Four hundred years ago, in 1609, Galileo made the first observations with the telescope. The discoveries come out, primary the one that made Galileo promoting the Copernican theory of the Earth’s rotation around the Sun and then to replacing the doctrine concerning the position and the role of the Earth in the space, have been revolutionary non only in terms of scientific development but also in terms of social, technological and economic development, although the strong cultural and religious opposition. Galileo, named as “heretic” by the Catholic Church, was obliged to abjure.
Scientific innovation and its dissemination have always played a determinant role in the cultural development of society: but, although the knowledge development is a process that could not be stopped, we can not say the same for what concerns its spread, or better, its accessibility, that is one the main means, if not “the mean”, of democracy. Nevertheless, thanks to the introduction of new technologies and then, thanks to the scientific evolution itself, the transfer and the spread of knowledge have been characterized by an ever greater acceleration. “To know” means “to be able to make a choice”: the word “heresy” originates from Greek and it means “choice”. Then, originally, “heretic” was the person who was able to consider the different options before choosing one.
In 2009, European year of Creativity and Innovation, and in our society, defined as the “knowledge society”, at a distance of four hundred years from Galileo’s “heresy”, there is any hope to be “authentically heretic”? Thirst for knowledge, especially in the scientific field, drives the human being to go on with researching and trying. Scientific progress could not be limited, it feeds itself, it grows in exponential terms and, above all, it does not stop. Galileo’s affair is a renowned example. Galileo intended to replace the doctrine of the time about universe with his new theory: he wanted to use his observation to argue in favour of the sun-centered Copernican theory of the universe against the dominant earth-centered Ptolemaic and Aristotelian theories.
He was forbidden to continue to study officially in that direction. Galileo accepted to abjure because, in that way, as a matter of fact, he could go on with his research and discover useful elements to support exactly the thesis for which he was named as heretic by Catholic Church. In other words, scientific research and the acquisition of more and more knowledge do not accept any limit: if anything, they could just slow down due to objective ties. We have just to think, as an example, on the availability of financial resources, that, according to their allocation, could make or make not possible research programmes, so supporting some specific fields instead of others and then strongly affecting the development of specific areas of research.
If it is true that the production of knowledge is in theory unlimited, it is also true that this process has never been genuine free, since, for carrying out research, it is indispensable to have a large capital in hand: financial resources could be considered the only real bar to scientific evolution. Specific interests in military or business spheres, just to say some of them, heavily influence scientific development because they are fundamental for diverting investments in those sectors of interest. The economic tie, and not the ethic tie (that concerns more the uses made possible by scientific discoveries) is then the most pressing for knowledge growth.
Equally important is also the spread of knowledge, whatever the field of concern. There are two issues to point out: one is linked to the ways of communication – essentially the lexicon used – the other concerns the means used to disseminate knowledge. In one sense, both the issues have been overcome or are getting over, due to the introduction of new technologies, I refer in particular to internet, that, real instrument of democracy (although not still available to all because of the cost to access) gives everyone the opportunity to get knowledge, entering an almost infinite number of sources and information.
And, the more pervasive is the science, stronger is the maintenance and the development of democracy, together with a more acquainted and more active citizenship. And Europe? What’s happening? The European Commissioner for Enterprise and Industry, Guenter Verheugen, says that the only way for Europe to grow, is that of carrying out and displaying the Lisbon Strategy goals’ through our points of strength: good-practice, innovation and creativity. Then, the scientific development stays at the head. But, how to make this effective? The issues is that probably, we should pursue not only scientific development but also social development: it is essential that the above intent could be reflected on society, with the building of a new socio-economic model able to make the path undertaken efficient, and, above all, sustainable.
Emanuela Scridel is an Economist – Expert in International Strategy and E.U.