Sir

When the Swiss people voted in the referendum of 7 June against the proposal to impose restrictions on genetic engineering, they signalled that they had decided against economic and scientific isolation from the rest of the world. But how was it possible that the fate of the rational world of science was decided by a war of emotions?

At the beginning of the referendum campaign, proponents and opponents of genetic engineering alike seized powerful images of human and animal suffering to rally the public behind their banners. Images of hospital patients were used by biotechnology proponents to remind the public that a ban would inflict a heavy price on those suffering from severe diseases and dependent upon state-of-the-art medical treatments. In 1996, 10 years after the Chernobyl explosion, those in favour of the ban circulated a portrait of a child born without eyes, with the words: “No one can predict the damages (from technology), as was the case for Chernobyl. We do not want a genetic catastrophe!”

As the campaign progressed, there was a shift in tactics on both sides. Those against the ban realized that complex scientific and moral considerations could be communicated to the public by emphasizing the importance of biotechnology to medical research, diagnostics and treatment. Proponents of the ban abandoned striking visual images, accentuating instead broader issues such as the dignity of creation and the purported ecological impacts of genetically modified crops.

The campaigning appears to have obeyed the principle revealed by the Eurobarometer survey of attitudes to biotechnology (Nature 387, 845–847; 1997). While people were willing to accept some risk as long as there was a perception of usefulness, the presence of moral doubts acted as a powerful veto by overwhelming all other considerations, including usefulness and risk.

The Eurobarometer study also demonstrated that, of the biotechnology applications it surveyed, genetic screening and medicines obtained the highest ratings for usefulness and moral acceptability, with a positive evaluation of risk. Crop plants were also evaluated positively for usefulness and moral acceptability, but the balance of risk was seen as negative. The authors of the study concluded that the technically based reassurances of regulators are unlikely to alleviate public concern about the acceptability of certain applications of biotechnology. The moral and political dimensions of risk are missing from the objective risk assessment framework that is usually applied to making cogent decisions about new technologies.

What we have seen in Switzerland is that the rational and analytical approach of science is no longer consistent with other world views. The era of objective, value-free science in an ivory tower is coming to a close. Scientists can no longer afford to ignore the social framework within which their research is performed. During the referendum campaign, scientists were concerned about the possibility of losing an important research tool — transgenic animals. It was the seriousness of this threat that drew them into the public spotlight to explain the importance of their work.

By choosing not to isolate themselves even further, the Swiss have recognized that science, when guided by evidence, can transcend linguistic and cultural barriers. This aspect of science serves the egalitarian ideals of modern, pluralistic societies in which all citizens can expect to exercise their right to vote.