{"id":1685,"date":"2026-02-20T18:55:51","date_gmt":"2026-02-20T18:55:51","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/?p=1685"},"modified":"2026-04-06T21:08:05","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T21:08:05","slug":"gianfranco-pancino-recounts-ricordi-a-piede-libero-lautonomia-operaia-exile-hiv-research-militancy-fractures-and-returns-between-movement-organization-social-conflict","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/en\/gianfranco-pancino-recounts-ricordi-a-piede-libero-lautonomia-operaia-exile-hiv-research-militancy-fractures-and-returns-between-movement-organization-social-conflict\/","title":{"rendered":"Gianfranco Pancino recounts \u201cRicordi a piede libero. L\u2019Autonomia operaia, exile, HIV research\u201d: militancy, fractures and returns, between movement organization, social conflict, and non\u2011neutral science"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<figure class=\"wp-block-audio\"><audio controls src=\"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/02\/Intervista-Gianfranco-Pancino.mp3\" preload=\"auto\"><\/audio><figcaption class=\"wp-element-caption\">Listen to interview<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<p><strong>Gianfranco Pancino<\/strong> moves through three lives which, in his account, become a single trajectory: <strong>political militancy<\/strong> during the years of workers\u2019 struggles and Autonomia, <strong>exile<\/strong> \u2014 experienced as a painful fracture but also as an opening toward other cultures and perspectives \u2014 and finally <strong>scientific research<\/strong>, leading to his involvement in HIV\/AIDS studies and global health issues. A path marked by a constant demand for justice and a stubborn love for knowledge, which also returns in his reflections on the non-neutrality of science, on the limits of \u201cdemocratic medicine\u201d revealed during the pandemic, and on the need to root new practices of conflict and care in the territory, such as popular clinics.<\/p>\n<p>At the center of the <strong>interview<\/strong> is his book <i>Ricordi a piede libero. L\u2019Autonomia operaia, l\u2019esilio, gli studi sull\u2019HIV<\/i> (Mimesis), a personal and political autobiography that reconstructs the atmosphere, passions, and contradictions of a season capable of leaving seeds still alive, even in a profoundly changed society. The volume will be presented on Thursday, February 26 at 5:30 p.m. at the Ristorante Etico Strada Facendo, Padua (via Chiesanuova 134). The interview was organized and curated by <strong>OpenMemory \u2013 Centro Studi e Documentazione Sherwood<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>\u00a0<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\"><strong>Maurizio Galeazzo<\/strong><\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">In reading your book, which we could define as a personal, political, and perhaps even collective autobiography, one can identify <strong>three distinct narrative periods<\/strong>. The first is that of political militancy, in which the political-collective dimension emerges strongly. The second is that of exile, where the family dimension and the discovery that other ways of living can exist are brought to the forefront. The third is that of scientific research, where the most personal dimension becomes evident, made of determination and passion for research and discovery. In this journey, can one trace the <strong>common thread<\/strong> that runs through the entire narrative?<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">The common thread throughout my journey has been the <strong>thirst for justice and love of knowledge<\/strong>, which have driven me ever since, as a student in <strong>Padua<\/strong>, I took part in the first student demonstrations against the Gui law. Later, my involvement in the workers\u2019 struggles at <strong>Porto Marghera<\/strong>, alongside the workers, taught me concretely how a factory works and how a revendicative struggle is built.<\/p>\n<p>With my <strong>arrival in Milan<\/strong> and the development of the <strong>Autonomia<\/strong> movement, this awareness grew even stronger: the conviction matured that it was possible \u2014 and necessary \u2014 to change things, to transform society as it was. That movement did not seek only to influence social structures, but also to <strong>change people\u2019s daily lives<\/strong>, experimenting with new forms of collective life and profoundly altering the way one saw oneself and the world.<\/p>\n<p>This drive guided all my activities and political militancy, and sustained me in the lives that followed. <strong>Exile<\/strong> was a <strong>very painful fracture<\/strong>, but it was also an experience that offered me a <strong>positive side<\/strong>: stepping outside my worldview \u2014 however collective and political \u2014 to encounter other cultures, other ways of thinking, and to truly open myself to the world.