Despite considerable reluctance from the consumer's and retailer's side, the way seems to be paved for food derived from transgenic plants to reach the supermarkets. According to the regulatory agencies, health and ecological hazards are considered to be minimal. However, recent observations of a viral response to transgenic resistant plants cast some shadows on this optimistic evaluation. The third Ifgene workshop in Switzerland, which provided the material for this booklet, dealt with risk assessment on the basis of these new results, as well as with respect to pollen dispersion of transgenic plants. Positions and strategies were presented from the scientific point of view, from the perspective of the biotechnology companies and with respect to the technology-product debate.
Ifgene intends to stimulate and deepen judgement formation by an open and power-free dialogue. Thus, each presentation was followed by a thorough discussion session, so much so that insufficient time was left to hear the presentation by Johannes Wirz. Therefore, for the sake of completeness, a written version of this is included at the end of these proceedings which are otherwise based on transcripts of tapes made at the time and subsequently amended by the authors.
During the dialogue two seemingly irreconcilable views confronted one another. At one pole was the vision that biotechnology is there to help save mankind and at the other pole the fear that biotechnology might destroy mankind. One pole is puzzled why the other does not see modern biotechnology as a logical progression of ancient biotechnology. Yet the other pole ranks modern biotechnology as potentially more dangerous for mankind than atom technology. In the battle of wills that is being played out, especially in Europe, one is tempted to speculate that matters will eventually be settled in the way they have always been across the war-torn face of Europe, namely by supremacy of whoever sustains the most power. Only, now the sword has been replaced by the word, which all too easily becomes the propaganda of both sides. But is it not more a matter of the quality of the ideas behind the words which will find their place in the thoughts, feelings and deeds of both producer and consumer of biotechnology? What more living way can there be for these ideas to unfold than for the men and women who have them to meet each other to talk them through? We all share a responsibility for the future. Granted that being confronted by the other's position in all its vividness may lead to entrenchment in one's own. Granted that one may experience helplessness at the power at the disposal of one's dialogue partner. The challenge here though points to a sharpening, not of swords, but of ideas. And in so doing both sides stimulate each other to reach towards the fount of those ideas - their most inner and at the same time most universal humanity.