The first point of the appeal reads:: “All Italian political forces are committed to supporting science [the capital letter is in the text – ed] as a universal value of humanity's progress, which has no political color, and which is intended to increase human knowledge and improve the quality of life of our fellow human beings". Right, but what does "support science" mean?? “Science” as such is never supported, assuming that such a monolithic entity exists, concrete practices are supported, projects are financed, you choose between several alternative solutions which could all appear equally “pro Science”. Let's overlook the problematic nature of the concept of "universal progress", so as not to make it too long, e let's focus on the fact that science "has no political color". Right, 2+2 fa 4 for a voter of the Democratic Party and for one of the League. But we must affirm and subscribe that science never has, for no reason, under no circumstances, sometimes toxic relationships with political and financial power?
Maintain that science is only and always this, even when he says that 2+2=4, like conspiracy theorists do, it's absurd. But to argue that this never happens is naïve to say the least. And anyone who wants to investigate this aspect cannot be excluded from the civil assembly. Let's move on. The second point reads: “No Italian political force lends itself to supporting or tolerating in any way forms of pseudoscience and/or pseudomedicine which jeopardize public health such as AIDS denialism, anti-vaccination, therapies not based on scientific evidence, ecc…”. How can you disagree? Sin, However, that no one has ever qualified as a “pseudo-scientist”. Must, certainly, ban everything that claims to be science without based on documented evidence, but without setting limits regarding themes and topics. If serious research really arrived tomorrow that dismantles some of our knowledge about AIDS we would have to close the door a priori because Burioni says so?
Third point: “All Italian political forces are committed to governing and legislating in such a way as to stop the work of those pseudoscientists, That, with unproven and alarmist claims, create unjustified fears among the population towards therapeutic aids validated by scientific and medical evidence". Bene, good, bis. Ma, come per le fake news, the suspicion is that you always want to hit a straw puppet, and then instead go to limit everyone's freedom. The laws to protect science and against the abuse of popular credulity already exist. How should we therefore "legislate" on the matter?? It's not as if targeting a few charlatans will end up limiting the general freedom of expression? Fourth point (followed by a fifth on public funding for basic biomedical research): “All Italian political forces are committed to implementing widespread information programs on Science for the population, starting from compulsory school, and involving media, disseminators, communicators, and every category of research and healthcare professionals". As above: it's an excellent initiative. But what will we talk about in schools?? Of molecular biology or how it is necessary, for example, have more welcome, as many scientists ask on the basis of questionable arguments that are supposed to be impartial?
Let's be clear, with our criticisms we do not want to affirm a sort of equidistance between the luminary and the flat-earther, between serious and tiring research and bar-room "counter-information".. A serious state invests in science and knowledge, we agree. Ma the falsely naive way with which certain statements are thrown on the table, without a minimum of problematization, It still seems dangerous to us. Why there is no such thing as “Science” with a capital letter, immobile, perfect, immaculate. And there are no pure scientists, abstract, out of context, from power relations, from political prejudices.
Adriano Scianca
Roma, 10 gen – Roberto Burioni he succeeded in a miracle, which is no small thing, for a scientist like him: Beppe Grillo and Matteo Renzi reached an agreement. The two political leaders have in fact signed an alleged "pact to defend science" launched by the famous "blaster" doctor. Grillo's membership causes a sensation, as his movement has always openly flirted with any narrative other than the mainstream, often mixing serious topics and conspiracy paranoia. In addition to the political data (how will the Grillina base take this endorsement?), it is however interesting to develop a reasoning on the language of such “pact for science”, because in its few points it seems to replicate exactly those epistemological naiveties that have always made the discussion problematic, apparently common sense, carried out by Burioni (net of his personal, ostentatious and counterproductive antipathy).