Telmo Pievani is a renowned philosopher of science, biologist, and Italian science communicator. He is particularly recognized for his contributions in the field of evolutionary theory and bioethics. He has written and contributed to numerous books and articles on topics such as evolution, biodiversity, and the ethical issues related to science and technology. Pievani is known for his ability to make complex scientific topics accessible and understandable to the general public. He is also an active science communicator, regularly participating in conferences and television programs to promote understanding and interest in science. In addition to his academic and communication work, Pievani is a Full Professor of Philosophy of Biological Sciences at the University of Padua and holds prestigious positions in various scientific and academic institutions. His influence extends beyond the realm of science, contributing to public debate on ethical and social issues related to science and technology.
What motivated you to delve into the issue of PFAS?
As an evolutionist, I also study the relationship between humans and the environment, and I am often asked to frame this relationship from an evolutionary perspective. Among the topics I address are climate change, biodiversity loss, and environmental violence, the latter of which includes the PFAS pollution incidents. Additionally, as a philosopher of science, I am interested in the interface between science and society, particularly in how science often constitutes both the source of problems and part of the solutions.
Regarding the book “Cattive Acque,” in which you collaborated with Professors Zamperini and Menegatto, what prompted the need to explore this topic further?
The colleagues who authored the book focus on social and environmental psychology. When dealing with these topics, it is necessary to avoid, as often happens in the media, a narrow viewpoint focused only on a specific emergency and the immediate parties involved. On the contrary, a social psychologist builds a scientific project, gathering statistical data, conducting interviews, and making comparisons to obtain a serious and reliable picture of the situation. Secondly, there is a strong ethical motivation: as described in the book’s conclusion, the incident severely violated citizens’ trust. The case is very delicate: PFAS pollution is imperceptible and therefore deceptive. This plays a crucial role in instilling fear in people, similar to the fear caused by nuclear radiation: it is an invisible and painless contamination, yet its effects are evident. For these reasons, it is essential to strengthen the ways to achieve a democratic dialogue between science and society.
A common thought might be, “if I can’t see it, it doesn’t exist.” In your opinion, does invisibility increase or reduce the psychological impact of this pollution?
The point is that an effect of discontinuity is created. That is, as long as the actual danger is unknown, it goes unnoticed, but when awareness increases, the fear of the invisible becomes uncontrollable. Another crucial element is the medium carrying the contamination, namely water, a vital public resource. Therefore, in addition to being invisible, the danger comes from a familiar source, such as the tap in one’s home. The combination of these two elements creates a social effect of intense concern.
The first reports of this environmental violence in Veneto surfaced in 2017. Six years later, has anything changed?
I think so. Now, the issue of PFAS is entering the collective consciousness and has even become a case study. However, this is not yet enough, as two problems arise: while nuclear radiation has a precise source, PFAS are everywhere, permeating the industrial chains of every object in our lives, such as fabrics, leather, cookware, etc. The list is impressive; our entire civilization produces PFAS, making it impossible to pinpoint a single culprit. The second issue concerns the current environmental legislation: in some contexts, like the United States, the ban on toxic molecules only occurs once their danger is proven, while in the EU, the precautionary principle applies: substances are not allowed to be released until they are proven harmless. This is certainly an additional tool we, as Italians, can rely on. At this point, we ask ourselves how it was possible for such harmful substances like PFAS to be released.
Compared to six years ago, have the population’s reactions, which were very strong at the time, changed?
With the spread of awareness, the conflict increases. We see, in fact, that on one side are enormous economic interests, and on the other, citizens are increasingly grasping the significance of the danger. Medical evidence regarding the impact of PFAS and all endocrine disruptors on health is continuously growing, revealing systemic and widespread effects on the entire body.
Regarding our proposal for a project to prevent the spread of these pollutants in the environment, do you think it might be appealing to companies working with PFAS?
Companies are increasingly concerned with maintaining a good reputation. As collective awareness grows, so does their sensitivity to the issue. Finding a way to degrade PFAS does not necessarily mean solving this economic system. Biotechnology should not be perceived as an excuse to avoid doing much more and finding alternative solutions to prevent contamination. Today, Italian companies must also comply with the updated version of Article 41 of the Constitution, which governs the freedom of enterprise by imposing two fundamental limits: human health and environmental health, ensuring the combination of the two.
There is still much skepticism about GMOs. How does the use of biotechnology to solve an environmental problem fit in when these techniques often rely on the use of such microorganisms?
It is important to convey the perception of biotechnology as an ally in the fight against environmental pollutants. Even when developing a system in which modified organisms are confined, stereotypes remain in the public’s mind unless the issue is presented in a more positive light.
What is the winning approach to engaging younger people on this topic?
For young people, who are increasingly sensitive to climate change, the story must be told in an engaging way, within the global theme of climate change, then shifting to a more local issue like PFAS contamination in Veneto.
Are there any additional aspects to consider in presenting our project to society?
It is important to involve all interested parties, leaving no one out. Citizens of all social backgrounds should be included in the conversation. The scientist should not presume to impose solutions from above; instead, they should seek to establish a dialogue that leads to a solution that can, as much as possible, satisfy all parties.
Author: Alice Ghiaroni