Candidate scientists and the instrumental use of the statements of those who worked in the field, as in the case of the director of the Mario Negri institute: this campaign is increasingly characterized not by attention to scientific data, but by the polemical use of distorted arguments, for convenience
During this election campaign, we are witnessing both the recruitment of doctors and researchers on the electoral roll, and the use of the appeal to science as a weapon against one’s political opponents or to strengthen one’s side.
Of the sscientists who apply we have already discussed; as regards the second phenomenon, that is the appeal to science, it is worth remembering the very last example, in which prof. Giuseppe Remuzzi it was necessary to intervene to oppose the use made of a recent scientific review, which is also based on research produced at the time by Mario Negri. There is in fact a broad conspiratorial front that would like to “shoot Hope” and blame the scientific community for denying useful treatments to COVID-19 patients, through the imposition of inappropriate protocols; This is the appeal of plunderers and politicians to bring water to their electoral mill, distorting both the recent review and the original study in support of the use of anti-inflammatories. THEn many have dismantled the bales of this strengthened front of scoundrels, who invented the non-existent “denial of care” to accuse chosen opponents and thus strengthen themselvesthe; however, they are particularly significant the last words of prof. Remuzzi in La Stampabecause he has often and willingly been raised to an idol by scoundrels who distort his words for their own use and consumption.
“The worst thing that can happen to scientific literature data is to be exploited during an electoral campaign ….”; “Indicting Minister Speranza is deplorable ….”; “In Italy the attitude of the ministry and AIFA has always been impeccable”; and finally “… The vaccine … is the greatest miracle that modern medicine has made available to the population …”.
This is the tenor of Remuzzi’s declarations in La Stampa, and I do not think at this point there are more doubts about the villainy of those who distort and accuse, in order to create a group of holy denouncers of the wickedness of others, a group on whose consent to gain in various way on the occasion of the next political elections.
Now, there is nothing new in the delusional conspiracy that social networks are infested with, and not even – unfortunately – in their use to incite one’s followers and to threaten death to third parties.; as happens behind the wheel, it seems that a keyboard is able to make psychologically more fragile subjects lose their inhibitions, letting the serial hater emerge, perhaps lurking in the neighbor.
On the other hand, what is really worrying is precisely what Remuzzi denounced, that is the large-scale distortion of the declarations of those who normally would not see their words reported outside of scientific journals or some popular article, in order to gain electoral consent among the savages of post-truth.
Candidate scientists and instrumental use of the statements of those who remained in the laboratory or in the ward: this electoral campaign seems increasingly characterized not by the attention to the method and the scientific data, but by the discovery of the polemic and gladiatorial use that can be done by throwing distorted arguments and well-characterized characters into the arena.
After all, there were two years of preparation: the narcissism of many exponents of the clinical community, and of a few rare researchers from other sectors, was immediately exploited in a television key, to set up a genre show never seen before on this scale. .
This show has created an audience, which means, of course, that it has also created vast communities of fans, around different characters; communities that have begun to confront each other by interpreting the words of their champions, thus feeding and preparing the stage for new shows.
This is where the last electoral campaign took place and arrived; and since the polarization in time of elections pays off, why not exploit the very specific faults created in society, fielding one’s side here or there, and enlisting this or that laboratory sample, or failing that, brandishing his works as a weapon, pretending they mean what you please
Science, its method and its data, of course, couldn’t be further from this shoddy pre-election show.
Those who hoped for the pandemic lesson to strengthen society’s attention to research and its role have served: it is actually the tired and decadent social feud that has incorporated this or that pseudoscientific argument, or obtained starting from science, to emptying and subversion of the substance, but maintaining its external form.
Instead, there is no trace of attention to real research, investment in the future and preparation of what we need, neither in the debate nor in the programs, except in the form of some tired repetition of empty words. Because it is now clear: in Italy not science, but only its parody shifts votes.