This is a clearly an abusive price, particularly when we consider two aspects: on the one hand, a study, conducted at the University of Liverpool and published in April in the Journal of Virus Eradication, estimated that the minimum cost of production of remdesivir is 0.93 dollars (0.83 Euros) per dose. The difference between the 2083 Euros that complete treatment will mean for the national budget of many countries, versus the almost 6 Euros that it would cost to produce it is, to say the least, significant.

On the other hand, this medicine, like many others, has benefited from a large amount of public investment. The US government alone, via the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and other public institutes,  has invested at least 70 million dollars  (62.3 million Euros) in the development of this antiviral. And this is without counting the number of clinical trials in which the public health systems of many countries have participated in recent months.

Moreover, in light of the clinical data available to us, remdesivir is not, by any means, the definitive cure for COVID-19, and the little we know, for now, is that the medicine is able to reduce hospitalization from 15 to 11 days in the most severe cases and there is no significant reduction in mortality.

The business case

Meanwhile, the president and CEO of Gilead, Daniel O´Day, announced in a letter that, in an enormous exercise of responsibility, they had decided to set the price of remdesivir well below its value, explaining that the use of the medicine could save national health systems 12,000 dollars (10,682 Euros) per patient. This is a commercial argument to fix the price of a product under the dangerous model of "price by value" that the pharmaceutical industry tries to impose, and that has brought us an unstoppable escalation in the price of health technologies.

The price of medicines should be directly related to what it actually costs to develop and produce them, plus a fair and reasonable profit, considering the public effort that has been invested in the R&D chain.

The high and abusive price of remdesivir will be a barrier to access for many countries and, in particular, the poorest. Other countries, such as ours, if able to purchase it, will need to divert resources from other health areas equally or more necessary.

The US, on their behalf, has announced they have reached an agreement with Gilead so that almost all production of remdesivir during the next three months—about 500,000 treatments—remains in the country. What will happen with the rest of the countries? The Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices claims that the company has guaranteed them supply.

We know that Gilead has reached voluntary licensing agreements with generic companies in countries such as India, Egypt, and Pakistan that allows them to produce and commercialize the medicine in 127 countries, foreseeably middle and low income. Complete details of the agreements, including the limitations the companies will have in commercializing the medicine in countries not included in the licenses, are yet come to light, as they are confidential.

Supply problems

For the rest of the world, it is not known how we will be able to purchase this drug in the short or medium terms. Namely, we not only find ourselves facing an issue of an abusive price but also of supply.

From Salud por Derecho we have spent years reminding governments, and especially the Spanish Government, that in the event of a public health crisis such as the current one, or faced with the exorbitant prices of medicines for hepatitis C or cancer, national authorities should make use of compulsory licenses; a legal measure that allows a country to temporarily suspend a drug patent so that a company can produce it as a generic, paying the patent holder royalties as economic compensation.

In this way, the price we would pay for remdesivir would lower significantly, and we would be able to ensure supply. The compulsory license forms part of the international intellectual property agreements outlined in the Doha Declaration, adopted by the World Trade Organization in 2001, and laid down in the 2015 Spanish Patent Law, although to date, the Spanish Government had not shown signs of wanting to apply it.

In the following months, new medicines and vaccines for COVID-19 are expected to emerge, and we now have the opportunity to do things differently and in a better way.

One of the ways to ensure that the medicines and vaccines that are produced are global public goods is for governments, including the Spanish Government, that are acting as investors, to introduce clauses in the R&D contracts with research groups and private companies. Clauses that fix a price and a maximum profit margin so that the resulting products are affordable, and that require that the transfer of technology to produce and commercialize these products are not exclusive; that is, avoid a monopoly through open licenses.

Fair and affordable prices

Another path that this medicine could have followed, if the US had valued the public money provided by its citizens, was the placement of all patents, technology, and necessary knowledge to produce remdesivir in the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool (C-TAP), an initiative launched by the WHO and Costa Rica in the middle of the health crisis so that all medical innovations and scientific knowledge is shared with the international science community and in this way advance in the fight against the coronavirus.

An option that, like the previous one, would allow the medicines and vaccines to have fair and affordable prices and be within reach for all countries and producers, ensuring its availability and supply for all persons that need it, without leaving anybody behind and without wasting economic resources nor bankrupting national health systems.

This history of high prices and barriers to access to medicines developed thanks to public money, unfortunately, is not new; instead, this is the usual way in which the biomedical innovation model functions. Solutions exist that will allow the medicines and vaccines to be global public goods; governments just need to see with clarity the situation that we are facing and have the political will to apply them.

Vanessa López, director of Salud por Derecho

We need effective measures for physical distancing. We also need to know how the control measures to overcome the COVID-19 pandemic affect different sections of the population in radically different ways, now and in the near future.

We have experienced many previous examples of how crises exacerbate social inequalities. In the current, almost dystopian situation, social determinants of health are more clearly shown.

The ability to assume physical and social distancing will be greater for those of us in confinement who have certain resources in our homes, neighbourhoods and cities.

It helps us to have distractions: television, movies, books we have not read yet. We want to communicate with good internet connections, mobile phones and tablets. It is important to have a good food stores nearby, a health centre and a hospital where we can get help or our phone calls may be answered. And for everything to go well in the long run, we need a good job, the security of not losing it, a decent pension, good housing and a social network that will listen to us and help if something goes wrong or very wrong.

So, under those favourable conditions, confinement would be bearable for a long time. The remaining and necessary questions are: Can all sectors of our population face this health crisis with the same guarantees? And, are we all equally affected right now and in the near future?

Social inequalities harm your health

Social inequalities create and perpetuate health inequalities. These social inequalities are nothing else than the processes and phenomena that occur in our societies, countries, cities, districts, neighbourhoods and buildings, and which are directly related to the health and diseases we have. Social determinants are closely related to jobs and educational level, to gender, age and where we live.

The type of work and employment situation we have, will allow us to deal with confinement in very different ways. For example, if I cannot work from home, I will probably have to commute in public transportation, and the crowded situation of trains and subways at rush hour, even after the state of emergency has been established in Madrid, is definitely worrisome.

The possibility of teleworking will also determine how we take care of children, and how we help them continuing their education during confinement.

Picture: Víctor Carreño

There are jobs and jobs. In this situation of crisis and social tension, we applaud the health workers who are carrying out titanic work. It is great that we are doing so and, above all, that we are taking very much into account the fact that the universal health care system, its researchers and technicians need greater support, funding and protection in the future.

However, strangely enough, we remember less about the clerks in the neighbourhood food shops and supermarkets, the Bengalis, Pakistanis, Dominicans, stockists and supermarket cashiers who, with minimum wages and infernal working hours, attend to customers in fear with infinite patience.

