Vaccines, from the US ban to the "anti-vaxxers": how Piero Angela's heirs put science back at the center.

Exactly: there's a global issue concerning vaccines. But there's also a specific question: the question we're asking the ministry, as a civil society association, is to explain the criteria used to choose certain people over others in the case of Nitag. While some see the criteria clearly—namely, starting with President Roberto Parrella—we're talking about extensive scientific expertise, others are unclear, and this choice needs to be made explicit. This is especially true given that this is a body tasked with assisting the government in crucial decisions regarding public health.

Professor Parrella, who is also head of the Italian Society of Infectious and Tropical Diseases, says he is certain - in his exact words - that with all the new members it will be possible to establish a useful discussion and a fruitful collaboration supported by solid scientific data.

In some ways, it's like acknowledging a problem, while promising to resolve it properly... The purpose of the open letter in which CICAP raised the issue is to understand the rationale behind certain decisions. Only once this is clarified will the public be able to weigh in. The two people we're questioning have, in their professional lives, taken positions that openly contradict the scientific community's consensus. For example, by supporting the relationship between cot deaths and vaccinations. Or even by claiming that COVID vaccines have not saved millions of lives, as the scientific community has proven. Why choose someone who has openly contradicted the scientific consensus to sit on a commission tasked with working methodologically on vaccines?

In your opinion, is Italy somehow influenced by overseas decisions? Consider the positions of US Secretary of Health Robert Kennedy and his coldness toward the World Health Organization regarding the pandemic plan.

Some may be seeking to follow established trends, like those in the US, which are moving in that direction. Others also believe it's a "wink" to a segment of the electorate that expresses opposition to vaccines. There could be multiple factors, including a misunderstanding of balance. A misunderstanding, because in the specific case of the NITAG, the goal is not to gather opinions but to establish a body that can help the ministry make the most methodologically sound decisions. Therefore, it's important to include the most competent people. We're talking about scientists who are required to provide highly technical opinions. Minister Schillaci himself is a doctor and a scientist: all the more so when we ask him to justify his decision.

In general, what is the “mood” you record?

The first factor is disorientation, the difficulty of finding sources deemed adequate and reliable, and consequently of assessing the credibility of a news item. So the first is a problem of trust. The second is that within the extraordinary wealth of social media, people encounter very different news. The number of those who radically align with anti-scientific, and in this case anti-vaccination, currents is relatively limited, even internationally. Those who radically distrust vaccines account for between 10 and 15% of the population: this means that 85-90% maintain a sufficient level of trust in medicine and those who practice science. This minority, however, is very active, precisely because they feel the need to make their voice heard, which is why we might get the sense that there are many of them. On the other hand, there is a majority of people who follow the indications of science. Finally, there is a third group of "uncertain" people: a variable percentage that reaches up to 30% depending on the type of situation and topic. The latter are people who are very sensitive to news precisely because they do not have a clear position and therefore from time to time they listen to different points of view.

So where are we at in our relationship with science?

We remain a society deeply rooted in science and technology, but it's a fact that what were once the demands of minority groups like the "anti-vaccine" movement are now finding political legitimacy. The Trump administration's case is the most obvious internationally, and this poses a problem: citizens who are confused and unsure of how to navigate the situation may end up adapting when they encounter a political authority that legitimizes certain positions. Today, we know we face a gigantic problem, not just from a scientific, but from a social perspective: the credibility of information and sources of authority. This is why we're warning about the risk that inserting unqualified members into technical groups, as in the case of Nitag, could undermine the credibility of the entire operation.