On August, 15th 2025, I submitted a request under the Freedom of Information Act to the Friedrich Loeffler Institute (FLI), the national reference laboratory for animal diseases. My request was specific: I requested to be provided with the complete documentation of so-called negative controls – tests with healthy animal samples that ensure that laboratory tests are carried out reliably and correctly. Such controls are a methodological standard in virological research and a central component of scientific quality assurance.
The FLI confirmed receipt of my application on September, 5th 2025 and referred to international standards of the World Organisation for Animal Health (WOAH) and published method manuals. These serve to standardise laboratory processes and are publicly accessible in accordance with Section 27 (5) TierGesG. The institute also emphasised that it is accredited as a national reference laboratory and that the methods used are regularly reviewed – including in accordance with the ISO standard DIN EN ISO/IEC 17025:2018. This ensures that the laboratory procedures used are reliable and state-of-the-art.
Nevertheless, the FLI refused to release the complete documentation. This was based on security concerns in accordance with the EU Dual-Use Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2021/821), which stipulates that certain materials, technologies and information that could potentially be misused for the production of weapons of mass destruction or for terrorist purposes must be specially protected. In the Institute’s opinion, information on investigations involving foot-and-mouth disease, rabies or African swine fever may jeopardise public safety due to these regulations.
The fact that a federal reference laboratory such as the FLI invokes safety law in order to withhold even this basic methodological information does not appear comprehensible from a scientific perspective. Rather, it gives the impression that transparency is being deliberately restricted and scientific standards are being subordinated to formal legal arguments.
From a scientific perspective, this blanket categorisation is problematic. Negative controls contain neither infectious viruses nor secret expertise – they merely document that the methods work correctly. They are indispensable for the traceability of research results. Without this information, the quality of experiments cannot be verified, which is a fundamental principle of good scientific practice and is explicitly emphasised in the guidelines of the German Research Foundation.
My concern is therefore clear: it is not about the publication of sensitive or security-relevant information, but about transparency in basic methodological investigations. Even partial disclosure, for example in anonymised or summarised form, would meet scientific requirements and would not jeopardise safety.
The case shows a fundamental area of tension: on the one hand, the public has a legitimate interest in scientific traceability and transparency; on the other hand, sensitive laboratory information is being withheld for security reasons. I am in favour of authorities such as the FLI making a differentiated assessment that allows methodological standards to be made comprehensible without taking security risks. In this way, trust in government research and its results could be strengthened – a goal that serves both science and the public.
The complete e-mail correspondence is available.
Further information on this and other topics can be found on the science platform NEXT LEVEL – Wissen neu gedacht.
