Stem Cells and (Pseudo)Science: Discursive Aspects of the Stamina Case as Seen in Nature

This study examines the Stamina case, one of the most controversial mediatic incidents of the last years in Italy, from an applied linguistic perspective. Through the analysis of a small corpus of texts published on the online version of Nature (Nature.com) between 2013 and 2014, it investigates how scientists, political and health institutions, the media, the patients and the public interact when faced with (pseudo)scientific news that may be relevant from a public health perspective. Based on selected sociological models of science communication (Bucchi 1998; Bucchi and Neresini 2008; Trench 2008; Hetland 2014; Metcalfe 2014; Neresini 2015), combined with methodological tools from critical discourse analysis (Fairclough 1995, 2003; Eisenhart and Johnstone 2008; Wodak 2013), argumentation theory (van Eemeren et al. 2004), and making reference to science popularisation studies (Calsamiglia 2003; Garzone 2006), the qualitative analysis shows how the communication pattern of scientific news with public health relevance is changing. Power relations are on the move and so are the aims, the communicative strategies and the genres employed. These are in fact influenced by a growing interaction between bottom-up pressures (patients, families, the public, the media) and a topdown diffusion of information (scientists, political and healthcare institutions, the media) with the latter prevailing over the former. From the data collected, it seems crucial that the dissemination and popularisation of scientific issues should be further spread. Scientists must counter propaganda and hysteria on (social) media, as well as engage more directly with people (Hunter 2016) in order to oppose pseudoscience.