Earlier this month, Swiss voters caused a small political
earthquake by accepting the Swiss People’s Party’s initiative (SVP) “Stop Mass
Immigration”. The initiative demands the reintroduction of immigration quotas, thereby
threatening the continuation of the bilateral treaties with the European Union
and openly calling into question the concept of free movement of people. The long-term
consequences of this ballot cannot yet be assessed, but for research and
education the immediate outcomes seem already painful enough: The EU stopped
negotiations on Erasmus+, a pan-European student exchange programme [1], and temporarily
suspended Switzerland’s participation in the 8th European Framework
Programme for Research and Innovation, Horizon 2020 [2]. Because of this, Swiss
universities are not only at risk of losing access to European research
funding, but might also face unnecessary hindrances with regard to country-spanning
collaborations.
This should not come as a surprise, however. The EU repeatedly
warned Switzerland that imposing restrictions on the free movement of people –
one of the Union’s four fundamental freedoms – would not be taken lightly and
might put ongoing negotiations in jeopardy. One can be of different opinions
whether the EU’s political retaliations in the aftermath of the ballot were
prudent, but it certainly cannot be said that Swiss voters were not being informed
about the possible consequences of accepting the initiative.
Now, Switzerland in general and Swiss research in
particular is caught between a rock and a hard place: On one hand, the voters’
will to curb immigration must be respected – anything else would erode trust in
our democratic institutions and could eventually lead to even more extreme initiatives
in the future. On the other hand, international exchange and collaboration are
essential for science and must not be sacrificed. I do not dare to make any
suggestions on how Switzerland might find its way out of this dire situation,
but I trust in the skills of our diplomats to come up with suitable solutions that
prevent the worst.
Meanwhile, we should think about what we could do
ourselves to prevent future political decisions that whittle away at the core elements
of scientific success in this country. To this end, a revision of many scientists’
and students’ attitudes towards political engagement might be indicated. In a
recent radio report about the termination of Erasmus+, one of the interviewed
students literally demanded that “students should not be directly afflicted by
political decisions” [3]. And I am pretty sure that not few scientists take quite
a similar stance when it comes to their interests. To me, this bears witness of
a disturbing negligence towards politics and it is simply wishful thinking to
believe that political decisions would stop at universities’ doorsteps.
Politics will always have an influence on science and research, whether we like
it or not.
So why was there no fierce opposition of universities,
research institutions or individual scientists against the SVP’s initiative,
even though the danger emanating from it was evident? For me, it is hard to
understand that academia did not speak up in the run-up to the ballot – especially
since the involvement of academic voices in the political discussion could
actually have been enough to tip the scale: The initiative got accepted by a
tiny margin of barely 20000 votes. Swaying the opinion of only 10000 voters
would have been enough to make a difference. In such a situation, even the fiercest defender of rational choice theory
would need to admit that every single vote matters.
Nevertheless, academia remained silent. Neither the
State Secretariat for Education, Research and Innovation nor the Swiss Academy of
Sciences nor the Swiss National Science Foundation nor the Rectors’ Conference
of the Swiss Universities nor any other organisation in the area of science and
education appeared to be willing to throw its whole political weight into the
balance in order to convince Swiss voters to reject the initiative.
To be fair, they did publish an open letter two weeks
before the ballot [4]. But this was
hardly more than a feeble attempt to remind people of the general importance of
international cooperation and it found very little resonance in the media.
The reluctance to openly engage in the political
debate was often explained by emphasising that science should remain
apolitical. I agree with that. Science indeed must not be politicised. But
there’s a crucial difference between introducing politics into science and
taking a stand for the interests of science in politics. By abstaining from any
real argument prior to the ballot, those urging science to remain neutral actually
achieved the exact opposite of what they wanted: The outcome of the vote sucked
Swiss research directly into the maelstrom of domestic politics and
Swiss-European diplomacy. For better or worse, the reintroduction of
immigration quotas is going to make Swiss universities dependent on the whims
of politicians and bureaucrats when it comes to hiring foreign researchers. At
the same time, the EU is using Erasmus+ and Horizon2020 as pawns in the unfolding
game of foreign politics chess. I can hardly think of any scenario in which
science could have been more politicised than now.
Interestingly, research representatives’ polite
restraint has vanished all of sudden, now that even the most hardened sceptics have
to admit that Switzerland’s decision would not remain unanswered by the EU. Newspapers
have been flooded with interviews of university rectors, research pundits and
science officials, all of them bemoaning the terrible consequences of the vote’s
outcome and demanding a sensible adaptation of the initiative. A perfectly
reasonable reaction in my opinion, but why wait until the die is cast? Why not
show the same level of activism when it could actually have helped to prevent
the whole muddle in the first place?
