Surreal situation for Bucci, former director of Bioindustry. The former 5Stelle De Bonis: “Do you have the qualifications to write in the newspaper?”
SAMONE. Gentlemen, this scientist has the right titles to write about biodynamic agriculture on newspaper The paper? Here is the core of the question that Senator Saverio De Bonis, former 5 Star Movement now in the Mixed Group, put to the holders of the University and Health Departments, Maria Cristina Messa and Roberto Speranza. The scientist in question is Enrico Bucci, who still lives in Samone and directed Colleretto Giacosa’s Bioindustry Park for two years, with a doctorate in biochemistry and molecular biology, a past at the CNR in Naples and a present as a researcher at Temple. university of Chicago. And, in addition to the numerous articles written in journals and scientific journals, Bucci has been carrying on the popularization activity for years: it began with the book Bad scientists in 2015 (from which a blog and a second edition was born), and then on his Facebook page.
The interrogation
A curriculum that obviously did not impress De Bonis, who considered it appropriate to ask the ministers whether or not a citizen could write about biodynamic agriculture in a newspaper.
«In an article of June 1, 2021 – writes the senator -, de The paper, on the page dedicated to science, there is an article by Enrico Bucci who wrote about biodynamics, stating that “The proponents of biodynamics flaunt solid scientific evidence that contradicts biochemistry and seem to have been artfully created by the capillary network of their lobby “. Bucci, without any evident qualification of studies on the subject, affirms that biodynamics has no scientific basis and criticizes Carlo Triarico, historian of science, president of the Association for biodynamic agriculture, vice president of Federbio, director of the Apab institute , president of Agrifound, member of the permanent research committee in organic and biodynamic agriculture of the Ministry of agricultural, food and forestry policies ».
But above all, he adds, “biodynamic agriculture must be considered an evolution of organic agriculture, to which it is absolutely complementary, but has peculiarities and distinctive characteristics”.
Phrase that aroused some astonishment given that biodynamics, in addition to being distinct, is also chronologically prior to organic and has its roots in the esoteric theories of Rudolf Steiner, father of anthroposophy, published in the 1920s, after the death of the thinker. , and contained in the course Scientific-spiritual impulses for the progress of agriculture.
The pact for science
The transversal Pact for science, of which Bucci is a part, also intervened on the subject, together with men of science of the caliber of Roberto Burioni and Pierluigi Lo Palco. “We express our utmost solidarity with Enrico Bucci – they write – and we share his efforts by emphasizing that biodynamic agriculture is not an evolution or a branch of organic agriculture, as is also claimed in the deed filed by Senator De Bonis, but if anything its involution ». Solidarity also expressed by the group of Sciences and technologies for agriculture (Seta).
«The organic – explains Bucci – was born after the biodynamic, purifying in some way the esotericism. And in itself it is not wrong to have a belief, everyone can believe what they want on the horns stuffed with manure that they stick into the earth, the problem is when they sell themselves bragging about properties that they don’t really have. Biodynamics may be a religion, but it cannot be passed off as science. I can bless the plow before using it, it is another thing to sell it by saying that it works ».
Reactions from the scientific community
What made a large part of the scientific community jump is the equation between organic and biodynamic agriculture contained in the bill 998 approved by the Senate with the only vote against the life senator Elena Cattaneo, scientist, who gave a heartfelt speech on the matter .
The Accademia dei Lincei also expressed their opinion on the merit, calling that of the upper house a “grave error” and defining biodynamic agriculture based “on senseless esoteric / astrological beliefs that seem to come from a treatise on witchcraft”.
While, the Georgofili and other scientific societies have explained that they are “aware of the fact that biodynamic agriculture is an economic reality. However, we believe that including it in a state law is equivalent to giving it an endorsement. This is unacceptable to the scientific community, especially in a period in which science is listened to with particular attention by political decision makers all over the world ». And for this he asked for the removal of three articles from the bill.