Healthcare personnel, pharmacy office staff, food workers and many other workers we need right now are the “indispensable ones” Bertolt Brecht wrote about, those who fight all their lives from their job positions.

And let us not forget about job conditions and security. Although the Spanish government has already launched a package of social measures to alleviate the consequences, the state of emergency is calling into question many jobs with the ERTEs (Temporary Layoffs).

As the most famous sociologist Ángeles Durán has told us, the burdens of paid and unpaid work are very different between men and women in Spain. It is no longer just important who has what kind of job and its different remuneration, but who takes care of whom. There are fundamental jobs in our society done mainly by women. Migrant women take care of our children, our elderly persons, our homes. These weeks or months they will be paid less, or not at all.

We are talking a lot about elderly persons during this crisis. Elderly persons who already have chronic illnesses are those at greatest risk of dying in hospitals according to the first studies already published in Wuhan (China). But elderly persons are not all the same either. There are those who live alone and those who live in families, those who have adequate housing and those who do not, those who still take care of our children and those who are cared for. There are those who live in residences costing 3,000 euros a month and those who live in public nursing homes.

There are elderly persons with maximum level pensions and an enormous number with minimum pensions. In the report on interdisciplinary research of the CSIC “The rhythm of senescence”, in which I participated, we already concluded by highlighting the relevance of redistribution policies that emphasize a crucial intersection: that of gender, age and social class.

For elderly persons, shopping can be the only time of day to socialize and have contact with shopkeepers and neighbours in the neighbourhood / Photographer Jose Luis Carrero

In the moment of preventive confinement we are facing, the quality of our housing is essential. There are spacious, well-lit, ventilated houses, houses with a terrace and garden, as opposed to the small, poorly insulated, elevator-less houses in our neighbourhoods and cities. How can a member of a large family be isolated in a 50-m2 apartment?

Very few resources are still being allocated, compared to other areas of research, to studying social inequalities by neighbourhood and urban health. Now, in the face of the coronavirus crisis, the European Commission has just selected 17 research projects and in Spain we are participating in 6 of them. None of these 6 projects includes aspects on how to face, and how this crisis will affect, the different segments of our populations.

Research that includes interdisciplinary approaches including social science aspects and methodologies will be that which best allows us to understand and design the most effective and equitable actions to face public health problems such as the COVID19 crisis.

We remain blind to the extremely unequal reality of our societies. Today, social inequality translates into 15 or 7 years of difference in life expectancy according to whether one belongs to one social class or another, whether one lives in one neighbourhood or another. And we all understand that many good things can be done in 7 years. These inequalities are unjust and avoidable. Once again, national and local city governments that invest most in social services will be those with the highest levels of health and the fewest inequalities. This has been clearly shown for the US in research conducted by Stanford colleagues.

In the face of the COVID19 crisis, it is necessary to act politically, administratively and scientifically so that it does not become another factor that increases the already alarming inequalities in health.

Manuel Franco is a professor of Epidemiology at the University of Alcalá in Madrid and the Johns Hopkins School of Public Health (USA). He is the main researcher of the European project Heart Healthy Hoods, which studies the influence of the neighbourhood of residence on cardiovascular health in the districts of Madrid.

The researchers who have passed through her laboratory call themselves 'margaritos'. Many of them today hold important positions in the scientific world

Many of these “margaritas and margaritos” now occupy some of the leading positions in Spanish science. And added to all this and the rest of the activities that she developed non-stop during her eighty years of life, Margarita was also tireless in denouncing the situation of discrimination against women in science. She herself acknowledged that it took her time to realise this fact and how it had affected her own career, but once she became aware, she no longer ceased to publicly denounce this discrimination.

Perhaps even more important than her statements on gender bias in science, however, is her own role as a benchmark. Margarita Salas was a scientist who was known to the public, something that in a country like ours, where little importance has always been given to science is almost a miracle, let alone with women.

A researcher to the end

Margarita Salas was many things. A graduate in biochemistry, a postdoctoral student at the Severo Ochoa laboratory in New York, she was a pioneering molecular biologist and the driving force behind the creation of the first research centre in this discipline to be opened in Spain, which today is the Severo Ochoa Molecular Biology Centre. There, she was the head of one of the most productive laboratories in the country and continued to work there until a few days before her death. Her entire life's research was centred on the study of a modest virus which, as she laughingly explained, “has a difficult name”: the phi29 bacteriophage.

Her discovery of the DNA polymerase of the phi29 bacteriophage virus resulted in the CSIC's most profitable patent

Margarita's work discovered important action mechanisms of polymerase, a molecule responsible for the replication of the virus’s DNA, and also produced a series of international patents on the use of this polymerase in genetic engineering and biotechnology.

To get an idea of the scope of these applications, one need only know that her first patent gave the Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas (CSIC), the institution where Margarita worked all her life, half of the income that the CSIC received from all the patents registered during their period of duration.

Also recognised by her colleagues

Margarita Salas was perhaps the only scientist who was recognised as a researcher by the non-scientific public, but she was also hugely recognized by her colleagues. She was the first Spanish scientist to enter the Academy of Sciences in the United States, and throughout her life she received countless awards such as the Mendel Medal, the Rey Jaime I Award, the Ramon y Cajal National Research Award, the L'Oreal- UNESCO Award and the Echegaray Medal. She received her last award, the European Inventor Award 2019, only five months ago.

We are very grateful to her for opening up a path with her work by revealing the existence of the other women scientists.

But she was also a member of the Royal Spanish Academy; she had been the director of the Institute of Spain, the institution that groups all the academies, and had received honorary doctorates from many universities.

Also, from 2002 onwards, Margarita Salas was an honorary member of the Association of Women Researchers and Technologists and we at AMIT are deeply proud to have shared with her the defence of the equality for women in science. We are very grateful to her for opening a path with her work by revealing the existence of the rest of us women scientists; we are grateful to her for talking about the discrimination she had suffered in her career; we are also grateful to her for the fact that there were always female students in her laboratory. And we want to remember her as the tireless scientist she was.

Carmen Fenoll and Maite Paramio are, respectively, the president and vice-president of the Association of Women Researchers and Technologists (AMIT).

As far as we know, bacteria do not see glass, nor do they think well about the future, and therefore cannot imagine a sustainable life.

If we draw a graph of their growth, it would be very similar to that of humans since the industrial revolution, except for its scale: minutes would equal years. And, much as we can see that our planet has some limits and we know that we cannot escape much further, it is difficult for us to live in a sustainable way. An inability marked by flaws present in our overvalued brains: our most distinctive organ is practically blind to climate change.

