Originally in classical Greece the word “despots” referred to the owner of something. Later, the word “despots” was assimilated to a position equivalent to king, pharaoh, Caesar or emperor. Finally, since some governors did not behave adequately with their people, the word “despots” began to be used for those governors that did not treat citizens adequately, abusing their power, without being subject to any law. Finally, in the XVIII century enlightened despotism appeared.

However, we consider that currently a new type of despotism has appeared, neo-despotism, which has become embedded in the states that base their government on the representative system and on the rights and freedoms of citizens.

The current neo-despots, unlike the previous ones, use some science as a mechanism to justify the mistreatment of their subordinates.

This use of science to justify a behavior not subject to any law is shocking, since the development of science is based precisely on accepting the laws of nature, checking them and developing them in the form of hypotheses, thesis and theories.

Thus, current neo-despots can be called pseudo-scientists since they use scientific terminologies, but they are not true scientists.

And here are the differences:

• A true scientist accepts the laws of nature whether he likes them or not. A pseudoscientific despot cites the laws of nature, but only uses them for his own interests, although for this he violates the rights and freedoms of citizens.
• A true scientist does not consider repealing a natural law. A pseudoscientific despot strives to change the meaning of words, to alter the meaning of natural laws, which in the end constitutes its derogation.
• A true scientist tries to understand, through logic, the origins and consequences of natural laws. A pseudoscientific despot tries to hide the origin of natural laws and tries to attribute their consequences to causes other than himself.
• A true scientist develops his science by hypothesis, application of the scientific method, obtaining his thesis, and formulating his theory by confirming his thesis. A pseudoscientific despot issues his hypothesis, but does not test it, by application of the scientific method, on the contrary, he manipulates the evidence to match his hypothesis.

These pseudoscientific despots use a scientific mask to achieve power quotas from which to exercise their despotism, whether in state or international organizations. They can be found in universities, research centers, expert committees, scientific media … in directive positions or on the way to climbing towards them.

At Veterinaria Digital we warn of its presence in all professions, in some more than others. Pseudoscientific despots sometimes create disputes and competition between professions, relegating some for the benefit of others, apparently as false as their science of their defense of “one health.”

Without forgetting that the motto of the veterinary profession “higia pecoris, salus populi” we can ask ourselves, do veterinary professionals feel included in the interprofessional teams destined to protect public health?