Sir

It is surprising that representatives of an organization that is reported to use acts of destructive force to achieve social and political goals are given a forum in Nature on the subject of how to restore public trust in science. I refer to the Commentary by Greenpeace's Benny Haerlin and Doug Parr (Nature 400, 499; 1999). One such act is the destructive attack on fields of genetically modified crops by a group that included the head of Greenpeace UK, as reported by The New York Times (23 August).

Press accounts indicate that this was only the latest in a series of attacks by Greenpeace and allied organizations. How can we now tell if a future refusal by farmers to grow genetically modified crops will not really be based on fear disguised as conviction instead of genuine conviction?

European political and religious history is replete with groups that have found the use of apparently peaceful propaganda together with the selective use of brute force to be an effective tool to change public opinion. It is sad that this seems to be happening today in Britain.

Haerlin and Parr suggest that the values of society should be paramount in the debates they discuss. This would have been an interesting suggestion to give to Galileo. Is the use of force in civil discussions one of the values they have in mind?