<\/p>\n<p>Thus I understood that we are not alone and, above all, that <strong>Europe is not the center of the world<\/strong>. Finally, in the third phase of my life, I picked up again that thread made of the search for change, social justice, and knowledge, embarking on the path of scientific research. It was an extremely difficult journey, but I managed to enter <strong>AIDS research<\/strong>: a deeply committed field that allowed me to confront the issues of what was then called the \u201cThird World\u201d and the major questions of global health.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Maurizio Galeazzo<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">Across these three periods, what was the driving force behind this almost incessant search, made of continuous industriousness and the ability not to give up, to keep going \u2014 as the saying goes \u2014 making soup with whatever was available at each moment?<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">I learned that facing life requires several ingredients. The first is <strong>determination<\/strong>: you must understand what you want, set a goal, and truly decide to reach it.<\/p>\n<p>The second is <strong>trust<\/strong>: trust in yourself and trust in others. This allowed me to always live collectively, to rely on the people around me, starting with my family. Loredana \u2014 first partner and then wife \u2014 was extraordinarily important, especially during the years in France, helping me rebuild a life, relationships, and a community of comrades. Feeling that others believe in you is fundamental: for this reason, trust in oneself, in others, and in the collective has been decisive for me.<\/p>\n<p>And then there is <strong>luck<\/strong>, because in life you need that too. I must say I was lucky: I was not arrested in Italy when they were looking for me and did not find me, I was not extradited, and finally, I managed to \u201cpass the camel through the eye of the needle,\u201d entering scientific research in France. And I made it.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Maurizio Galeazzo<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">In your book you state that, in the 1970s, we failed to <strong>go beyond the party form<\/strong> as the main organizational tool of movements. In light of today\u2019s debate, what is your view on new organizational forms that try to move beyond the dichotomy between horizontality and verticality?<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">I believe one of the main self-criticisms of that period is precisely this: we were unable to identify what the <strong>next step beyond the party form<\/strong> could be, which until then had been decisive, at least in Western democracies. At the moment when the party form began to empty itself of content and politics became increasingly autonomous from the electorate, while we proposed other forms of representation, we were not able to define an organization capable of laying the foundations for a new form of representation.<\/p>\n<p>In reality, in the 1970s, what we were trying to do was to develop <strong>forms of direct democracy in all areas of social life<\/strong>: in factories, in schools, and even in personal relationships. There were no elected leaders; rather, there were cadres, leaders if you want to call them that, whose ability to lead derived from their personal qualities \u2014 intelligence, courage, ability to represent others \u2014 and not from any formal investiture.<\/p>\n<p>Autonomia, however, remained essentially a coordination of very different situations, which never found forms of centralization capable of going beyond simple coordination and the organization of struggles.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #800080;\">We set the prairie on fire, we set the country on fire, but without managing to build, brick by brick, a new organizational form.<\/span><\/h5>\n<p>We spoke of counterpower, yes, but for us counterpower was above all the <strong>defense of the gains<\/strong> obtained in individual places: not much more. We did not manage to invent either a new society or a new organization.<\/p>\n<p>In the end, as I also recall in the book, some even came to propose again the need for a party form, more or less Leninist: an evident failure. Since then, this discussion has continued for fifty years without reaching a definitive solution.<\/p>\n<p>Every time a <strong>movement<\/strong> tries to give itself solid structures, the <strong>same difficulties<\/strong> emerge. I think, for example, of <i>Podemos<\/i>: it was born from a spontaneous and autonomous movement and tried to transform itself into a representative force capable of confronting society as a whole and power. It built a party that initially developed from the base toward the center. But in its development it was progressively absorbed by the rules of existing democracy, lost its connection with the base, and ended up losing bargaining power. I believe this is one of the best examples to explain current difficulties.<\/p>\n<p>There are many movements, especially in <strong>France<\/strong>. The <i>gilets jaunes<\/i> movement, for example, was an extremely important experience, which even put institutions at risk, to the point of being repressed with absolute ferocity. There too, demands for direct democracy emerged strongly.