Our most distinctive organ, the brain, is virtually blind to climate change

It does not care about what we perceive as something distant in time or space. In fact, it only allows us to really take it into account on days of extreme weather events.

It does not like to deal with uncertainty and it smells it every time scientists update impacts as their knowledge advances. Also, it does not understand something that is not personal, abrupt or immoral as dangerous.

It makes us very social beings, and if our peers do not do anything, neither do we. If all this is true, it is a common tragedy.

Not to mention that we like to think that everything will be fine and that the future will not be very different from the past. With all these biases, identified over the years by scientists from different disciplines, we are far from being well equipped for what lies ahead.

Words that mean nothing to us

Moreover, historically, the communication of climate change has only fed these biases and helped, to some extent, to lead us to the current situation.

Starting with the polar bear on a piece of drifting ice, a recurring and shocking image that sends a dramatic message. And it works beautifully to be remembered and shared. Unfortunately, it works badly in helping us do something. Various studies  indicate that negative and frightening messages only paralyse us. Also, the polar bear, for the vast majority of people, is far away, reinforcing psychological distance.

The image of the bear on a piece of ice moves us, but it distances us psychologically from the problem

For years, the most aseptic terminology possible has prevailed when talking about this complex process: climate change. Do you remember global warming? Well, neither the Republicans during their campaign trail nor scientists wanted that phrase – the former, because it was not convenient for them; and the latter out of purism: global warming did not define all of its causes and consequences.

We are now trying to call it a climate emergency, but it can be a problem to apply the word “emergency” to something we do not feel as such. It overfeeds the “Peter and the Wolf” effect we have been carrying around for years. “Emergency” is not a word that works well on the day the sun rises again after a flood. “Emergency” is not what the new grass smells like when it grows where there was a fire.

On the other hand, a misguided journalistic equidistance has often confronted denialists and scientists as equals, inflating their marginal representation from 3% to 50%. This subliminally increases the sense of uncertainty, instead of showing the very broad consensus among the scientific community.

Neither right nor left

In communication, the figure of the spokesperson, the public face of the problem, the person who leads the change, matters a great deal. Once again, a great failure. Historically, we have been satisfied with very popular characters who could amplify the message, but we did not think if that person contaminated it ideologically. Al Gore is the best example, but there are many others. And they all have one thing in common: none of them is conservative.

The fight against climate change has all the elements necessary to convince a conservative electorate, but this has not been achieved

That fact that the cause becomes political is serious, because our brain processes what we think is a block. Human beings understand the world better in groups of things and reject ideas that belong to the opposite group. That is why, despite the fact that the fight against climate change has all the necessary elements to convince and worry a right-wing electorate (it is a conservative fight), we have lost 50% of our support at once.

But not everything has been bad in these years. We are beginning to understand how important narratives are to change our mental models or to shore up our biases. Literature, for example, can help combat psychological distance.

That is why there is an entire literary genre dedicated to bringing climate change to the present. It is called cli-fi: climate fiction. And it is the Black Mirror or the Years and Years of climate change. Books like Ian McEwan’s Solar, Marce Theroux’s Far North or Margaret Atwood’s Year of the Flood help us to attract our brain a little bit and gradually bring us closer to action.

We are also learning to shape the message so that it resonates with the more conservative electorate. Because there are angles like “the planet you leave to your grandchildren”, “economic independence from renewables” or “keeping the good life.” Not to mention how proud we are of our country and how little we want our natural heritage to change, perspectives that have rarely been addressed in campaigns launched from the left, generally aimed at raising awareness by assigning blame.

Political action, scientific solution

Even the IPCC, the scientific consensus made document, understood that their way of communicating was often too ambiguous. They decided to add a label in brackets to their statements, in order to indicate the scientific certainty (low, medium or high). To further disambiguate the discourse, one study pointed out that adding a numerical percentage of certainty would help: it is less ambiguous than using words for which we can each think of a weight. It is these small details that can determine enormous differences in behaviour.

From communication, the highest possible level is to convince the brain of those who are directing us

But we cannot think that communication is going to save us, because, at best, it is going to help individuals to slightly modify their behaviour in a personal capacity. And the average citizen has too much serial bias to achieve a zero emissions target. At best, we can slow down the process slightly and live a few more generations on our one planet. Which is no small feat.

The highest possible level of communication is to convince the brains of those who lead us to take drastic measures that can put a stop to it. In the end, climate change is a political problem: it seriously affects the economy, public health and national security. Mentioning it as such may again give politicians a boost to invest in the development of scientific and technological solutions.

After all, perhaps the only way out of this climate crisis is to find a scientific formula to balance the scales. And those best prepared to get that fantastic remedy out of a hat are the very same people who have studied how the greenhouse effect produces global warming, how our brains fool us, or how often a handful of bacteria are doubling their population by stirring in a glass flask.

Maybe this way we will be luckier than them.

He claimed that physics had been invented by men; that women are not as good at physics as men; that we are allocated more funds than we deserve for our quality as scientists; and that women obtain positions of power within the area of physics only because of our status as women.

Strumia said that physics had been invented by men and that we are allocated more funds than we deserve

He argued that there is no discrimination against us in the scientific area in which he and we work. Immediately, the networks were set on fire with comments from people, including many physicists, who were outraged by his words.

The Italian scientist then argued that his claims were based on his own research into the situation of women in fundamental physics. But those alleged gender studies he claims to have conducted, and from which he claims to have obtained the data to support his arguments, did not convince CERN, which, at the end of the research, withdrew his appointment as a visiting professor.

Before that, a letter, the “High Energy Physics Community Statement”, signed by more than 4,000 male and female physicists from this area of science, had been published, strongly criticizing Strumia's claims.

Disinformation disguised as science

The alleged data on which the physicist bases his claims have been repeatedly criticised for their lack of scientific rigour, but recently the journal Quantitative Science Studies (QSS) has decided to publish Strumia's article containing the research information on which he bases his sexist conclusions.

Prestigious scientific outlets, such as Science magazine, have echoed this story. One information scientist who has reviewed Strumia's article, Cassidy Sugimoto of Indiana University in the United States, says in Science that the article she has evaluated is “methodologically flawed” and “does not meet (scientific) standards.” But despite this, it will be published.

The alleged data on which the physicist bases his claims have been repeatedly criticised for their lack of scientific rigor

This is not an isolated event. The publication of Strumia's article reminds us of other recent events, this time unrelated to physics but having the same origin. For example, the statements of Polish far-right MEP Janusz Korwin-Mikke who said in 2017: “Of course women should earn less because they are weaker, smaller and less intelligent.” Or recent statements by groups denying the existence of gender-based violence.

Although they seem to be about different things, they all have one thing in common: they are fighting against feminism and progress in ending gender discrimination.

