The flag has nothing to do with the Bergamo prosecutor’s investigation

We live in a time when the separation of powers, tasks, powers and different specializations has collapsed, which has led to Serious confusion And the accumulation of roles in people who use one instead of the other or with the other to gain power and persuade their interlocutors. I refer to what is happening these days after the deliberate media attention that was sought for the investigations of the Public Prosecutor’s Office into the start of the epidemic in Val Siriana and for the expert of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, Andrew Crisanti.

By now, we have already been persecuted by journalists, judges, prosecutors, politicians, prosecutors, communicators, politicians, scientists, and scientist politicians. We are now witnessing another level jump: We have a scientist-expert-politician-media, a very useful character for reviving the quiet television evenings of Italians orphaned by the duel between virologists, now obsolete due to the obvious satiety of the audience. With apparent disregard for potential conflicts of interest, the reporters ask the new host Expresses himself in all abilities at onceresurrecting that hypothetical judicial process which my ordinary squared-television justice loves so much: you want accusations, a defense—perhaps impersonating another distinguished professor—and debate, far, of course, from the dreary assured procedure of courtrooms, and from the lively but arrogant techniques typical of both science And the law, which is so willingly dispensed with as Simulation intended for entertainment.

Now, I do not intend to comment on the merits, either with respect to the expert report submitted or relevant statements made to the press, over which I would also have some jurisdiction, as well as the nature and legal force of the prosecution system, in which I have no competencies, and cannot Except that I confine myself to listening to the experts; However, I want, as I have on other occasions, to confine myself to reminding my readers that in this whole discussion, Science, at least for the time being, has nothing to do with it, and the scientific community should not be pulled by the vest in any way.. It has nothing to do with it because data and problems dealt with in science are presented, analyzed and discussed in a completely different way: news of an expert report and references to its possible contents are not enough to spark scientific debate, and in fact, in general, even a detailed reading of an expert opinion is not enough, because It is, by definition, nothing more than a document of a legal nature – in this case, moreover, at the request of the claim – not arguing that the scientific method and goals can be evaluated by the research community in the same way as an article in Nature. Moreover, it has nothing to do with it, because the place where the debate is taking place today in no way allows for a discussion that is not guided by politics, law, public opinions, and public perception.; Quite another, and of necessity, are the forums in which a more or less quiet discussion can take place among researchers, in which the real criterion for judgment is method, analytical rigor and evidence in favor of this or that hypothesis about the natural world.

Finally, it has nothing to do with it The way the argument is being conducted, between cheering and insults for more or less large segments of the audience and spectators, who often overwhelm the arguments to line up behind the banner of this or that, so that they do not understand or absorb the details of the analysis and its evaluation method in depth. let the judges and experts move forward; But please don’t pretend or imagine that what we’re observing is the combined result of an analysis by the scientific communityit is better to turn away as far as possible from controversy, and to remain on the statements apt to it, without beginning to think of investigations and examinations more suitable for courts and police than academic chairs.