<\/p>\n<p>Movements continue to arise and disappear, and will continue to do so until this <strong>gap between the necessity of conflict and the organization of conflict<\/strong> is resolved. I cannot give you a definitive answer: if I had it, I would have already written the new theoretical book, <i>What Is to Be Done for Our Time<\/i>. But I can tell you that attempts continue even today.<\/p>\n<p>Personally, I am involved in building a national coordination of <strong>popular clinics<\/strong>: I was in Bologna the other day, and the work continues. There is this attempt to build and solidify roots in the territory, and this seems fundamental to me. In this sense, the <strong>Venetian political collectives<\/strong> were more successful than other Autonomia experiences: they managed to build real bases in the territory.<\/p>\n<p>Today the task is to do something similar: to form a <strong>new political subject within a society deeply fragmented<\/strong> by the new division of labor, coordinating these realities starting from common objectives. I don\u2019t know if we will succeed, but this is the path. The form remains that of direct democracy; what is still missing is understanding how this direct democracy can translate into forms of centralization, and therefore into real bargaining power.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Maurizio Galeazzo<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">In the book you also discuss the <strong>use of violence<\/strong> within social struggles. Can you expand on this thought also in light of recent events, for example what happened in Turin on January 31?<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">I have always understood the use of violence as a <strong>tool<\/strong>. The discussion on violence cannot be isolated in the simplistic terms of \u201cviolence yes\u201d or \u201cviolence no,\u201d also because we live within a profoundly violent system. Violence runs through all social relations: it concerns not only the relationship between the State and the individual, coercion or the police, but also labor relations, study relations, even family relations. Feminists have taught us this clearly: we live in a society in which violence is daily.<\/p>\n<p>This violence, however, is largely the <strong>monopoly of the State<\/strong> and is structural to our social model.<\/p>\n<p>For this reason, speaking of violence in the abstract makes no sense. What makes sense is to ask why and when violence may be useful. In my view, the discussion must be limited to its necessity, the historical context, and the concrete occasion.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #800080;\">Violence is useful when it allows objectives to be reached, when it removes real obstacles to a practicable goal.<\/span><\/h5>\n<p>A frequently cited example, which I find very effective, is that of the <strong>Alfa Romeo workers<\/strong> who dismantled the tracks to prevent trains loaded with goods from leaving. Why do it? Because the picket lines no longer held, they were being broken through, and an effective form of sabotage was found. Another example, again in Milan, concerns a cycle of struggles in which Autonomia Operaia and Alfa Romeo workers found themselves facing not only the police but also PCI cadres. At that moment two pylons fell, the power was cut, and the factory stopped. This is \u201cuseful\u201d violence, because it allows a concrete objective to be reached. Not by chance, after the unbolting of the tracks, the dispute ended with a workers\u2019 victory.<\/p>\n<p>What we disagreed with, even at the time of Autonomia, was <strong>ideological violence<\/strong>, such as the \u201cattack on the heart of the State\u201d practiced by the Red Brigades. In our view, it was a very serious mistake. A symbol can be destroyed, but it will be rebuilt. A person can be killed \u2014 except perhaps in exceptional cases like Hitler \u2014 but will be replaced. Striking mediating figures to sharpen the conflict, as in the case of the killing of Judge Alessandrini, was, in my opinion, a huge historical error.<\/p>\n<p>There are also explosions of violence, more or less organized, which must still be evaluated case by case. In the case of the <i>gilets jaunes<\/i> in France, for example, it was a mass violence, shared by the entire movement, and in this sense legitimized and understandable.<\/p>\n<p>In Turin, however, I don\u2019t think that was the case. There, old patterns resurfaced once again. In my view, Turin had seen an enormous victory for the movement emerging in Italy: tens of thousands of people \u2014 twenty, thirty, forty thousand \u2014 were brought into the streets around just and concrete objectives. In that context, was it really necessary to create a situation of confrontation, once again offering weapons to the government and the right to accelerate the approval of the security decree? I don\u2019t think so.