No matter how hard the Strumias of this world try, we will not remain silent about these attempts to discredit our efforts to end inequality, nor about the slanders that try to conceal reality. We will never remain silent again.

Signatories:

Email para más información y adhesiones.

Nota: Este artículo ha sido editado para especificar que Cassidy Sugimoto es una científica experta en información que ha revisado el artículo de Strumia.

Some of these elements are already part of our daily lives: virtual assistants, video calls, intelligent locks, biometric control, giant advertising screens, social polarisation, video surveillance...

However, flying cars, ultrafast hair dryers, implantable memories, voice-controlled photo enlargers, space colonies and, ostensibly, undifferentiated human androids have not materialised. And while the climate in Los Angeles has worsened, the ecological crisis is not manifested in the film's torrential rains, but in a rampant drought.

Half right

Flying cars, ultrafast hair dryers, implantable memories, space colonies and near-human androids have not materialised

On the other hand, one should point out those developments that were not anticipated: drones, mobile telephony, laptops, the decline of the nuclear industry, the internet...

In short: Blade Runner was only partially right. And one obvious reason is that it was developed in too close a time horizon (some of the pending technologies will need a longer time to become a reality).

It is not the only plot set in the imminent future for which forecasts were not met. The same happened with the deadly pandemic predicted for 1996 in 12 Monkeys (Terry Gilliam, USA, 1995); or with the atomic holocaust dated 1964 in On the Beach (Stanley Kramer, USA, 1959); or with the nuclear war waged in 1966 in The Time Machine (George Pal, USA, 1960).

Refuting celluloid prophecies, those apocalyptic scenarios did not materialize. And, although there is still time left for 2029, the year in which Terminator (James Cameron, USA, 1984) is initially set, it seems very unlikely that in that period of time machines will exterminate humanity as its script foresees.

The key to this reckless handling of chronologies is purely commercial. The closer the scenario in time, the greater the pull on its audiences, or so goes the reasoning of producers.  If this ensures success at the box office, little do they mind being given the lie to for years to come.

Extrapolating does not work

Science fiction is incapable of guessing the turns in the trajectory of a technology, which is why it failed to imagine the personal computer

Dates aside, the truth is that science fiction has rarely been right, if we take its thousands of failed predictions into account. And both successes and failures follow the same predictive pattern: the extrapolation of emerging trends and technologies. Simply put, what the authors do is look at phenomena and findings that can be observed in the present and glimpse their future development.

Jules Verne proceeded in this way when he was inspired by the submersible designed by Robert Fulton in 1800 to imagine the Nautilus of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (1871). And the same procedure applies to the incipient astronautics of the films that anticipated the 1969 moon landing in Destination Moon (Irving Pichel, USA, 1950), for example.

But extrapolation is precisely the Achilles’ heel of science fiction. By assuming that a trend will unfailingly follow its current direction, the genre becomes highly vulnerable to the unexpected. Assuming that space exploration would continue at full speed made 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick, USA, 1969) believe that at the beginning of the 21st century there would be space tourism and moon bases.

Social myopia is striking: its authors found it much easier to imagine cyberspace than the emancipation of women.

Extrapolation will always leave out the unexpected, a serious limitation when it comes to anticipating the course of history, which advances with surprising leaps. The inability to guess the turns in the trajectory of a technology means that science fiction did not imagine the personal computer and instead populated the future with huge electronic brains.

A separate paragraph should be devoted to the genre’s social myopia. Although it may sometimes be right in the technological field, it fails miserably in terms of the evolution of customs. The omnipresent cigarette smoke in Blade Runner does not fit in with the ban on tobacco that prevails today.

Nor is it usually right on the economic front: the major companies visible on Ridley Scott's tape, Pan Am, Atari, RCA or Bell Phones, have either gone bankrupt or been overshadowed.

Its political vision fares no better. One need only see how the advance of liberal democracy disproved the totalitarian forecasts of the novel 1984. Not to mention gender relations: its authors found it much easier to imagine cyberspace than the emancipation of women. See how Blade Runner repeats the stereotypes of the dangerous blonde and the femme fatale, and the cliché of the hero who defeats the villains and gets the pretty girl.

A museum of tomorrow's history

Rather than serving as a crystal ball, science fiction fulfils other functions more effectively and with greater relevance. The first, of a retrospective nature, is to show us how the future was conceived at a certain time, which makes it a museum of the history of tomorrow.

In this sense, Blade Runner tells us about the gloomy expectations at the beginning of the 1980s: corporate dictatorship, omnipresent police surveillance, deteriorating living conditions, social inequality and the commodification of science, a vision that is barely qualified by a desire for reconciliation with technology, as embodied in replicants that are more human than the human characters.

Rather than serving as a crystal ball, science fiction speaks to our expectations about the future and promotes social debates

The second function of this futures factory, the most decisive socially, is to promote debates about the possible horizons in a given situation, instigating the public to take a stand for or against it. This is exemplified by the television film The Day After (Nicholas Meyer, USA, 1983): by showing the horrific consequences of a possible nuclear bombing in Kansas, it upset American public opinion against the warmongering of the Reagan Administration.

Therefore, let us not ask science fiction for accuracy in its scientific prognoses. On the other hand, if anything has been proven over the centuries, it is that the future is extremely unpredictable. Moreover, given the catastrophic tone of most of its premonitions, we find it more sensible to celebrate its mistakes than to lament them.

The most we can hope for - and this is no small thing - is that his works vividly, intelligently and entertainingly capture the eventual derivations of crucial issues of the present, and in this respect Blade Runner more than fulfils this task.

Until now it was recommended to limit it to 1-2 servings per week or 70 grams per day due to its potential carcinogenic effect and its relationship with cardiovascular pathology. All this in accordance with the recommendations made by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 2015 and other international agencies.

Until now it was recommended to limit red meat to 1-2 servings per week or 70 grams per day due to its potential carcinogenic effect

This guide breaks with these indications, based on four independent systematic reviews of the effect of consumption of red meat, processed meat or dietary patterns rich in these meats on the development of oncological pathology, cardiovascular disease and mortality from all causes.

The problem arises when analysing these revisions. Although there is a relationship between the use of these foods and the event studied -which has guided the recommendations of the different scientific societies until now-, the current study group alludes, from a methodological point of view, to the fact that the observed effect is small.

This data is quite relative, given that we consider the reduction of 3 servings per week of this type of products. If we take into account that the average consumption of red meat or processed meat per week in most developed countries is above the consumption of 7 rations per week, the reduction that this group of studies maintains moves away from the recommendations of the different societies (1-2 rations per week).

Therefore, if we were to extrapolate this reduction to usual consumption, assuming the limitations that this entails, the amplitude of the effect would be much greater and both the rate of disease events and deaths per year would probably change.

