Widmann-Mauz believes Germany has the right approach when it comes to financing scientific innovations, too, for example in personalised medicine and new vaccinations such as the recent mRNA vaccine. “The important thing is that, when it comes to financing in-patient treatment and financing in doctors’ practices, there has been success in getting medical advances to filter down to all patients. I’m glad we have found financing systems that maintain the balance between cost-effectiveness and progress.” Among the legislation passed during her time as Parliamentary State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Health was the modified evaluation and price
regulations for innovative pharmaceuticals (Pharmaceuticals Market Reorganisation Act, AMNOG). As part of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA), the highest decisionmaking body for the joint self-regulation of healthcare organisations in Germany, she helped ensure that body was able to support medical advances. “I’m proud that we created the innovation fund at the G-BA. When medical procedures and types of treatment don’t initially seem promising from the perspective of the organisations that will be meeting the cost, this fund provides the option of trying them out with booster funding.” She hopes this will also open up opportunities for therapeutic approaches, structures and companies that have not yet found backers from among statutory health insurance companies, or that can’t sustain their financing until their costs are finally recouped. After all, when it comes to new methods of treatment or medications, she has always been both curious and sceptical. “I know that not every hopeful development turns into a concrete, successful product on the market. Especially in the pharmaceutical sector, it was exciting to see what is in the pipeline and how many products are in development. Unfortunately, I have also seen cases where the additional benefits were not as clear as had been hoped. Before they get close to anything worthy of a Nobel Prize, the researchers have often had to deal with many, many setbacks.”

Science is global – home is where the heart is

Due to the current political situation, Tübingen – which is producing world-leading work – is becoming increasingly attractive for American researchers. Nevertheless, Widmann-Mauz has a warning. “Especially because of this, we also have to see things from the perspective of those who don’t have a German or European background. Nationalistic thinking, for example, is particularly counter-productive when it comes to our attractiveness in competition with other countries in the free world.” Her position on taking a stand against right-wing extremists is clear to see in her voting record in the Bundestag, specifically when it came to a joint motion with the AfD (the largest far-right party in Germany) to tighten measures against illegal immigration in January. Widmann-Mauz was one of the CDU members who
deliberately abstained. “My decades of experience with scientific issues have given me a global perspective. It’s not important where someone comes from, what they look like, or what they believe. What matters is what they can contribute, where they want their research to lead, and what advances it will make possible.” For her, having an international perspective doesn’t stop her loving her homeland. “If you’re somewhere in Africa and see German products being used – such as testing kits for pandemics – then it really feels good. It doesn't always have to be a Mercedes.”

Don’t fit the frame – make the frame

Widmann-Mauz studied political science and law at Tübingen University – that was where her passion naturally lay, although the sciences, and particularly medicine, were never complete unknowns to her. “There are doctors and pharmacists in my family, but that wasn’t what I felt drawn to. Even as a child, I loved to debate, and really pestered my parents as a result. When I was asked at my Confirmation what I
wanted to be when I grew up, I said I wanted to be a judge,” Widmann-Mauz says. She later realised that she could achieve much, much more as a politician. “I wasn’t constrained within a legal framework set by someone else – I was able to help shape that framework myself. That’s what has always fascinated me – helping bring about changes that I feel are good, right and desirable.” This motivation is also heavily influenced by her Christian faith. “I was brought up as a Roman Catholic and got involved in charitable youth work when I was young. I wanted to see a fair, humane society that doesn’t neglect the marginalised.” She readily admits that there has occasionally been tension between her faith and science. “I always found ethical questions in the German Bundestag very challenging. I tried to maintain a balance and have not always satisfied the expectations of scientists and researchers. For me, medicine is first and foremost a science that serves humanity, and it should be balanced against the long-term consequences for society. Of course, you have to take into account the individual needs and necessities of people who depend on medical progress.”

This did lead to some dilemmas for the politician – for example in relation to organ transplants. “For me, life is a gift, and every decision a patient makes with regard to their health and body is deeply personal. My priority is maintaining this principle and safeguarding self-determination over life, even in the most difficult situations. That is why I continue to oppose the idea of presumed consent. I understand the personal interests of everyone who is dependent on donor organs for their own survival. And yet, I don’t feel this suffering gives an absolute right to organ donation without personal consent or permission from families – not even after someone has died.” A similarly controversial topic is embryonic stem-cell research. “There are countries in this world that don’t tie themselves in knots over this the way we do in Germany. What if these techniques lead to findings that could be beneficial for us, too? Do the ends therefore justify any means? I don’t think so. That raises the question, however, of how we are to handle findings that have been reached in ways we consider unethical? Are they then justifiable? In case of doubt – yes.” Pre-implantation genetic testing also poses similar dilemmas for Widmann-Mauz. “On the one hand, you have couples who want to have children, but any children they might conceive naturally could have a genetic condition that will threaten their health or survival. At the same time, we have a responsibility not to fundamentally question the right to life and very existence of people with disabilities – even severe disabilities.” She openly admits that these were always the hardest considerations for her, and that every decision was the result of extensive scientific and ethical deliberations and discussions. “In politics, we have to find solutions to even the most difficult and onerous questions. While you can’t completely throw your own basic ethical position overboard, you do develop a compromise somewhere on your own moral compass that, in the best-case scenario, at least starts to show you a way out of the dilemma that you can live with.”