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Giuseppe Cutr\u00ec<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">In the book you also address the theme of the <strong>neutrality of science<\/strong>. You said that, once you left university, you had a strong desire to do research and eventually succeeded. However, having always been a social and political fighter, you were certainly already aware of the non-neutrality of science. How did you experience your entry into the world of research? Even when the goals may appear shared, we know well that research funding and directions are often determined by powers not guided by researchers. How did you navigate this contradiction?<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">In reality, I developed this awareness mainly through collective work. In 1969 we formed the Medicine Base Committee, composed of medical students. We were in contact with some physician-professors from the Institute of Occupational Medicine, who informed us \u2014 and with whom we discussed at length \u2014 about an existing agreement between Montedison, the Porto Marghera petrochemical plant, and the Institute itself, which provided doctors to the company to investigate working conditions.<\/p>\n<p>It was clearly an abnormal situation: a public institute placing itself at the service of a private initiative, precisely while struggles against workplace hazards were emerging. Together we produced a booklet, which we called The Green Booklet, probably one of the first documents, at least from below, to openly denounce the myth of scientific neutrality. And I must say it had some success: the first concrete result was the <strong>termination of the agreement with Montedison<\/strong>. This played an important role in the development of struggles at the petrochemical plant against harmful conditions.<\/p>\n<p>As you can see, it was not a purely intellectual realization: I literally <strong>entered into that contradiction<\/strong>, in its most evident form.<\/p>\n<p>Of course, this contradiction has much broader horizons, especially when looking at the strategic choices of science. I think, for example, of medicine: diseases that do not directly affect Western countries are systematically neglected compared to others. Or the trend, strongly affirmed in the last twenty years, to limit <strong>fundamental research in favor of technological development<\/strong>. It is a very significant dynamic, which makes the problem of scientific neutrality even more evident, because technological choices are closely linked to the development of capital.<\/p>\n<p>Finally, I believe we are now facing a further change. I recently wrote an article in <i>Ahida<\/i> titled <i>Politics Against Science<\/i>. With the return of <strong>Trump<\/strong> to the presidency of the United States, in my view, <strong>capital has directly assumed political leadership<\/strong>. One consequence is an explicit attack on knowledge: technology is used \u2014 and indeed big tech openly supports Trump \u2014 but knowledge is attacked. Universities, critical knowledge, are attacked head-on.<\/p>\n<p>I believe this represents a new, different phase, which goes beyond the debate on the neutrality of science: here we are facing a <strong>true and proper attack on knowledge<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Giuseppe Cutr\u00ec<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">A curiosity: I went to look in the Senate archives and found material concerning you, which you have already mentioned in other interviews: accusations such as being a participant in the Red Brigades, and similar things. What I wonder is this: when one goes \u201cto war,\u201d so to speak, with a counterpart like capital, and one ends up carrying out actions not only against things but also against people, doesn\u2019t one expect that at some point there will be no more rules, that guarantees will collapse? Perhaps one of our mistakes was expecting a certain legal guarantee from the laws, which was then evidently swept away. At the time, did you think about these things or not?<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">You\u2019re right. One of the elements of self-criticism is certainly that we <strong>underestimated the power of the State<\/strong>. On the one hand, we saw the weakness of Italian institutions \u2014 which are certainly not the French State \u2014 and this led us to believe we could build a revolutionary project, that we could lay the foundations of what we then called \u201ccounterpower\u201d, not without consequences, but still with wider margins than what later proved possible.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #800080;\">History has taught us one fundamental thing: the boundaries of legality shift according to power relations and relations of force.<\/span><\/h5>\n<p>We thought that, through our strength and above all through a mass force that was becoming enormous \u2014 with hundreds of thousands of people in the streets \u2014 we would be able to shift those relations in our favor, and thus make possible the construction of an organization and a revolutionary project. A construction that, moreover, we never really managed to achieve.<\/p>\n<p>In reality, we were wrong. <strong>Italy<\/strong> was \u2014 and is \u2014 a <strong>strategic point<\/strong> of primary importance for capital and for the United States. It was therefore evident that they would never allow such an initiative to take shape. As a consequence, we were in fact crushed militarily as well.