How technical languages define territories and create policy implications

In a paper on the mortality impact of PFAS water contamination in Veneto (Northern Italy) published in 2024¹ – of which I am the first author –, the ‘Conclusions’ section reported the following sentences: 

“For the first time, the association of PFAS with mortality from cardiovascular disease was formally demonstrated in the world’s largest exposed population. The evidence regarding kidney cancer and testicular cancer is consistent with previously reported data. Given the present results and the recent IARC revision, it is urged to have an immediate ban of PFAS production and to start implementing additional remediation activities in contaminated areas.”

I would like to disclose the dialogue between one of the anonymous referees and the corresponding author:
Referee: Full bans on all PFAS are unlikely in the foreseeable future, but it is within the authors’ purview to advocate for that.
Author: I personally agree with the Reviewer. However, some of the authors live in the contaminated area (and have children). I can understand their point of view.

To better contextualize, the paper was the results of an epidemiologic participatory study and it was co-authored by three citizens who are members of an environmental association constituted as civil party on the Vicenza court trial on PFAS water contamination. Notably, the paper was accepted by the court as part of the body of evidence on the health impact.
This modest example shows how technical languages define territories, in Thomas’s words, and creates barriers to broader comprehension and deeper policy implications.  Undoubtedly, Sociology helps in clarifying these issues and sociological studies and analyses are particularly important nowadays because of lack of trust and polarized disputes on scientific facts and scientific institutions. Scientists and their Institutions are not isolated and interacts each other, internally and externally, with the society at large. Scientific wars are ongoing, such as for example the discomforting research on autism spectrum disorders strongly supported by Trump’s administration and by environmental activists.

The discussion between Benedetto Terracini² and Valentin Thomas³ in this issue of Epidemiologia&Prevenzione is particularly welcome: it is high time to start a transparent and critical appraise of our ‘epidemiology for policy’ approaches. My conclusion based on the experience of the PFAS paper is the same as reported by Benedetto Terracini quoting Valentin Thomas: “[…] emphasise the importance of ‘encourager toute velléité d’action collective à ne pas s’en remettre tout entière à l’unique soutien des experts patentés, mais de le considérer pour ce qu’il est: une ressource parmi d’autres d’un répertoire d’actions nécessairement plus large’”.

References

1. Biggeri A, Stoppa G, Facciolo L, et al. All-cause, cardiovascular disease and cancer mortality in the population of a large Italian area contaminated by perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (1980-2018). Environ Health. 2024 Apr 16;23(1):42.
2. Terracini B. Sociology and IARC monographs assessing carcinogenic hazards. A critique of Thomas Valentin Classé cancérogène: Enquête sur un processus entravé. Epidemiol Prev 2026;50(2):156-158.
3. Thomas V. Comment on Benedetto Terracini remarks about Classé cancérogène. Enquête sur un processus entravé. Epidemiol Prev 2026;50(2):159-160.