The Sudden Departure of Daniele Mandrioli Indicates an Activist Science Group in Disarray

My lazy Manila Sunday was disrupted by the news that Daniele Mandrioli, head of the Ramazzini Institute’s Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, was suddenly sent packing. Conspiracy theories were rapidly flying around the web, amplified faithfully by Collegium Ramazzini’s useful idiot, the Environmental Working Group’s Carey Gillam, suggesting it was the underhanded work of the chemical industry somehow influencing the Italian-located, American-run activist research social club. It was due to Mandrioli’s success in executing Ramazzini’s Global Glyphosate Study, Gillam argued, that so many industry lobbyists were attacking him. (Carey claims to know a thing or two about industry pressure getting people fired.)

Gillam’s “go-to” outrage claims of industry collusion are too far into Planet Conspiracy, even for her. If the Global Glyphosate Study had been as successful as this activist cum journalist wants us to believe, then Mandrioli would have been fêted in the Ramazzini Institute’s Hall of Legendary Activists. Indeed a scowling letter signed last week on behalf of Collegium Ramazzini fellows protesting Mandrioli’s departure and demanding his restoration, praised his life-saving, heroic work, comparing his legacy to Professor Selikoff (just let that one sink in for a moment!).

Several scientists shared with me their view that, due to the abrupt nature of the dismissal, there must have been some ethical breach, lack of research integrity or financial misconduct. This also cannot be the reason for Mandrioli’s departure as the Ramazzini Institute has had a very low bar for such behaviour (having even coordinated with a Russian disinformation campaign against GMOs). In any case, Philip Landrigan’s protest letter (sent last week but shared, of course, with Carey Gillam) indicates Mandrioli’s firing was being discussed before November, 2025. If it were an ethics violation, there would have been no such discussion but in this case, the Ramazzini Institute board chairperson had been consulting Landrigan and others about the director’s competence well in advance.

Before we all run out of popcorn, outside of incompetence, ethical transgressions or industry collusion, there are at least five good reasons why Daniele Mandrioli should have been thrown out of this corrupt activist science research institute.

Five Reasons to Justify Firing Mandrioli

1. Bad financial management

It was quite clear in the last few years that the Ramazzini Institute had run out of money. They had launched the Global Glyphosate Study to great fanfare in 2017, claiming to provide the definitive independent research to prove how glyphosate actually did cause cancer. For years, though, they were only able to raise about 6% of the needed funds so the study gathered dust. It wasn’t until Ramazzini’s then Head of the Scientific Advisory Committee, Philip Landrigan, secretly transferred almost one million dollars to Ramazzini (from the US litigation industry funding of Landrigan’s Heartland Study), that they could then start dosing mice. I find it rich that in Landrigan’s protest letter, he defended Mandrioli, claming he “secured millions of euros in external research funding“.

2. Poor fundraising skills

Indeed, finances were so bad for the Ramazzini Institute that Daniele Mandrioli had to resort to publicly begging people for handouts. I attended a screening of the documentary, Into the Weeds, in Brussels and had to look away as Mandrioli took the microphone to express how dire their finances were. He was able to convince the film producer on the panel, Jennifer Baichwal, to do some pro-bono work to help Daniele create a promotional video for his institute. (This was paid for by Baichwal’s sweet relationship with the US litigation industry, a source Mandrioli maybe should have discreetly tapped into.) Fundraising 101 states the “ask” should be made in private and from a position of strength.

3. Mismanagement of the Global Glyphosate Study

Despite the claims of Mandrioli’s brilliant work publishing the Global Glyphosate Study, the reality is that the entire campaign was a disaster. When EFSA (the European Food Safety Authority) was preparing their glyphosate risk assessment, Mandrioli and other scientists in his group were showing up in Brussels claiming they had results that would change the consensus view that glyphosate was not a significant health risk. But despite repeated requests from EFSA and ECHA (the European Chemicals Agency), they never provided the data.

When the study was finally published, there was nothing significant and many of the findings were easily dismissed due to methodological and quality issues. The only success Mandrioli could claim with the Global Glyphosate Study was an excellent activist social media amplification and NGO campaign (thanks to the film production work of Jennifer Baichwal’s film company, funded by the US litigation industry).

