Access the Online Archive
Search the Historical Archive of the Pirelli Foundation for sources and materials. Select the type of support you are interested in and write the keywords of your research.
    Select one of the following categories
  • Documents
  • Photographs
  • Drawings and posters
  • Audio-visuals
  • Publications and magazines
  • All
Help with your research
To request to view the materials in the Historical Archive and in the libraries of the Pirelli Foundation for study and research purposes and/or to find out how to request the use of materials for loans and exhibitions, please fill in the form below. You will receive an email confirming receipt of the request and you will be contacted.
Pirelli Foundation Educational Courses

Select the education level of the school
Back
Primary schools
Pirelli Foundation Educational Courses
Please fill in your details and the staff of Pirelli Foundation Educational will contact you to arrange the dates of the course.

I declare I have read  the privacy policy, and authorise the Pirelli Foundation to process my personal data in order to send communications, also by email, about initiatives/conferences organised by the Pirelli Foundation.

Back
Lower secondary school
Pirelli Foundation Educational Courses
Please fill in your details and the staff of Pirelli Foundation Educational will contact you to arrange the dates of the course.
Back
Upper secondary school
Pirelli Foundation Educational Courses
Please fill in your details and the staff of Pirelli Foundation Educational will contact you to arrange the dates of the course.
Back
University
Pirelli Foundation Educational Courses

Do you want to organize a training programme with your students? For information and reservations, write to universita@fondazionepirelli.org

Visit the Foundation
For information on the Foundation's activities and admission to the spaces,
please call +39 0264423971 or write to visite@fondazionepirelli.org

Investing in science and basic research – what Aspen thinks and Calvino teaches us

In this long and controversial period marked by uncertainty and conflict, vulgar and slovenly populism and authoritarian rhetorics further fostered by fake news, the only way to neither succumb nor become complicit or end up a helpless onlooker could be found, for example, in a thought by Italo Calvino concerning the new millennium that was about to dawn: “Focus only on difficult things that have been perfectly accomplished; be wary of easy ways, laziness, slapdash attitudes. Focus on accuracy, both in language and in the things you do”, as recalled by Ernesto Ferrero in his essential book Album di famiglia – Maestri del Novecento ritratti dal vivo (Family album – Live portraits of 20th-century masters), recently published by Einaudi.

Calvino was a strict, inquisitive and creative man. An intellectual aware that new maps of knowledge needed to be written to include humanities and sciences, and of the responsibility to never give in to the rhetorics of success, but rather commit to the endeavours of depth, because in order to appropriately perform intellectual work we need “not to abandon our job as scholars, but widen it, engage a larger audience, if one has something to say that might be of interest to that audience. This requires the ability to reinvent oneself without betraying one’s job” (a quote by Sabino Cassese, a great jurist and a wise civil servant).

We should do difficult things the proper way, then, just as Gianni Rodari, another 20th-century master in literature and life, advocated: “It’s difficult, doing difficult things: talking to deaf people, showing a rose to a blind person. Children, learn how to do difficult things: offer your hand to blind people, sing for deaf people, free the slaves who believe to be free.”

In Calvino’s commitment we find a passion for narration, a painstaking dedication to the theory and practice of literature (his editorial work for publisher Einaudi is proof of this), but also the care required to delve into things and spread scientific teachings: a kind of humanism that is mindful of Renaissance virtues of conciseness and of a sophisticated and international polytechnic culture.

Indeed, his cultural and civic teachings (“be wary of laziness”, “focus on accuracy”) come to mind when reading the Aspen Global Initiative in Favor of Pure Science report, recently published following a debate on the Aspen Institute’s initiatives in Italy and in the US that lasted a few years (the full document is available at https://www.aspeninstitute.it/system/files/inline/Pure-Science-Aspen-Institute-2022.pdf ).

Its aim is a valuable one: to place pure science at the centre of public and private policies and make political and economic decision-makers aware of the importance of investments in this field (this has already been mentioned in our blog posts from autumn 2021, when the document was being drafted). The underlying notion is, basically, to stimulate “an enlightened leadership at a global level” able to keep values and interests for the “general welfare of humanity” in the foreground.