Failure of the guideline design

When considering the effect of the reduction of red meat/processed should be assessed studies such as the randomized European PREDIMED trial, which evaluated the Mediterranean diet pattern, which associates a reduction in weekly intake of red meat to two servings, and demonstrated the reduction of severe cases of cardiovascular disease, breast cancer, diabetes and atrial fibrillation.

The new review concludes that omnivorous individuals are reluctant to change their diet despite the health damage they may cause.

However, the type of design of this clinical guide precluded the introduction of this and similar studies. On the other hand, another of the limitations observed by the authors is their quality, as they are mainly observational studies subject to a multitude of biases.

This factor is common in studies related to diet in the field of human nutrition and is very difficult to control. However, the methodology used to categorize this evidence was the GRADE method, which 'penalizes' observational studies.

Finally, the authors base part of the recommendation on a systematic review of studies in which health preferences and value were evaluated with respect to the change of the patients' usual diet.

This review concludes that omnivorous individuals are reluctant to change their diet despite the health damage they may cause. This argument is used by the authors to consider that it is more appropriate to maintain usual dietary patterns.

Improvements to be made in these guidelines

Perhaps the most convenient attitude is to consider new public health strategies when convincing people of the inadequacy of certain ways of eating rather than remaining immobile.

Almost all studies suggest that excessive consumption of red and processed meat can have a harmful effect on health

The development of this guide does not foresee the scenario that would be the most appropriate if we want prevention strategies that permeate public opinion. In other words, we must consider them as a way of bringing together existing knowledge, but assuming it is a body of evidence that requires more research.

Even so, almost all studies point in the direction that excessive consumption of red and processed meat can have a harmful effect on health. For this reason, our recommendations should be aimed at reducing this type of food as indicated in most clinical guidelines.

One of the limitations spotted by the authors is the difficulty in differentiating data collection between unprocessed red meat and processed meat, and in some cases the cooking methods and their carcinogenic potential are taken into account.

Therefore, the development of studies in which these factors can be differentiated would allow us to categorize the effect by adjusting for potential confounding factors.

Messages to society with caution

Conducting clinical trials in which the direct effect of these foods is proven is complicated by the possibility of deliberately harming one of the groups.

We must be cautious in how we translate the message obtained from scientific evidence to society

A quality development of such trials should be oriented to the evaluation of eating patterns, in which each of the diets is well categorized.

This clinical practice guide and its recommendations have limited usefulness: its interpretation is subject to partially subjective appraisals (methodological limitations).

In summary, we cannot advocate maintaining eating patterns with important indications that they may harm the individual and, as health professionals, we must be cautious in how we translate the message obtained from the scientific evidence to society.     

In the book format, uniformity is even more pronounced: only informative works by one sole essayist get to be published (the graphic novel about science is a pending subject). The only novelty is provided by those bloggers skilled in such matters that, with the usual online style, mix information, interpretation and opinion with disparate results.

This excessively uniform panorama highlights the originality of a book like Science without Fiction, coordinated by the science journalist Jesús Méndez. In the prologue, he traces the origin of the work to the moment he became aware that there was no non-fiction literature in Spain with science as its main theme.

Until now, there has not been a non-fiction literature in Spain that has science as its main theme, except for this book

With the intention of making up for this, he brought together four long-time colleagues and a prestigious novelist. The five texts that make up an unusual volume in our editorial and journalistic environment were the result of this common effort.

The compilation is headed by a piece by the coordinator, in which he refers to his meetings and conversations in Alicante with Francisco Mojica, the microbiologist whose research paved the way for the CRISPR genetic editing technique.

Jesús Méndez reconstructs the history of invention, critically reviews the patent war waged by the scientists who fine-tuned the CRISPR methodology, weighs Mojica's chances of winning the Nobel Prize, and concludes with an assessment of the amazing potential of genetic publishing. All this is recounted with a skilful alternation of short and long sentences, as opposed to the overuse of long and subordinate sentences in the usual journalistic writing.

Pere Estupinyà, a communicator trained in audio-visual dissemination, reconstructs Pedro Duque’s flight on the Discovery space shuttle. The choice of character could not be timelier, as he is the current Minister of Science, Innovation and Universities. Removing himself from the heroic pedestal, Duque recalls his trip of 1998 in detail and, despite Estupinyà's effort to bring drama to the experience, shows how routinized the astronaut's trade has become.

Javier Salas, member of the Materia team, focuses on the cases of Mario Rodríguez and Rosa Pulido, who died from undergoing pseudo-therapies instead of following the mandatory oncological treatment. These two cases affect him very closely, since the coverage he gave them had the effect of opening a national debate on the harmful effects of alternative therapies. Combining the “making of” accounts of the articles he published on the subject with the analysis of the pseudoscience boom -patent in the use of the fraudulent Power Balance bracelet by the very former Minister of Health, Leyre Pajín – Salas’ committed journalism conveys his indignation over those deaths and the tangle of circumstances that made them possible.

The only glitch lies in his classification as pseudo-sciences of phenomena of a very different nature (folk medicine, homeopathy, scientific errors, climate denialism, etc.), which detracts from the explanatory power of the category.

It would be desirable for the path opened by this collective work to be expanded on by other authors and for the media to be opened to other narrative models

He is followed by Sergio Fanjul, a graduate in astrophysics who combines poetry, scientific information and cultural journalism. His mission: to bridge the gap between basic research in physics at the beginning of the 20th century and the computing horizons of the 21st century. Lying somewhere between scientific and humanistic culture, his pleasant narration, seasoned with notes on the passage of the local history of Silicon Valley and the personality clashes between the brains of the computer revolution in the 50s and 60s, he manages to show how quantum permeates our lives.

Novelist Belén Gopegui closes the volume with the fictitious interview of a professor in artificial intelligence with a computer researcher turned hacker. In a remote village in Palencia, the two Spanish experts meet to clarify the meaning of her disruptive actions. Filling the dialogue with well-inserted references to specialists, the narrator contrasts the man’s rigid way of thinking with the woman’s conceptual fluidity.

The character of the hacker who disturbs computer systems for political purposes leads to a critical examination of the ethical and social implications of the digital algorithm, data mining, the unbridled empiricism of its gurus and the dehumanized conception of science and technology at the service of power.

None of the topics discussed is novel, the novelty lies in its presentation. At its best, the lively writing, which aims towards style, the clear and succinct explanations of the scientific-technical nuts and bolts and the strong authorial presence of the first four texts justify the compiler's choice to create non-fiction literature. Gopegui's story, for its part, demonstrates the efficacy of pure and simple fiction in raising scientific debates of great significance.

