Triggering a process of mutual delegitimisation among scientific communities by accusing them of serving external interests risks weakening science as a whole.

In recent years, livestock farming has become the subject of strong public demand for greater environmental, economic, and nutritional sustainability of animal production systems. This demand is entirely legitimate, as it touches on one of the major issues of our time. Precisely for this reason, it is significant that an important segment of the international scientific community has felt a responsibility to intervene publicly through documents such as the Dublin Declaration and, subsequently, the Denver Call to Action. These initiatives represent examples of a scientific community taking responsibility in the face of a complex societal challenge.

The central message of both documents is that the future of livestock production must be discussed based on scientific evidence, not simplifications or ideological positions. Debate, criticism, and improvement are all legitimate, but the discussion must remain grounded in science. We have provided extensive coverage of both documents on this website; however, the increasingly heated debate surrounding animal sciences compels us to offer additional reflections. After all, documents remain alive only if they are read and discussed, not if they sit forgotten in libraries and databases. Readers seeking a deeper analysis may refer to the specific contributions dedicated to these topics.

Collaboration between universities, industry, and agri-food supply chains is not an anomaly

We are well aware that animal science is an applied discipline. In this context, collaboration between universities, production systems, and agri-food supply chains is not an anomaly but rather the normal operating condition of the research and innovation system. In Italy, this principle is explicitly recognised and rewarded in university evaluation exercises, through the so-called Third Mission of Universities and Research Institutions. At the European level, it constitutes a cornerstone of programs such as Horizon and Interreg, which specifically fund research and development projects carried out through cooperation between the scientific community and productive sectors. Consequently, regarding such interaction as evidence of scientific distortion would amount to questioning the entire European system of applied research, not only in animal science but across all disciplines.

The risks of mutual delegitimisation

Recently, some analyses have emerged that interpret documents such as the Dublin Declaration primarily as expressions of networks of influence or power. While such studies may be legitimate exercises in the sociology of science, they become methodologically weak and, at times, decidedly misleading when they move from analysing context to delegitimising the scientific validity of the claims themselves. The validity of a scientific argument is not assessed based on the institutional affiliations of its authors, nor, still less, on the location where the research was conducted. It is well known that the majority of scientific publications originate from developed countries, although researchers from developing nations author many. Scientific validity rests instead on the quantity and quality of evidence, the rigour of the methods employed, and the consistency of the findings with the broader body of available knowledge. Confusing these two levels leads to what epistemology, the philosophy and science of knowledge, defines as the genetic fallacy: the tendency to judge the truth of a claim by its origin rather than by the evidence supporting it.

If this path is pursued, the result is likely to be a process of mutual delegitimisation among different scientific communities, with each field accusing the others of serving external interests: medical science being portrayed as subordinate to pharmaceutical corporations, computer science to data companies, engineering to large industrial groups, and so on. Such an approach does not strengthen science; it weakens it. Beyond distorted representations of scientific debate, scientific research is fundamentally a collective and public endeavour. The claims generated within this framework depend upon a strong foundation of trust. What would happen if, every time we performed a chemical analysis, we questioned the validity of the periodic table? Or if we had to re-test the Second Law of Thermodynamics every time we used it as the basis for new research?

The challenge of ensuring the sustainability of animal production systems is far too important to be addressed through ideological frameworks or strategies of mutual delegitimisation. What is needed is sound science, open discussion, and the ability to engage with complexity. Viewed in this light, documents such as the Dublin Declaration and the Denver Call to Action represent, above all, an imperfect, open to criticism, yet entirely legitimate attempt to assume scientific and social responsibility for one of the defining challenges of our time.