It was billed as a clash over the future of public trust in science: Italy¡¯s recent election pitted rational, evidence-driven moderates against rabid anti-vaxxer populists who wanted to halt inoculation programmes.

The?incumbent?health minister,?Beatrice Lorenzin,?who had increased?the number of mandatory jabs, even?formed her own?pro-science?party,?and called on researchers ¡°who want to represent the scientific truth in?parliament¡±?to back her.

But when voters went to the polls on 4 March, Ms Lorenzin¡¯s?Civica Popolare?party won just 0.5 per cent of the vote.

Italian?academics who followed the election?see?the?debacle as a warning over the limits of mobilising science in the service of?politics, and paint a more complex picture?of ¡°populist¡± attitudes to science?than Ms?Lorenzin.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°I don¡¯t believe she got 0.5 per cent because Italians don¡¯t believe in science,¡±?said Guido Silvestri, professor of pathology and immunology at Emory University. Most Italians are supportive of scientists,?but?do not?vote on the basis of science policy, he?added.

Researchers ¡°don¡¯t want to be associated with one party¡±, said Antonio Guarino, a professor of economics at UCL. ¡°I want to have an impact,¡± he said, but ¡°it would be very bad if the position of science was associated with a particular political party¡±, reducing scientists to just another interest group.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

¡°Anti-science was one of the critical points of the election campaign, much followed by newspapers [but]?of little interest to voters,¡±?said Alberto Baccini, a professor of economics at the University of Siena, and a member of?Return on Academic Research,?a forum for discussing higher education policy.?The vaccine issue was played up to thwart the ¡°predictable¡± success of new ¡°populist¡± parties, he said.

One such party is the Five Star Movement, which came out on top with 32 per cent of the vote. Drawing on young voters, it is a hard-to-define grouping that primarily defines itself as anti-establishment.

There is a strain of thought in the movement that believes ¡°we don¡¯t need any competence to do anything¡± and ¡°my opinion is as worthwhile as yours¡± said Professor Guarino. Some opposition to the euro has fed off an attitude that ¡°we don¡¯t need economists¡±, he added.

But as it neared the election, Five Star brought in outside expertise to help with policy, he explained, as did another of the ¡°populist¡± parties, the League, known for its anti-immigrant tone, which came in third place with about 18 per cent of the vote.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

A year ago,?Professor?Silvestri?was asked by Five Star to design its policy on vaccinations, which it adopted ¡°without changing a comma¡±,?he said,?aside from some sloppy?simplification?when it was translated into the party¡¯s election manifesto.

¡°A lot of people thanked me, but a lot of people accused me of collusion,¡± Professor Silvestri said. ¡°If you want to advance science, you¡¯ve got to do it in a non-partisan way.¡±

Five Star, as well as the League, wants to repeal a 2017 law which made childhood vaccination against 12 diseases compulsory; previously, only four vaccines were mandatory. However, Five Star and the League insist they are not anti-vaccination, just against obliging parents to inoculate.

The problem is not anti-science sentiment, said Professor Baccini, but the failure of politicians to be open with the data on which they base their decisions. Rather than do this, they enlist ¡°scientist-heroes¡± who can provide ¡°certain and irrefutable solutions¡± and ¡°miraculous¡± cures, he said, which leads to public scepticism.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

david.matthews@timeshighereducation.com