4. Rockstar self-promotion

Mandrioli tries to take the microphone and speaking slot at any conference on any issue. He’ll find something to say at events on food additives, ultra-processed food, formaldehyde, aspartame, e-cigarettes, pesticides like glyphosate and atrazine, plastics, gasoline … the opportunities to speak are endless. Having seen him speak on at least six occasions in Brussels, I am amused at how he fancies himself as a bit of a rockstar.

Let me be clear. I have no problem with rockstars being given the microphone … so long as they can sing. But Mandrioli is so tone-deaf that event organizers started to tack him on panels after lunch or in speaking slots scheduled early in the morning (a safe empty-chair slot given that nobody wants to be begged for funding before breakfast).

5. Failure to nominate Ramazzini fellows to IARC panels

Like conference speaking slots, Mandrioli also pushes himself onto IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer) monograph panels, regardless of his competence in the research field. His name kept popping up on IARC monograph panels on gasoline, aspartame, atrazine – you name it, and Daniele was there to suggest a nice restaurant in Lyon to his scientific confrères.

The problem here is that the close relationship between Ramazzini and IARC only allows a couple unscrutinized Ramazzini nominations to the coveted IARC monograph panels and if Mandrioli consistently takes one of the appointments, he is denying other, perhaps more qualified Ramazzini fellows from participating in the IARC monograph process. Remember that a week on an IARC panel can translate into millions of dollars in consulting fees from the American litigation industry, testifying on lawsuits relying on the IARC monographs as evidence. This opportunity is the main reason any credible scientists may hold their noses and join this Italian social club.

Fall of the Legends

Perhaps Daniele Mandrioli can relax, finally free from fundraising pressures and now able to enjoy the unlimited income bestowed upon him as a litigation consultant. He will surely take to the microphone in the courtroom better than he did at all those conferences … I’m thinking science telenovela drama in front of a jury (since scientific evidence never really mattered in any of his IARC cameos). No doubt, his status as an IARC-Ramazzini legend should guarantee Daniele some cushy academic post … maybe there is still a chair available at Boston College.

No one needs to cry for Mandrioli or worry for his future, but what about the future of the Ramazzini Institute? The ongoing reorganization is just one more step in the financial decline. Long gone are the days when Linda Birnbaum kept Ramazzini running with a steady stream of millions of dollars from some NIEHS slush fund. Irving Selikoff founded the Collegium and then the Institute as a means to run campaigns that extract vengeance on industry and while they have tried to motivate a large number of activist scientists to act on his behalf, that was never a viable foundation from which to build a scientific research centre. Prestige, quality and research integrity had always been in short supply at Ramazzini.

I had always wondered if Ramazzini would have survived and thrived on the dark funding from the US litigation industry (the strategy motivating Benbrook and Landrigan to fund their Heartland Health activism). But tort lawyers really don’t care about actual scientific research (outside of a few sound bites they can use to haunt jurors). They’ll gladly buy the scientists but not the research. Gratitude is free so forget about Predatorts paying for what they have benefitted from.

The Ramazzini Institute will no doubt quietly fade away, probably folded into the University of Bologna to fund a few post-docs. It will not be missed. The Collegium Ramazzini social club will likely continue to survive on its membership dues, but without the IARC monograph panel access and litigation consulting networks, its annual autumn wine-tasting events will likely see diminishing engagement as the old warriors die off.

Scientific research is changing rapidly, with AI doing much of the heavy lifting (just look at how the MAHA Institute has used AI to build their Gold Standard Science). The Ramazzini concept (independent research developed solely to attack industry science) is long past its sell-by date. A dignified unwinding is the best the Ramazzini Institute’s board members could hope for. But activist scientists like Philip Landrigan aren’t willing to accept such changes so they spread conspiracy theories, no matter how ridiculous. This fight may only have finished Round 1.

I think I still have some popcorn in my cupboard.

____

Since 2018, SlimeGate has been one of the few documents, a living research text, trying to expose the corruption and lies behind the litigation industry. If you enjoyed this read (free with no ads) or the entire SlimeGate exposé, why not support The Risk-Monger via Patreon? Become a Gold-Monger patron from 5 € / $ per month and get David’s newsletter.