Stefano Ossicini, L’universo è fatto di storie non solo di atomi. Breve storia delle truffe scientifiche, Neri Pozza, 2012
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17157
application/pdf
2038-3460
17157
2
en
Giuseppe Pellegrini
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/
Tecnoscienza – Italian Journal of Science & Technology Studies
Stefano Ossicini, The Universe is Made of Stories, not Only of Atoms. A Brief History of Scientific Frauds, Neri Pozza, 2012
Text.Serial.Journal
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/
4
Book Reviews
2014-01-04
2023-06-12
2014-01-04
2023-11-07
162-164
TS
Giuseppe Pellegrini
2013
10.6092/issn.2038-3460/17157
162
University of Padua
2038-3460
2
en
164
Stefano Ossicini, The Universe is Made of Stories, not Only of Atoms. A Brief History of Scientific Frauds, Neri Pozza, 2012
https://tecnoscienza.unibo.it/article/download/17157/16064
4
162                                                           Tecnoscienza – 4 (2)

about life and the gene becomes a material entity used for explanatory
purposes. In this case, the molecular biology, from genetic theory, pro-
vides a "final explanation" for life, as Descartes craved.
     Hitherto, Monteiro presents and discusses translations of physiologi-
cal body to the body-information as it occurs in the laboratory. The au-
thor also shows how the molecular biology appears as owner of the abso-
lute truth of the biology. Then, in chapter six he presents a discussion of
the possible consequences of these processes. In other words, here are
discussed political issues that are raised by the possibility to manipulate
the body. The potential here is interpreted as a possible way of linking
technology/body/policy arising from biotechnology. This issue becomes
central, as a historical example of the most radical expression of a logic of
life politicization.
     In contrast to chapter six, chapter seven examines practices of recreat-
ing the body distinct from those offered by eugenics. The focus is on the
manipulation of the living matter (the body) for aesthetic purposes. Bio-
art appears here as a particular mobilization of the potential originated
from advances in genetics. It dislocates laboratory practice in order to
promote an ethical debate about the relationship between technology and
life. Bio-art allows to create new ethical uses of technology and this ethic-
aesthetic becomes a critical weapon against the possibility of a genetic de-
terminism (author argues).
     In the concluding chapter, Monteiro points out that biotechnology
should not be banned, although it certainly has an eugenic potential that
should be questioned. The author suggests that we should seek new and
different machinic assemblages for biotechnologies, more consistent with
our democratic ideals and able to preserve existing life forms.
     When thinking about the possibility of reinvention of the body in a
biotechnology age, many other questions arise and the book by Marko
Monteiro presents numerous theoretical concerns and explanations. This
is a dense and intense reading highly relevant for scholars interested in
studying the body in its social relationship with new (bio)technologies.
After its reading, new questions related to the body (and beyond) will
arise.
                                        !
                                        !
                                     ***
!
Stefano Ossicini
L’universo è fatto di storie non solo di atomi. Breve storia delle truffe sci-
entifiche [The Universe is Made of Stories, not Only of Atoms. A Brief
History of Scientific Frauds]
Vicenza, Neri Pozza, 2012, pp. 286

Giuseppe Pellegrini University of Padua
Book Review                                                               163

     Scientists’ research activities have changed considerably since second
world war. In addition to an exponential increase of researchers, there
has been a significant growth of publications and magazines proposing
contributions from various disciplines. Moreover, this growth is linked to
the scientists’ skills to communicate in an ever faster way, being able to
propose results in advance not only to their own community but also to
different media. This produces various effects.
     The first effect regards a dissemination and availability of scientific
news as never recorded in the past. Take for example the medical field,
where users have now access to entire databases of biomedical research.
These “fields of data” are increasingly used to understand where research
is going to take place, to propose treatments and find possible solutions
to diseases.
     A second effect concerns the difficulty of holding a fast paced which-
does not allow journals and peer review systems to work out the necessary
checks, so that the meshes of the system cannot hold back the inevitable
imprecisions and inaccuracies; not to mention real scams.
     The book by Stefano Ossicini allows to reflect on high-profile cases of
scientific fraud, but not in order to expose the failures of science or to
warn against the supposed authority of the scientific world. It allows us to
notice what is changing in the world of research and how the profession
of scientist is undergoing rapid changes. In the face of emblematic cases,
in some ways paradoxical and sometimes comical, it is possible to distin-
guish some elements that characterize the role and function of the scien-
tist, now seriously in question.
     First of all, we grasp that the process of justification, i.e. the set of
methods used by scientists to prove their results, is today increasingly
complex and articulated. It is not so easy to produceaccounts which allow
(for example) to replicate experiments and, as Kuhn (1962) and Feyera-
bend (1975) already stated, you cannot easily distinguish between the
context of discovery and justification. Moreover, scientists today meet
even more difficulties on how to communicate the context of research
where ideas, projects and results were produced.
     Another important element concerns the authority of scientific institu-
tions. There are strong beliefs assigning an impartial role to science, with
the expectation that scientists’ messages do not lose their objective and
unambiguous character. This is strongly disputed and probably due to a
lack of understanding of the historical processes with which science has
evolved. These processes demonstrate how disputes and clashes between
different positions have always been one of the characteristic features of
scientific activity, especially when scientists face public contexts.
     The argumentative study of scientific frauds through the analysis of
original documents allows checking the dynamics of scientific activity.
Here, the establishment of an inquiry commission, the withdrawal of
awards, the firing of scientists (as in the case of the high-temperature su-
164                                                           Tecnoscienza – 4 (2)

perconductivity – p. 205) not only report the weakness of a system that
must come to extreme measures to defend itself, but show how scientific
certainties are constructed through non-linear paths and contingencies.
    The author proposes some interpretations on the ethos of scientists
citing the well-known contribution of Merton. However, we do not find
in the text references to the decisive contributions made by Latour
(1999), Barnes (1974) and others who have proposed the need of a new
process of self-reflection, given that: “scientists are more like players in an
intense, winner take-all competition for scientific prestige and the re-
sources that follow from that prestige” (Goodstein 2002, 31).
    As demonstrated by scientific fraud analyses, the scientist is not a dis-
interested servant of the public good nor his/her activities could be fully
transparent. Rather, scientists are restricted by instruments, money and
attitudes of their colleagues (Feyerabend 1975). At the same time, the key
role of science and scientists in contemporary society need to develop a
reflexive attitude towards their own activities, questioning things we have
always taken for granted.

References
Barnes, B. (1974) Scientific Knowledge and Sociological Theory, London,
   Routledge.
Feyerabend, P.K. (1975) Against Method. Outline of an Anarchist Theory of
   Knowledge, London, New Left Books.
Goodstein, D. (2002) Scientific Misconduct, in “Academe”, (88) 1, pp. 28-31.
Kuhn, T.S. (1962) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Chicago, University
  of Chicago Press.
Latour, B. (1999) Politiques de la nature. Comment faire entrer les sciences en
   démocratie, Paris, La Découverte; Engl. trad. Politics of Nature: How to
   Bring the Sciences Into Democracy, Cambridge, Harvard University Press,
   2004.

                                    ***


Cristina Zucchermaglio, Francesca Alby, Marilena Fa-
tigante and Marzia Saglietti
Fare ricerca situata in psicologia sociale [Performing Situated Research in
Social Psychology]
Bologna, il Mulino, 2013, pp. 152

Barbara Pentimalli Sapienza University of Rome