It would be desirable for the path opened by this collective work to be expanded on by other authors, and, likewise, for the media to be open to narrative models that, like these, depart from conventional moulds.

Technical data sheet

Title: Science without Fiction

Authors: Jesús Méndez, Pere Estupinyà, Javier Salas, Sergio Fanjul and Belén Gopegui

Genre: Nonfiction

Published by: Debate

Place and date of publication: Madrid, 2019

Pages: 272

This milestone marked a starting point for the clinical development of transplants, not without technical, immunological, organisational, ethical and legal problems.

Spanish citizens have the best chance of being transplanted if they need it

It is not for nothing that the history of transplantation has always been linked to the complex definition of a person's death and its legal acceptance.

Today, however, it is a common technique in more than one hundred countries around the world. Of all of them, there is one that, for 27 consecutive years, has been and is the undisputed leader in both donation and transplant activity: Spain, a world benchmark by far surpassing the figures of the territories around it.

In 2018, our country registered the highest donation rate in its history, reaching 48 donors per million population (pmp) and increasing by 37% the already excellent numbers of the last five years. Also, the 110 patients transplanted pmp were surpassed, also well above the rest of nations.

These data alone may have no meaning for anyone unfamiliar with them, but if we compare them with countries such as the United States (31.7 donors pmp), the set of member states of the European Union (22.3 pmp) or a great power such as Germany (9.7 pmp), it can be categorically stated that the Spanish citizen is the most likely to be transplanted worldwide if needed.

The reasons behind the achievements

This success responds to an organizational model, a management model, built on the foundations provided by the Spanish Transplant Law of 1979 and our National Health System, which allows universal access to a therapy as sophisticated as transplantation, without any discrimination.

The Spanish Model of Transplants pivots on the figure of the hospital transplant coordinator and is organized in coordination units led by intensivist doctors with the essential collaboration of the nursing staff. This work is supported by the National Transplant Organisation (ONT) and the autonomous transplant coordination units, which act as intermediaries between the technical and political levels.

Precisely, this model and the ONT itself are celebrating. This year marks our thirtieth anniversary, 30 years working to ensure that the patient who needs it is transplanted on time and with the highest guarantees as a prominent element in the health policy agenda of this country. And we strive every day to ensure and continue to improve our system.

Since the creation of the ONT in 1989, more than 115,000 patients have benefited from an organ transplant in Spain

Since its creation, more than 115,000 patients in Spain have benefited from an organ transplant and more than 500,000 from the implantation of some type of human tissue or cells. Not only have many transplants been performed, but the results have been extraordinary, which is attributed to high-quality healthcare and a system that guarantees access to post-transplant therapies.

In addition, the Spanish transplant system reflects the cohesion of the National Health System: almost a quarter of all transplants carried out in Spain are performed with organs donated in another autonomous community.

The key, constant work

The need for transplantation increases year after year and organ availability remains a priority. The ONT has a 50x22 Plan which, through a series of measures endorsed and implemented by the best experts, aims to reach 50 pmp donors and exceed 5,500 transplants by 2022.

Some examples are already underway, such as collaboration with emergency services, the promotion of asystole donation, and the incorporation of private healthcare into the donation process or the safe relaxation of the criteria for accepting organs for transplantation.

There is also an indisputable need to promote research and establish a clear commitment to R+D+i. There are many areas that need to be explored and that can contribute great advances, such as immunological tolerance, organ preservation or the prevention of chronic rejection.

But if we want to maintain our country at a level of excellence, it is unavoidable to implement initiatives that ensure well-being at work, promote recognition and professional development and, once again, support research in this clinical area.

Combating organ trafficking and transplant tourism is another major challenge. The stance of the ONT is firm and this is demonstrated by the numerous international initiatives promoted by our country.

Spain’s persistence has achieved a consensus in the Council of Europe through a resolution adopted by the Council of Ministers and, in the UN, through a resolution that has the support of almost 70 countries. Both documents recommend the creation of systems for reporting cases of organ trafficking by health professionals to the authorities.

Repairing damaged organs and tissues with stem cells may prevent future transplants

The future of transplants

Tomorrow is already here. Modified human cells are making it possible to treat diseases that have so far been incurable. The future will allow the use of stem cells to repair damaged organs and tissues, which may prevent transplantation.

It is possible that in a few years we will witness the creation of bioartificial organs, which will not only enable us to deal with the shortage of organs but also to build organs on demand with the patient's own cells, which will mean avoiding the chronic use of immunosuppressive drugs.

But until these promises become a reality, organ transplantation will continue to function as we know it today. And it has taken a long time to get here. Therefore, we must preserve, protect and reinforce a system that has benefited thousands of patients here and that has made Spain an indisputable international benchmark.

Beatriz Domínguez-Gil has been managing the Spanish National Transplant Organisation since 2017.

The report reveals that 28 % of LGTBIQA+ people in the world of physical sciences in the United Kingdom have at some point in their scientific careers considered giving up their jobs on account of the discriminatory environment they lived in because of their affective or sexual condition. The percentage rises to 50% for trans people.

Discrimination exists and many choose to adopt a normality that does not seem conflictive

The fact that almost everyone has felt hostility makes us indignant and should move us to action, as commented, in a seminar on diverse and inclusive science organized by the Society of Spanish Scientists in the United Kingdom (CERU/SRUK) last June 6, by the astrophysicist and disseminator Alfredo Carpineti, founder of the Pride in STEM association and the promoter, since 2018,  of the celebration, on July 5, of the LGTBIQA+ pride day in the disciplines of science, technology, mathematics and engineering: #LGBTSTEMDay.

However, if we were to ask at any research centre, laboratory, technology company or university whether there is any discrimination against affective-sexual diversity, everyone would say no, that quite the opposite, that being a lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or of a non-conforming or creative gender has nothing to do with performing scientific or technological work, and that no person is excluded or minimised for these reasons.

What then is the matter? For those of us who live in our non-cishisheterosexual reality, however, the reality is obvious: discrimination does exist and many choose to adopt a normality that does not seem conflictive. If you are lucky, this will make it easier for you to have a more or less relaxed career in the world of science. As long as, of course, your job does not make you travel to countries where LGTBIQA+ people are discriminated against, where you will have to consider going back into the closet, forget about your partner or become that slightly nerdish but non-queer stereotyped scientist that looks good in any place, no matter how LGBT-phobic.

Several studies, such as Queer in STEM, initiated in 2013, which surveyed scientific staff in various areas, asking them about their personal situation and their perception in the research or work centre, show that the most gender-equal scientific areas are usually more inclusive also in other aspects such as sexual diversity. More masculinized areas, on the other hand, are less inclusive.

In the 2016 American Physics Society report, more than 40% agreed with the following: "Employees are expected not to act too gay.”

