Between science and politics

Today at least 1% of the population of the world's most industrialised countries are scientists or people working in the field of high and innovative technologies. Scientific research absorbs between 2 and 3% of the wealth produced each year in these countries, which make up the wealthy part of the world. Scientific knowledge is the source from which, for at least a century, the technological system has been systematically drawing on to produce innovation. But the twentieth century is the century of technical innovation where science has acquired an intensity and speed unknown in any other historical era. There is no doubt that since the twentieth century, men who practice scientific research have an enormous and unprecedented influence on society and, therefore, on politics, but the history of the twentieth century reminds us that science can be manipulated and misused by politics. The scientific discipline is born from research and the problem is not the use of later, but the researcher's awareness of the potential of his studies and the use of them. Too often, in the twentieth century dominated by totalitarianism, scientists had to dress as bureaucrats called upon to justify theories of a regime: Stalin exterminated entire peoples in the name of ethnic science. But scientists are men like everyone else, some rebel and those who have always compromised with political choices.

Let us look at the history of Italy since the beginning of the twentieth century. Italy was a very poor country, illiteracy was very widespread, in the South there was a lack of infrastructure, there was no postal service or transport. But the climate of euphoria and trust allowed the country to invest in science, innovation and education. Quintino Sella, a training engineer, as Minister of Finance, made drastic cuts in funding, but never in school funding. And the scientists, who had fought for the unification of Italy, actively participated in the construction of the newly united Italy, also holding institutional positions. The commitment was born from the idea that for the civil development of the country it was necessary to raise the technological level and therefore a national science policy was needed. Then a professional political class was formed that undermined the scientists and already at the beginning of the 20th century the honeymoon between science, society and politics was over. In 1945 Italy came out of the war in disastrous conditions and nobody would have bet a lira on its future. But even here a climate of trust that was created between science and some productive sectors allowed Italy to rise from the rubble. Between 1945 and 1964 Italy grew exponentially also thanks to its trust in research and innovation. So much so that at the beginning of the 1960s the country boasted poles of scientific and technological excellence that the world envied it: IT, oil, nuclear, chemical and medical. And the stories of Olivetti, Mattei (to name a few) are there to testify to this. Almost fifty years have passed since then and there has never been such a happy relationship between science, society and politics in Italy.

As we have seen, the twentieth century is the century of the great consequences of the bad choices of politics (it was so for Italy and so in many other countries), in all fields: economic, social, scientific, artistic and cultural (how did a very gifted poet like D'Annunzio manage to push an entire nation into war? political ardour). Time and history condemned Mengele and Hiroshima, but scientists cannot but study the effects of Hiroshima, for example on radiation and cancer, and if something useful came out of Mengele's horrors in the extermination camps, the scientist would surely study it, without absolving the executioner. Science should be neutral and far from politics, but it has never been and has always been linked to political choices. We should try to imagine what would have been the great scientific research of the twentieth century in different states, for example, if nuclear power had been developed before the Nazis of the allies, but the scientist is no less neutral than a philosopher, listen to three of them and they all think differently. Certainly, some dangers are well pointed out by critics of science: some maintain that our society would be better off without the atomic bomb, those who point out that science leads in some fields to the dehumanisation of work, those who accuse science of threatening religious faith, those who see science as a manifestation of Western thought alone and a deplorable instrument of Western domination over other cultures. Today's scientist, much more so than in the twentieth century, is forced to ask himself what are the social consequences of his actions. This necessity clashes with the traditional reluctance of men of science, who love talking to each other about their things. However, it is not bad, not even for society, that the scientist is forced to go into politics. Politics is nothing more than an attempt to find in society the best balance between different visions or interests. The teaching received in the twentieth century tells us that the man of science has the right and the duty to pursue the interests of his studies, but he must accept that the best possible balance is achieved, also taking into account other legitimate interests: i.e. based on clear and rigorous analyses that are the result of his morals and professional ethics. The politician, of course, when called upon to make a choice involving new scientific knowledge, must also assume his or her responsibilities and choose among the various scientific options available to him or her. Who, then, must the politician listen to? Well, first and foremost, his conscience, which requires him to always respect, according to the constraints of the law, the freedom of research, but also requires him to select the various scientific options available to him.