<\/p>\n<p>Regarding the issue of attacks against individuals, a clarification is needed: what you mention concerns us only partially. In the sense that, at least for most of the autonomy experience, political assassination was rejected.<\/p>\n<p>I\u2019ll add something else, very briefly, because it comes naturally to connect it to what has been happening in the last 12\u201324 months: <strong>artificial intelligence<\/strong>. I think it will exponentially \u2014 and with enormous speed \u2014 influence everything related to social control and the concentration of power. And I have the impression that there is still a lack of analysis on \u201cwhat is to be done\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>We have spoken about a time when the possibility of a revolution truly existed, and when perhaps the State did not yet have fully adequate tools to immediately block movements. But today?<\/p>\n<p>Once someone asked me: \u201cDo you think artificial intelligence can develop? How will it develop?\u201d. I replied: artificial intelligence is. It exists, and it is the future. So we must understand how to position ourselves in relation to this reality, especially because today it is in the hands of a very small minority that directs it.<\/p>\n<p>The problem is extremely serious. The hope many of us had at the beginning, when the web developed, was that it could serve the diffusion of knowledge, the circulation of ideas, discussion. In reality, what happened is that a different model prevailed: commercialization, production and imposition of political \u201ctruths\u201d, control. And artificial intelligence will make all this even more powerful: it will push it forward exponentially, exponentially.<\/p>\n<p>This is why I believe reflection must be much deeper: to understand whether and how it is possible to oppose this tendency; for example, whether a form of \u201chacker\u201d movement capable of intervening, modifying, breaking these devices can emerge.<\/p>\n<p>I also invite you to read a very beautiful essay by <strong>Giorgio Griziotti<\/strong> that we recently published in <i>Ahida<\/i>: in my opinion it really offers a series of important insights.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Antonio Pio Lancellotti<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">In recent years many books have been published on the Sixties and Seventies and, in my view, this also responds to a need within contemporary intellectual production to return to reflecting on that historical phase. Among them, I was particularly struck by <strong>Hardt<\/strong>\u2019s book, <i>The Subversive Seventies<\/i>, because, compared to others, it reads that season within a long period. He speaks of a <strong>fracture<\/strong> and insists a great deal on the idea that, starting from the Seventies, a specific subversive subjectivity emerged that then managed, albeit in different forms, to persist over time and space. In light of what you said earlier, especially regarding organizational forms, what do you think are the elements of continuity and what are the ruptures that occur from the Eighties onward?<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">You are absolutely right: we must <strong>reason in long periods<\/strong>. In one of my poems I wrote that only history truly allows us to interpret and understand the individual; unfortunately, an individual\u2019s life is too short to fully succeed.<\/p>\n<p>In my opinion, yes, <strong>there was a break<\/strong>. A break that does not coincide only with what I would call our military defeat \u2014 I deliberately use this term because I do not believe it was a defeat of our ideas. It is not only about <strong>1979<\/strong>, with the global repression and the dismantling of workers\u2019 autonomy, which produced thousands of arrests, people killed and exiled.<\/p>\n<p>There was later a resurgence with the <strong>alter-globalization movement<\/strong>, which in turn was brutally repressed in <strong>2001 in Genoa<\/strong>. From there, in my opinion, a real break opened. A break that was not filled by the experience of social centers: experiences undoubtedly widespread and important, but which, in my view, did not significantly affect the overall situation.<\/p>\n<p>That break, in reality, was filled by something else: by <i>berlusconismo<\/i>, that is, by a process of flattening and erasing our history. As you said, for at least ten years \u2014 probably more \u2014 many books have been coming out that try to reconstruct that season. Many do so in a historical key; in my book, instead, I tried to reconstruct the atmosphere, the enthusiasm, the passions that animated us.<\/p>\n<p>What I am noticing, even during the book presentations, is that <strong>the ideas were not defeated<\/strong>. We planted seeds that are now sprouting in many contexts. I think, for example, of ideas about direct democracy; I think of social relations; I think of feminism, which not only is not dead, but continues to live and take on new forms and new dimensions.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #800080;\">These seeds, therefore, are beginning to sprout again. I find many of our ideas coming back to life.