The report of the American Physics Society on LGBT Climate in Physics, published in 2016, showed how social norms in the United States are actually discriminatory. More than 40% of people surveyed agreed with the following statement: “Employees are expected not to act too gay.” The aforementioned UK report updates the data in a European context. There are no similar studies in Spain as yet, but we can make a reasonable adaptation. An even more negative one, in fact, because the LGTBIQA+ reality in Spanish science is almost completely invisible.

Spanish Diverse Science

In Spain, in a personal analysis I made in 2018 consulting the 75 scientific societies that make up the Confederation of Scientific Societies of Spain (COSCE), I was able to verify that none of them has constituted a study group, nor undertaken specific actions, in reference to the LGTBIQA+ community. There is no research that analyses whether the people in question experience situations of inequality, nor has an inclusive campaign been carried out in these years.

In other countries, however, it can be seen that all scientific societies have been working on these issues for years. In the United States and the United Kingdom, specific actions are being organised: Pride months, meetings of scientists and LGTBIQA+ scientists, and the preparation of documents such as the LGBT+ Inclusivity in Physics and Astronomy Guide  prepared in 2018 by the American Astronomical Society.

However, the situation has changed this spring, when we formed an association that, like others around the world, bears the hallmark of diversity: PRISMA, Association for Affective-Sexual and Gender Diversity in Science, Technology and Innovation, presented on Friday, June 28 in Barcelona and on July 4 in Madrid, PRISMA not only wants to increase the visibility of LGTBIQA+ people in scientific fields, but also to provide new science models, which make it more inclusive, with broad perspectives and with a clear vocation of activism for science and against pseudo-sciences.

In a few years in which science has understood that achieving a more egalitarian society is also its struggle, PRISMA proposes a more diverse science and encourages to propose touchstones

We are alarmed at the recent news about the support of various bodies for conversion therapies, a practice dismissed by all scientific authorities as unscientific and dangerous, with sometimes devastating consequences for the families involved; or phenomena such as the transphobic bus of fundamentalist associations, which invoked science to confuse messages about sex and gender, which are particularly sensitive in a sector, that of transsexuality, which has been pathologised until a little more than a year ago by the WHO.

In a few years in which science has understood that achieving a more egalitarian society is also its struggle (ours), PRISMA proposes a more diverse science and encourages to propose touchstones, something that is still fundamental, as commented a few days ago by the mathematician Marina Logares in an interview with SINC. The manifesto that marks the official presentation of PRISMA specifies this need, as well as the need to initiate and promote research that allows for the creation of more inclusive and diverse spaces for study and work.

When the environment is inclusive and diverse, a higher quality science is produced. This was shown in a joint publication of the journals Nature and Scientific American in September 2014 in the case of ethnic diversity, and has been proven in other areas: the impact of science that establishes wide and diverse networks is measured in various investigations. And in a way, even if the science was just as good or bad, the journey would also have been worthwhile.

It is something that we are now beginning to understand as self-evident in the case of men and women in science. Going a little further to accept affective diversities seems like a logical step.

Javier Armentia Fructuoso (Vitoria-Gasteiz, 1962) is an astrophysicist and disseminator of Spanish science, a member of the PRISMA association.

Since 1993 he has been the director of the Pamplona Planetarium.

To lapse into an easy pun I can't help making, the terrifying events of the Great War had logically eclipsed almost any kind of intellectual activity. Looking at it from the perspective of these one hundred years, however, the year in which the end of the war was experienced was especially profitable for astronomy. That same year the International Astronomical Union was created and, once again, an observation of a celestial phenomenon made it possible to confirm a new physical theory.

In 1915 Einstein had published a revolutionary theory that has become part of the greatest intellectual adventure of the 20th century

In 1915 Albert Einstein had published a revolutionary theory that has become part of possibly the greatest intellectual adventure of the twentieth century: space and time were so by virtue of the action of gravity. Or, thinking about it in a new way, the gravity that had served to lay the foundations of modern science from Newton onwards, that universal force that shaped the cosmos, became the reason why we have a specific geometry and history.

The mathematical development of this theoretical framework became the major headache of many physicists, and it continues to be so even (or especially) for Physics degree students at any university anywhere in the world. But as early as the first years of the Einstein Era, there was already a perception of the measurable consequences of the concepts of relativity.

The answer, close to the Sun

Thus, relativity explained that the anomalous precessional movement of Mercury was due to the dragging of space-time caused by the proximity of the Sun, about which there had previously been attempts to explain it with the presence of a non-existent unknown interior planet, Vulcan. Another of the surprising predictions of these curvatures of the texture of the universe around a mass was that it was possible to calculate how much the same light would deviate when it passed close to it.

Swarzschild even calculated that, with a sufficiently dense mass, the light could become trapped in a gravitational well. And in March 1919 the English astrophysicist Arthur Eddington proposed that this curvature of light could be observed in a solar eclipse. It was enough to obtain images of the stars near the solar disk, taking advantage of the fact that the Moon would spend a few minutes ahead hiding the light from the photosphere.

Relativity explained that the anomalous movement of Mercury was due to the dragging of space-time caused by the proximity of the Sun

Se suele decir que Eddington fue la primera persona que entendió la relevancia de la teoría de la relatividad general. Se suele contar, además, que siendo de confesión cuáquera estaba en la disposición perfecta para poder soslayar la barrera entre naciones que había impuesto el escenario de la guerra. Dyson, el responsable del observatorio real británico, entendió que era posible montar dos expediciones a la franja de totalidad del eclipse a ambos lados del Atlántico, una en Sobral, Brasil y otra en la isla del Príncipe. Las imágenes y las mediciones de ese día de hace justo un siglo permitieron comprobar los cálculos relativistas.

It is often said that Eddington was the first person to understand the relevance of the theory of general relativity. It is often said, moreover, that, as a Quaker, he was in the right position to circumvent the barrier between nations that wartime circumstances had imposed. Dyson, the head of the British Royal Observatory, understood that it was possible to mount two expeditions to the entire strip of the eclipse on both sides of the Atlantic, one in Sobral, Brazil, and the other on Príncipe Island. The images and measurements of that day just a century ago made it possible to check the relativistic calculations.

Einstein in the media

This was something that, moreover, reached the media. Einstein was not well-known at the time, while Eddington was much more so in the United Kingdom, but the recognition of the theory provided by this astronomical observation was what allowed journalists to write, for the very first time: "Einstein was right". A headline that has been repeated throughout this century each time relativistic physics fulfils one of its predictions.