In fact, the document explains how progress in pure science is, in itself, a beneficial thing, as it represents one of the fundamental paths towards civilisation: a path leading towards the full understanding of who we are and of the physical and biological characteristics of the world in which we live. These are strong values, reiterates the Aspen document, that also have an impact on our material progress and quality of life. if we had not discovered thermodynamics, relativity and quantum physics, the theory of evolution and theoretical chemistry – to mention just a few scientific findings – we would lead a much more impoverished and less interesting life.

In these past years, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change taking a turn for the worse, we have become much more widely aware of the need to focus on research. We were able to develop COVID-19 vaccines with such celerity precisely thanks to the progress made in basic research concerning medical “vectors”, and, in fact, research activities concerning energy, water, nutrition, harmful emissions, deforestation and the alarming changes in natural cycles and in vegetable and animal life can, today, offer precious insights on the so-called twin environmental and digital transition, also thanks to the support of Artificial Intelligence in tackling sustainable development issues.

Research, then, as a priority in political strategies but also in private investments.

Unfortunately, the Aspen report further points out, support to basic scientific research is plummeting pretty much everywhere and thus needs to be revived, through the collaboration of governments, public administrations, universities and private companies.

The report dedicates a chapter to each of the Aspen countries involved. With regards to Italy, as well as a low rate of public investment (much below the EU average), it also highlights a fragmentation in initiatives and a scarce collaboration between public and private spheres (whose division a proper use of PNRR – the Italian recovery and resilience plan – resources could significantly overcome).

This, then, is the reason why this debate needs to be rekindled. We need to apportion a larger part of funding to basic research and measure its outcomes according to criteria that go well beyond the mere achievement of immediate results. This is the responsibility of great international organisations and of European countries, starting with those featuring an obvious liberal democracy (the Aspen document aptly reminds us of the link between intellectual and democratic freedom), but it’s also the duty of a more sensitive and forward-looking public opinion, fully aware of the connections between knowledge, environmental and social sustainability (fighting inequality), innovation, quality of life (health is, of course, an essential part of this), and confident expectations in the future of younger generations.

A challenging task, indeed. A difficult one (back to Calvino and his urging to do, and do well) yet also a necessary one, to avoid the deterioration of everyday life and development prospects – to avoid, in other words, plunging into a hellishly ruptured economic and civil life.

Speaking of “hell”, rereading another of Calvino’s key teachings, found in the last pages of Le città invisibili (Invisible cities), a novel written at the beginning of those complex and painful 1970s: “The hell of living people is not something to come; if there is one, it is here already, it’s the hell we live in every day, which we form staying together. There are two ways not to suffer from it. The first comes easy to many: accept hell and become part of it, to the point you don’t see it any more. The second is risky and requires continuous attention and learning: to look for and recognise who and what, in the middle of hell, is not hell, and to make it last, and give it space.”

Recognise, make things last, give them space. A focus on quality, then, and on “accuracy” – here, too, lies the responsibility of science and research.

In this long and controversial period marked by uncertainty and conflict, vulgar and slovenly populism and authoritarian rhetorics further fostered by fake news, the only way to neither succumb nor become complicit or end up a helpless onlooker could be found, for example, in a thought by Italo Calvino concerning the new millennium that was about to dawn: “Focus only on difficult things that have been perfectly accomplished; be wary of easy ways, laziness, slapdash attitudes. Focus on accuracy, both in language and in the things you do”, as recalled by Ernesto Ferrero in his essential book Album di famiglia – Maestri del Novecento ritratti dal vivo (Family album – Live portraits of 20th-century masters), recently published by Einaudi.

Calvino was a strict, inquisitive and creative man. An intellectual aware that new maps of knowledge needed to be written to include humanities and sciences, and of the responsibility to never give in to the rhetorics of success, but rather commit to the endeavours of depth, because in order to appropriately perform intellectual work we need “not to abandon our job as scholars, but widen it, engage a larger audience, if one has something to say that might be of interest to that audience. This requires the ability to reinvent oneself without betraying one’s job” (a quote by Sabino Cassese, a great jurist and a wise civil servant).

We should do difficult things the proper way, then, just as Gianni Rodari, another 20th-century master in literature and life, advocated: “It’s difficult, doing difficult things: talking to deaf people, showing a rose to a blind person. Children, learn how to do difficult things: offer your hand to blind people, sing for deaf people, free the slaves who believe to be free.”

