Periodic Reporting for period 1 - NUCLITEX (Producing transnational nuclear expertise in Italy (1955-1987): a historical-ethnographic approach )
Période du rapport: 2019-08-30 au 2021-08-29
Focusing on the case of nuclear power in Cold War Italy, this research project analyses the transnsation dynamics of knowledge production involving political elites, official and unofficial scientific experts, the associative milieu, and the public sphere. It covers the period going from the beginning of Italy’s nuclear programme in the early 1950s, to the referendum of 1987 that marked the end of Italy’s nuclear programme. It investigates how Italian experts and counter-experts built their own knowledge(s) through weaving transnational links with other European countries and with the USA; how they navigated forms of public engagement to advance or challenge nuclear power programmes; and how they tried to produce and legitimate, or dismiss, alternative types of knowledge and expertise on the environmental and health risks of nuclear energy in Italy. While it focuses on an existing trend in the science and technology studies, it does so in relation to a EU country – Italy - a historical period – post-1960s - and a form of energy – nuclear - that have not yet been explored by academic studies. By adopting an interdisciplinary approach joining methods and theories from the history of technology and the STS, the project intends to enable academics and analysts to understand more fully the interactions between officials, scientists, and publics in nuclear affairs.
Agreement terminated on 30/09/2020 (see technical report, point 5).
Agreement terminated on 30/09/2020 (see technical report, point 5).
In the first months of my scholarship, I obtained ethical approval from the university’s ethical committee for my project, which included interviews to human participants in a later phase of the project.
- I agreed on a Data Management Plan with the university’s data officers.
- I set up a career development plan with my supervisor.
- I presented my project in an internal seminar at CEHIC, and collected useful insight to be deployed in my research.
- I conducted a literature review on the topics of interest for my project, and to fill the gaps that I had in nuclear history expertise as well as in environmental history and sociology. The literature review was supposed to last about 5 months according to the original Gantt chart, and followed by the study of primary sources in archives in Italy. That turned out not to be the case (see below).
- Starting from March 2020, however, the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemics impeded me to pursue the rest of my plan. Most of the archives I planned to visit are in North Italy: in particular, in the regions of Lombardy (Milan) and Veneto (Verona), where the outbreak was most virulent, and led to the closing down of most public offices. Archives were closed too, until a date to be defined. I could therefore not travel to Italy. Lockdown restrictions in other countries such as the US, the UK and France, where I also planned to conduct archival research, also prevented me from changing my implementation plan and do research in those countries first. I was obliged to stay in Barcelona.
- All conferences I planned to participate were cancelled. The plan I had to organize my own conference on nuclear history also had to be cancelled. As a consequence, I continued my literature review but, lacking primary sources, I could not produce novel research. That ultimately led me to renounce my scholarship, when I realised that the indefinite extension of travel restrictions would not enable me to conclude my project on time.
- Teaching activities were suspended, so I could only briefly participate in teaching by giving a couple of classes on contemporary history of science.
- Lacking other options, and with offices and archives closed, but without knowing how long restrictions would last, the only option I had was to keep up with literature review, take notes to be verified later in archives, and liaise with colleagues in other universities to start planning virtual seminars (which, however, had not taken place by the time I left UAB).
Agreement terminated on 30/09/2020 (see technical report, point 5).
- I agreed on a Data Management Plan with the university’s data officers.
- I set up a career development plan with my supervisor.
- I presented my project in an internal seminar at CEHIC, and collected useful insight to be deployed in my research.
- I conducted a literature review on the topics of interest for my project, and to fill the gaps that I had in nuclear history expertise as well as in environmental history and sociology. The literature review was supposed to last about 5 months according to the original Gantt chart, and followed by the study of primary sources in archives in Italy. That turned out not to be the case (see below).
- Starting from March 2020, however, the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemics impeded me to pursue the rest of my plan. Most of the archives I planned to visit are in North Italy: in particular, in the regions of Lombardy (Milan) and Veneto (Verona), where the outbreak was most virulent, and led to the closing down of most public offices. Archives were closed too, until a date to be defined. I could therefore not travel to Italy. Lockdown restrictions in other countries such as the US, the UK and France, where I also planned to conduct archival research, also prevented me from changing my implementation plan and do research in those countries first. I was obliged to stay in Barcelona.