<\/span><\/h5>\n<p>What cannot return, however, is the reproduction of our experiences exactly as they were. Here it is necessary to invent something else: other forms of struggle, other forms of representation, because society has radically changed. In this sense, I say that the thread has broken.<\/p>\n<p>Once, during a presentation, I spoke of \u201ckarst waters\u201d: a stream that went underground and is now slowly resurfacing. But this thread that re-emerges is above all a thread of ideas. On the organizational level, instead, everything must be invented from scratch: new organizational forms, new practices of struggle. In this field, nothing can simply be taken up again; everything must be rethought and rebuilt anew.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Antonio Pio Lancellotti<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">I would like to return to the question of the neutrality of science and, in particular, to the idea of democratic science, and even more specifically to the idea of <strong>democratic medicine<\/strong>. It is a noble concept, with a long history, but after the fracture of Covid it has taken on a new political meaning. I would like to dwell on this and develop the discussion further.<\/p>\n<h5><span style=\"color: #ff0000;\">Gianfranco Pancino<\/span><\/h5>\n<p class=\"dropcap\">Yes, the <strong>limits of democratic medicine<\/strong>, as you say, became clearly visible during the <strong>pandemic<\/strong>. In that context, its repressive aspects emerged strongly and, in fact, the epidemic was also a laboratory for power, an opportunity to experiment with new forms of coercion.<\/p>\n<p>Even though I was in favor of the vaccine \u2014 indeed, I worked directly in that field, so it would have been difficult for me to be against it \u2014 and therefore did not identify at all with no-vax positions, it is evident that power used the pandemic to observe how an emergency situation works. The very concept of emergency as a form of governing society was introduced and normalized, presented as inevitable and necessary.<\/p>\n<p>In this sense, <strong>the pandemic highlighted the limits of democratic medicine<\/strong> understood as a movement that seeks to negotiate with institutions to improve healthcare and health conditions. When the relationship remains only on this level, the risk is that the logic of emergency and control completely prevails.<\/p>\n<p>This is precisely why I find extremely important \u2014 and it is the reason I have been working on it for about a year \u2014 the experience of <strong>free popular clinics<\/strong>. Popular clinics bring health back into social contradictions, into the material conditions of people\u2019s lives. They seek to build political consensus and political organization starting from real needs, and above all they reconnect the struggle for health with that for wages, housing, and overall living conditions.<\/p>\n<p>Today these experiences are still small, marginal, apparently of little importance. But it is from there, in my view, that we must start again to reframe the discussion. Negotiation with the National Health Service cannot be only a technical or reformist request: it must become a conflict, a capacity to bring the necessity of health from the grassroots back toward institutions, in openly conflictual terms. Only in this way can health once again become a central political terrain, and not simply a function administered from above.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Gianfranco Pancino moves through three lives which, in his account, become a single trajectory: political militancy during the years of workers\u2019 struggles and Autonomia, exile \u2014 experienced as a painful fracture but also as an opening toward other cultures and perspectives \u2014 and finally scientific research, leading to his involvement in HIV\/AIDS studies and global health issues. A path marked by a constant demand for justice and a stubborn love for knowledge, which also returns in his reflections on the non-neutrality of science, on the limits of \u201cdemocratic medicine\u201d revealed during the pandemic, and on the need to root new practices of conflict and care in the territory, such as popular clinics<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":1620,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","_themeisle_gutenberg_block_has_review":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[238],"tags":[242,245,246,243,250],"class_list":["post-1685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-interview","tag-artificial-intelligence","tag-autonomy","tag-history","tag-medicine","tag-seventies"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1685","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1685"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1685\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1703,"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1685\/revisions\/1703"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1620"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.openmemory.it\/openmemory\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}