In Calvino’s commitment we find a passion for narration, a painstaking dedication to the theory and practice of literature (his editorial work for publisher Einaudi is proof of this), but also the care required to delve into things and spread scientific teachings: a kind of humanism that is mindful of Renaissance virtues of conciseness and of a sophisticated and international polytechnic culture.

Indeed, his cultural and civic teachings (“be wary of laziness”, “focus on accuracy”) come to mind when reading the Aspen Global Initiative in Favor of Pure Science report, recently published following a debate on the Aspen Institute’s initiatives in Italy and in the US that lasted a few years (the full document is available at https://www.aspeninstitute.it/system/files/inline/Pure-Science-Aspen-Institute-2022.pdf ).

Its aim is a valuable one: to place pure science at the centre of public and private policies and make political and economic decision-makers aware of the importance of investments in this field (this has already been mentioned in our blog posts from autumn 2021, when the document was being drafted). The underlying notion is, basically, to stimulate “an enlightened leadership at a global level” able to keep values and interests for the “general welfare of humanity” in the foreground.

In fact, the document explains how progress in pure science is, in itself, a beneficial thing, as it represents one of the fundamental paths towards civilisation: a path leading towards the full understanding of who we are and of the physical and biological characteristics of the world in which we live. These are strong values, reiterates the Aspen document, that also have an impact on our material progress and quality of life. if we had not discovered thermodynamics, relativity and quantum physics, the theory of evolution and theoretical chemistry – to mention just a few scientific findings – we would lead a much more impoverished and less interesting life.

In these past years, marked by the COVID-19 pandemic and climate change taking a turn for the worse, we have become much more widely aware of the need to focus on research. We were able to develop COVID-19 vaccines with such celerity precisely thanks to the progress made in basic research concerning medical “vectors”, and, in fact, research activities concerning energy, water, nutrition, harmful emissions, deforestation and the alarming changes in natural cycles and in vegetable and animal life can, today, offer precious insights on the so-called twin environmental and digital transition, also thanks to the support of Artificial Intelligence in tackling sustainable development issues.

Research, then, as a priority in political strategies but also in private investments.

Unfortunately, the Aspen report further points out, support to basic scientific research is plummeting pretty much everywhere and thus needs to be revived, through the collaboration of governments, public administrations, universities and private companies.

The report dedicates a chapter to each of the Aspen countries involved. With regards to Italy, as well as a low rate of public investment (much below the EU average), it also highlights a fragmentation in initiatives and a scarce collaboration between public and private spheres (whose division a proper use of PNRR – the Italian recovery and resilience plan – resources could significantly overcome).

This, then, is the reason why this debate needs to be rekindled. We need to apportion a larger part of funding to basic research and measure its outcomes according to criteria that go well beyond the mere achievement of immediate results. This is the responsibility of great international organisations and of European countries, starting with those featuring an obvious liberal democracy (the Aspen document aptly reminds us of the link between intellectual and democratic freedom), but it’s also the duty of a more sensitive and forward-looking public opinion, fully aware of the connections between knowledge, environmental and social sustainability (fighting inequality), innovation, quality of life (health is, of course, an essential part of this), and confident expectations in the future of younger generations.

A challenging task, indeed. A difficult one (back to Calvino and his urging to do, and do well) yet also a necessary one, to avoid the deterioration of everyday life and development prospects – to avoid, in other words, plunging into a hellishly ruptured economic and civil life.

Speaking of “hell”, rereading another of Calvino’s key teachings, found in the last pages of Le città invisibili (Invisible cities), a novel written at the beginning of those complex and painful 1970s: “The hell of living people is not something to come; if there is one, it is here already, it’s the hell we live in every day, which we form staying together. There are two ways not to suffer from it. The first comes easy to many: accept hell and become part of it, to the point you don’t see it any more. The second is risky and requires continuous attention and learning: to look for and recognise who and what, in the middle of hell, is not hell, and to make it last, and give it space.”

Recognise, make things last, give them space. A focus on quality, then, and on “accuracy” – here, too, lies the responsibility of science and research.