This ballot was not the first one at which scientific freedoms
were at stake; nor will it be the last for that matter. Between 1985 and 1993, Swiss
citizens had to decide a total of three times whether they wanted to abolish
animal experimenting on Swiss soil (fortunately, they didn’t). Yet, the protection of the dignity of animals
got incorporated into the constitution in 1992, making it harder for
researchers to justify animal testing, as this institute had to make the
painful experience a few years ago [5].
But it could have turned out much worse: In 1998, an
initiative demanding the complete prohibition of the use of transgenic
organisms was put to the vote. Its acceptance would have crippled biomedical research
in this country beyond repair, leading to a mass exodus of scientific talent. Luckily,
the initiative failed clearly – not least thanks to strident political protests
from researchers.
However, seven years later a majority of the population
was in favour of a GM crop-ban which was primarily targeted at agriculture, but
also hindered scientific research considerably. Originally intended to last for
only five years, the ban has already been extended twice and will (at least) be
in effect until 2017.
There are three things we can learn from these
referenda: Firstly, Swiss voters usually decide in the interest of science and
research, being aware of the paramount importance of the knowledge industry in
this otherwise resource-poor country. Only in very few cases citizens decided
to restrict scientific freedom. This is their legitimate right and it is
fruitless to complain about the outcome of a democratic decision, however
painful it might be for the scientific community. It is much more important –
and this is the second point I would like to emphasise – that one’s arguments
are heard at the proper time, i.e. before the vote is cast.
Democracy can only work if there is a well-balanced and
thorough public discussion prior to any ballot. During the lively debates on
GMOs in 2005, the supporters of a ban used hair-raising and sometimes even
plainly wrong arguments in the course of their referendum campaign. Scientists
bravely tried to refute unjustified fears of biotechnology, but by then it was
already too late. They had failed to build up trust in the years before, when
biotechnology was still in its infancy and the public’s opinion was not yet
influenced by the distorting propaganda of ardent biotech opponents. At least,
the outcome of the ballot served as a wake-up call, showing that scientific
lobbying must be done consistently and over the course of an extended
time-period.
In this way, the engagement of researchers and science
pundits in political debates can indeed make a difference, as could be seen
from the clear verdict against the initiative demanding the abolition of
transgenic research in Switzerland. This is the third and most important lesson
that we can draw from this short excursion into Swiss politics: Scientists do
have political influence – as long as they are willing to go out on the ground
and inform society about their point of view.
Of course, not all researchers in this country are
Swiss citizens and are allowed to vote. In fact, the majority of them are not
[6]. Nevertheless, their voice matters! Let us not forget that academia generally
enjoys tremendous support within the population. Scientists should thus go
public more often in order to present their work – and themselves. The more our
fellow citizens know about the importance and the relevance of the research
being conducted at universities and other institutions, the more accessible they
will be for arguments coming from the scientific community.
In the realm of animal experimentation, the Basel
Declaration Society formed in 2010 is aiming into this direction. By pointing
out the importance of animal testing for scientific and medical progress, they
try to raise society’s awareness of this delicate topic [7]. Another
organisation – “Forschung für Leben” – also pursues the important goal of
providing the public with information about biomedical research [8]. These are
great initiatives and together with the efforts of state-run organisations such
as the Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences or the Swiss National Science
Foundation they make a considerable contribution to boosting support for
science and research.
Nevertheless, an overarching framework to promote the interests of science in
politics has not been established yet – a careless omission in my opinion. Science
needs a strong, reliable and trustworthy lobby in order to defend its principles;
something that is particularly important in a semi-direct democracy like
Switzerland. Here, it does not simply suffice to convince politicians and
bureaucrats. One needs to be heard by the population as a whole.
Hence, a joint and decisive communication strategy of
researchers, politicians and scientific lobbies could have convinced more
people to reject the SVP’s populist initiative– and it might even have be
sufficient to prevent the unpleasant situation Swiss research is currently
stuck in.
The ballot’s outcome is not a complete disaster, but
it certainly administered a detrimental blow to Switzerland’s longstanding
relations with the European Union. The country is now forced to redefine and
rethink its relationship with the EU – something neither political nor economic
leaders dared to do in the course of the previous decade. It is going to be a journey
into the unknown in which everybody needs to be pulling in the same direction
in order to succeed. Thus, it is time for scientists to speak up and make
themselves heard as well – among peers, in the political arena and – most importantly
– in society. And there is not much time to waste: An even more radical
initiative on immigration is waiting right around the corner and already
foreshadows fierce political debates. When the time comes, science should not
stay absent again.
- S. Grüninger
[8] http://www.forschung-leben.ch/dienstleistungen/aktuell/