The recognition of the theory provided by this astronomical observation allowed journalists to write "Einstein was right"

This year when, for one thing, the international team of the Event Horizon Telescope presented its image of the black hole in the nucleus of the galaxy M87. Or four years ago, when gravitational waves were detected by the international LIGO team. And even if we do not mention it, every day, when we search the mobile phone map for a trajectory from our position, we are benefiting from Einstein's being right in making such a clear theory.

It is ironic that Albert Einstein found the mental experiments and mathematical strength of theoretical physics more interesting than the uncertain and modest obsession of experimental physics to advance through real experiments. Because if his theory really gained ground, that was because of his ability to respond accurately to the challenges of a universe that, without his theory, would not have a correct explanation.

Today, a century ago, that eclipse showed that physics is one of the occupations most likely to change human history in the long term. Therefore, it is worth celebrating.

Javier Armentia Fructuoso (Vitoria-Gasteiz, 1962) is an astrophysicist and disseminator of Spanish science.

Since 1993, he has been the director of the Pamplona Planetarium.

(...) Here, in Britain, because so many parents reject, out of obstinacy, ignorance or fear, that their children are immunized, we still have one hundred thousand cases of measles each year. Of them more than 10,000 will have consequences of one kind or another. About twenty children will die.

In 2017 the cases of measles in Europe multiplied by four and caused 35 deaths

Vaccines protect today 86% of the world's population and, according to WHO data, prevent the deaths of two million people a year, especially children. Thanks to vaccines we have managed to eradicate a disease as terrible as smallpox, and many others have disappeared from our lives.

But the appeal of Roald Dahl is still valid because the rejection of vaccines has not stopped growing, especially in the richest countries. In Europe alone, measles cases multiplied by four in 2017, causing 35 deaths. Diphtheria and pertussis cause again victims and if this trend is not reversed, we will see in our schools the ravages of polio.

It is difficult to imagine the pain of a person who loses a child for denying the protection provided by vaccines. But beyond the feelings of compassion and anger, it is convenient to reflect on the reasons for their obstinacy, ignorance and fear. In particular, we must analyze the role played by the activists of the anti-vaccines movement, which is increasingly organized.

The British writer Roald Dahl lost is daughter Olivia in 1962 h when she was only seven years old, victim of measles, for which there was no vaccine.

The power of social debate

What mechanisms does society have to defend itself against the danger the anti-vaccines movement poses? Can we demand any responsibility for the consequences of their actions? What is the relationship between the growing rejection of vaccines and the proliferation of therapies that have never been shown to be effective and that are sometimes dispensed under the protection of the official associations of doctors and pharmacists themselves?

In A Coruña we have lived these days a couple of situations that exemplify the terms in which this debate is taking place. On the one hand, a hotel in the city decided to attend the protests of many citizens and canceled a conference by Josep Pàmies, an agricultural entrepreneur who, among other things, encourages the substitution of chemotherapy treatments with a combination of medicinal plants and bleach.

What happened in A Coruña shows that the public debate is an effective tool to reduce the social space to those who instigate the rejection of vaccines

A few days later the City Council announced during a press conference the sponsorship of BioCultura, a fair that includes 75 editions between Seville, Valencia, Bilbao, Barcelona and Madrid, and which in November last year occupied two pavilions of the IFEMA premises with more than 800 exhibitors and 74,500 visitors.

Shortly after the presentation, the City Council began to receive complaints because, along with composting workshops, energy cooperatives or sustainable school canteens, the fair scheduled several speeches given by renowned activists of the anti-vaccines movement. Among them, one titled "Presentation of the new ecological infectious theory". The following day the organization of the fair accepted the municipal demand to withdraw these talks, although others about the dangers of WIFI networks, the benefits of sacred geometry (sic) or quantum medicine (sic) remained in the program.

These cases show that both private companies and public administrations are sensitive to criticism and know how to react to protests in social networks and the media. This demonstrates that the public debate continues to be an effective tool to reduce the social space to those who instigate rejection of vaccines and at the same time helps to inform the public of the benefits of vaccination.

Dangerous frauds mixed with environmentalism

Ir más allá y pretender que la apología antivacunas se convierta en un delito contra la salud pública parece más efectivo, pero esta opción no está exenta de riesgos. En primer lugar porque consolidaría el discurso victimista y conspiranoico que tan convincente le resulta a una parte de la población. Pero, sobre todo, porque supondría añadir un nuevo límite al derecho a la libertad de expresión.

No en vano, estos días hemos asistido con preocupación a la condena de cárcel para un músico por el contenido de sus canciones, mientras que responsables del IFEMA –que nada parecen objetar a las conferencias antivacunas– forzaban la retirada de una obra de arte de carácter político que se iba a exponer en ARCO.

Going further and pretending that anti-vaccination apology becomes a crime against public health seems more effective, but this option is not free of risks. In the first place, because it would consolidate the victim mentality and conspiracy discourse that is so convincing to a part of the population. But above all, because it would mean adding a new limit to the right to freedom of expression.

Not in vain, these days we have attended with concern to the prison sentence for a musician for the content of his songs, while the heads of IFEMA (the Madrid Fair Institute) - who does not seem to object to anti-vaccine conferences - forced the withdrawal of a work of art with politician character which was going to be exhibited at ARCO.

At eco fairs, products made with criteria of environmental responsibility and pseudo-therapies converge. / Biocultura

At the same time, the programming of these events within the framework of events whose objective is "to promote organic farming and healthy food as a basis for a more just and respectful society" invites us to analyze the rejection of vaccines within the framework of a broader context. The interest of broad sectors of society for the consumption of more "natural" and less polluting products has given rise to a thriving economic sector that enjoys official recognition and is regulated by specific norms.

Science is far from possessing the monopoly of reason, but we need social consensus to translate its findings into norms that we can all meet

It is precisely in this environment ("eco" fairs, "organic" product stores, etc.) where foods produced with criteria of environmental responsibility converge without apparent contradiction with pseudo-therapies and miraculous products that have never proven effective. As expected, we will also find here the highest rates of rejection of transgenic crops, which, despite exceeding all food safety requirements, continue to experience strong opposition in Europe.

It would be a serious mistake to attribute the whole conglomerate complex of personal options to a simple question of ignorance or anti-scientific feelings, pretending that science can solve all problems and that its authority should be sufficient to solve all the dilemmas and contradictions that arise of the application of any technology.

Science is far from possessing the monopoly of reason, and even where the evidence provided by the scientific method is unquestionable (vaccines protect against diseases, tobacco causes cancer and this is not cured with bleach), we need social consensus to translate these findings into standards that we can all meet.

Marcos Pérez Maldonado is director of the Museos Científicos Coruñeses. He is an expert in scientific museography and didactics of science in non-formal environments; science in children's education; production of dissemination, interactive projects, exhibitions and planetarium programs.