The club of illiberal ecology against Defez. Italy is not a country for researchers

Italy is not a country for researchers. I believe this fact is well evidenced by the attack that one of them, personally known to me for his integrity and for his scientific value, had to undergo in the press. I would not talk about it, if the way in which this attack was conducted cannot be considered an archetype of a widespread mentality and a narrative framework that is used every time as a club by a well-identified area, that of anti-liberal ecosciovinism. in search and in defense of its specific market, both financial and consensus.

Let’s see the facts: the GM Watch organization has prepared a new report commissioned by the Greens group of the European Parliament to investigate the relationships between companies and public researchers in the agricultural biotechnology sector. This report, cited in an investigation by the Italian journalist Alessia Capasso made for AgriFood Today, is not accessible at the time of writing, and the links provided to download it do not work; however, thanks to Capasso we can read large quotes that derive from it, of which I am interested here to comment on those relating to Italian researchers. In particular, about Roberto Defezthe GM Watch report would state that it “performed active lobbying for the revision of EU regulations on GMOs in favor of GMO developers ”, through the publication of opinion articles in the media and in a scientific journal, as well as by intervening in a hearing in the Senate in Italy”.

And here we can immediately notice one thing: according to the drafters, how would lobbying be exercised? Nothing less than publishing in scientific journals and in the media what are his own beliefs as an expert in the sector and the theses and data that underlie them. Because, evidently, if they don’t want to follow the lying narrative that opposes GMOs, even based on scientific fraud, scientists are automatically lobbyists. Publishing data and facts, in scientific journals, and telling these facts in the Senate and in every seat, including the European one, is instead the duty of every researcher; other than lobbying!

Following in the text of Alessia Capasso’s investigation, we read that Roberto Defez would even have unspeakable personal interests. “In his case, there would be five patents relating to genetic engineering in which he is cited as an applicant and / or inventor, including one” on a method to control gene expression “made with a private company”.

Now, it happens that the holder of the patents in question is the public institution for which Defez works, or the Cnr. In fact, being an “applicant or inventor” does not imply any economic return at all, but only the recognition of having been the head from whose work certain ideas have sprung. Ideas that, rightly, the public institution has decided to protect, just as a guarantee of the public interest, since otherwise they would be exploitable for free by any company wishing to do so. The facts are reversed: instead of being proud of the fact that the intellectual property developed in a public research institution has remained with that body, and therefore with the Italian citizen, it is stated that this would be to the advantage of the private sector and the inventor, both interested and to the detriment of the citizen. The fact is that the word “patent” alone is enough to launch nonsense accusations, because certainly the marketing of green lies is not subtle in its fraudulent allusions..

And then: do we want to talk about conflicts of interest? So let’s talk about it. GM Watch, the author of the report, is at the center of an extensive global financing network, from which it receives support precisely for its “advocacy”. That is, she is paid to write what she writes and to say what she says. Funders for 2011 included Friends of the Earth Europe, Friends of the Earth UK, the Soil Association and the Courtyard Trust. From July 2011 to May 2012, a GM Watch publisher received a payment from Jeffrey M. Smith’s Institute for Responsible Technology for editorial support for the IRT newsletters. In 2012 and 2013 he received funding from the Isvara Foundation, Friends of the Earth Europe and Courtyard Trust. In 2014, GM Watch received funding from Food Democracy Now !, Isvara Foundation and Sheepdrove Trust. In 2015-2017 GMWatch received funding from Friends of the Earth Europe, Sheepdrove Trust and JMG Foundation. In 2017-2018 the organization received funding from Sheepdrove and JMG. And we could of course continue. Here, however, the point is that those who ask to declare to Italian public researchers non-existent conflicts of interest, in reality lack transparency regarding their direct financial interests: GM-Watch is not a “charity” and is privately funded, so we do not have an available budget that allows us to track all its financial flows and to know all its interests in the sector in which it operates.

Consequently, the gloss attributed to MEP Rosa D’Amato – infamous for the instrumental falsehoods declared about Xylella – that “unfortunately, the scientists involved in the regulatory debate on genetically modified organisms do not always reveal their links with the industry in advance of biotechnology or their patents “, should be slightly expanded: all those involved in the debate on agriculture and the ways of producing food should declare their financial interests, starting with those who support a GMO-free world, but earn from organic and biodynamic, passing through the gurus of certain multinational associations, up to those scientists who are willing to produce false data and individually earn from their relationships with organic companies.