- All conferences I planned to participate were cancelled. The plan I had to organize my own conference on nuclear history also had to be cancelled. As a consequence, I continued my literature review but, lacking primary sources, I could not produce novel research. That ultimately led me to renounce my scholarship, when I realised that the indefinite extension of travel restrictions would not enable me to conclude my project on time.
- Teaching activities were suspended, so I could only briefly participate in teaching by giving a couple of classes on contemporary history of science.
- Lacking other options, and with offices and archives closed, but without knowing how long restrictions would last, the only option I had was to keep up with literature review, take notes to be verified later in archives, and liaise with colleagues in other universities to start planning virtual seminars (which, however, had not taken place by the time I left UAB).
Agreement terminated on 30/09/2020 (see technical report, point 5).
- Despite the early termination of my project, caused by consequences of the COVID-19 pandemics, the impact of the MSC fellowship on my career has been considerable until now. It greatly helped my finding my current job in energy humanities. The selectors were impressed by the career record, mainly thanks to the Fellowship, and they were also impressed by my intellectual honesty in renouncing a very well-paid and - I would say unique - opportunity in my academic life when I realised that I could not have led my project to a successful end in the established time.
- Writing the scholarship application was also useful for me to learn how to write – and not write – next EU projects. I have learnt that there is a certain language that needs be used to catch the attention of EU examiners. I have learnt that some aspects that do not appear as very important to early-stage researchers are actually important, especially to the examiners. I have learnt that it does not make much sense to set up the same proposal scheme for all disciplines: for example, what kind of impact can a research envision for a theoretical philosophy project? Not all subjects have a visible or short-term impact, and sometimes impacts are just impossible to foresee. It is wishful thinking, and most of the times it does not correspond to what will actually happen. EU examiners will perfectly know that that it is speculation; applicants know that EU examiners know that that is speculation. So, in the end it just appears as a pretty useless exercise in imagination that does not benefit anyone.
- The work carried out certainly enhanced innovation capacities. It stimulated my interest in energy sociology and convinced me to switch over to that discipline. It created new opportunities for my career. It did not strengthen competitiveness, because competitiveness is not what I was aiming to strengthen: I was aiming to strengthen cooperation, and I did, through publications. My work did not result in strengthening the growth of companies, as I do not work in the interest of companies but of the European public (in addition, my view is that private industry growth is detrimental to the ultimate health of the ecosystems, and that the believe in unbridled growth is at the root or the current ecological crisis).
Agreement terminated on 30/09/2020 (see technical report, point 5).
- Writing the scholarship application was also useful for me to learn how to write – and not write – next EU projects. I have learnt that there is a certain language that needs be used to catch the attention of EU examiners. I have learnt that some aspects that do not appear as very important to early-stage researchers are actually important, especially to the examiners. I have learnt that it does not make much sense to set up the same proposal scheme for all disciplines: for example, what kind of impact can a research envision for a theoretical philosophy project? Not all subjects have a visible or short-term impact, and sometimes impacts are just impossible to foresee. It is wishful thinking, and most of the times it does not correspond to what will actually happen. EU examiners will perfectly know that that it is speculation; applicants know that EU examiners know that that is speculation. So, in the end it just appears as a pretty useless exercise in imagination that does not benefit anyone.
- The work carried out certainly enhanced innovation capacities. It stimulated my interest in energy sociology and convinced me to switch over to that discipline. It created new opportunities for my career. It did not strengthen competitiveness, because competitiveness is not what I was aiming to strengthen: I was aiming to strengthen cooperation, and I did, through publications. My work did not result in strengthening the growth of companies, as I do not work in the interest of companies but of the European public (in addition, my view is that private industry growth is detrimental to the ultimate health of the ecosystems, and that the believe in unbridled growth is at the root or the current ecological crisis).
Agreement terminated on 30/09/2020 (see technical report, point 5).