classrooms of both primary schools with mobile air filter devices. Kähler had presented his studies to the municipal council, which showed that room air purifiers with highly effective filters could greatly reduce the risk of contamination from infectious aerosols in the room. The municipality then bought 40 devices, 26 for a total price of 67,449, which were funded by the Free State, and a further 14 for 49,000 euros, which the municipality took over completely.
“It is the best protection for children who are not vaccinated.”
Mayor Thomas Pardeller (CSU) still stands by the decision today: “Of course I am still convinced. Mobile air purifiers filter the aerosols from the air and therefore also the corona viruses.” He doesn’t regret the investment. “It is the best protection for children who are not vaccinated.” Local authorities should invest money in this. Other municipalities have now also purchased fans for the schools, most recently the association for state secondary schools in the south-east of the district.
In September he decided to get mobile devices for classrooms and specialist rooms that are not equipped with a ventilation system. The association followed a previously made decision to purchase such devices if an expert recommends them. The report that was finally available came from Professor Kähler.
Unterföhring not only equipped the rooms in the non-refurbished part of the primary school on Bahnhofstrasse with air filters, but also equipped all ten day-care centers on site. The decision in November 2020 to buy aerosol filter systems for the 61 rooms quickly and unbureaucratically was preceded by an application from parents’ councils from five daycare centers. One device cost the community more than 3000 euros, and annual maintenance costs another 638 euros. In the neighboring municipality of Ismaning, however, local politicians have spoken out against the acquisition – also because of the controversial benefits, as the local council said several times.
The municipality of Neuried has also refused to purchase mobile air filter devices. The reasons are the need to save money and skepticism about the usefulness of the devices. In November 2020, Professor Kähler informed about the systems and their alleged effectiveness in a meeting of the municipal council. He was invited by the parents of the children’s home on Zugspitzstrasse, who wanted to purchase donation-financed fans for the facility. Even at that time, some of the Neural Councils had doubts about the effectiveness of the devices. In addition, the tight budget situation did not allow the municipality to participate in the investment. Neuried remained true to this stance when it came to participation in mobile devices for the Planegger Feodor-Lynen-Gymnasium in March of this year. At that time, the Third Mayor Dieter Maier (Greens) reminded that it had not yet been proven in any investigation that the devices caused fewer infections. In September, when it came to purchasing air purification devices for elementary school, it became clearer: “Mobile air filters are a placebo for reassurance.” Neuried now relies on permanently installed air purification systems, which also have a cooling effect in summer.
The town hall chiefs in Sauerlach and Ottobrunn, Barbara Bogner (UBV) and Thomas Loderer (CSU), however, are faced with the situation of having to order devices for the community schools even though they refuse it themselves; the two municipal councils have given them the task of doing this. Loderer makes no secret of the fact that he thinks little of air purification devices; rather, ventilation is the most effective infection protection measure. Bogner, who was last approached by a mother in the local council about when devices would finally be bought, says air purifiers are neither a substitute for ventilation nor the aha rules. But of course she will carry out the task of the municipal council. The preparations for this were underway in the administration, attempts were being made to forego a Europe-wide invitation to tender in order not to delay the purchase even further on the “empty market”.
In Haar, Mayor Andreas Bukowski (CSU) and the large majority of the local councils spoke out against the purchase of additional air purification devices before the summer holidays. For this they had to take a lot of criticism on site. The allegation was in the room that, given the precarious cash situation, financial interests were placed above the best interests of the child. Bukowski emphasizes that, like the local councils, he decided after a “sober” consideration of the facts that they had withstood public pressure. “I’m a little proud of the local council.”
In Unterschleißheim, after a long political struggle and many test orders, a decision is still pending in October as to whether further devices should be purchased. Mayor Christoph Böck (SPD) says that they have examined again whether stationary, permanently installed air cleaning systems are more useful, and that the costs have also been compared. He reckons that the city council will decide, despite all doubts, to get more equipment “to improve the situation in schools”. Böck does not expect certainties about the usefulness of the devices for months or years, when further studies are available. But you can’t wait that long.
Meanwhile, the University of the Federal Armed Forces defends the approach of its professor. “Third-party funding research is common practice at German universities and also internationally. This is also the case at the University of the Federal Armed Forces in Munich,” says press spokesman Michael Brauns. Companies, state institutions or other institutions would award a research contract to a scientist and provide funding or infrastructure such as equipment. There is even the term “third-party funded staff”, which is widely used in science Browns. All of this is lived practice in science. To call this additional income is a complete misinterpretation of this common legitimate practice. Compliance with ethical, legal and scientific requirements as well as good scientific practice are an essential element of quality assurance at the University of the Federal Armed Forces.
Brauns also sees the neutrality of Kähler’s work preserved. “Scientific results must always be independent. Every scientist, including at the University of the Federal Armed Forces in Munich, is committed to this. And this is how Professor Kähler understands his research work.” According to Braun, it would be a “malicious assumption” to claim that the results must meet the client’s expectations. “There are research assignments, but no assignment results.” Unfortunately, this is sometimes confused in public, but also by the authors of the article in the SZ.