Dozens of scientists signed an appeal criticizing the expertise in the Berkovich case

Dozens of Russian scientists signed an open appeal “against dishonest humanitarian expertise in courts and legitimization of pseudo-scientific knowledge.” The document was published on Tuesday on the website of the Council on the Ethics of Scientific Publications.

The publication of the letter is connected with the criminal prosecution of director Evgenia Berkovich and playwright Svetlana Petriychuk on charges of justifying terrorism. The basis of the criminal case was the so-called destructive examination, prepared by a group of people headed by the founder of the so-called destructive science, Roman Silantiev.

“Destructology” is not included in the normative directions of science and education officially recognized in the Russian Federation. It is also absent in the international scientific space. Publications on the topic are limited to the work of one author (Roman Silantiev),” the letter says. It is noted that destructology is essentially a pseudoscience. “Participation of persons with pseudo-scientific and anti-scientific views in the preparation of humanitarian expertise for court hearings is unacceptable, they thus mislead the court,” the letter says. It also states that in recent years “many erroneous decisions have been made based on such “expertises”.

The letter was signed by dozens of scientists, specialists in both humanities and natural sciences, including four academicians, a number of corresponding members and professors of the Russian Academy of Sciences.

At a meeting on May 30, the Moscow City Court declared the arrest of director Evgenia Berkovich and playwright Svetlana Petriychuk to be legal. They will remain in the SIZO until July 4.

Berkovich and Petriychuk were arrested in early May under the criminal charge of justifying terrorism because of the play “Finist Yasnyi Sokol”, which Berkovich staged based on the Petriychuk play of the same name. Silantiev’s examination stated that the performance allegedly justifies radical Islamism and the ideas of “radical feminism”, which, according to the author, are as destructive as terrorism. The Russian Jewish Congress and the Spiritual Administration of Muslims criticized the examination.