At first glance, the backtracking of Germany's Social Democrat Party on a pre-election promise to support an inquiry into the social impact of modern genetics and biomedicine (see page 331) seems perverse. Similar inquiries by comparable bodies in other countries have been successful in using focused debate, backed by careful research, to forge a workable consensus on such contentious topics. And the proposed procedure — a so-called Enquete Commission — was designed specifically for such a task.

But the experience of such inquiries in Germany has been mixed. Some, such as one into genetic engineering in the mid-1980s, have been successful, while others — for example, into technology assessment — have not. As the latter showed, the specific form of debate encouraged, however democratic in principle and practice, can fail to mesh with a practical timescale. Where issues are pressing, or where — as in the case of the implementation of the Council of Europe's Declaration on Human Rights and Biomedicine — other European states are setting the pace, an open-ended debate intended to achieve a conclusion through reasoned discussion alone can be an unrealistic strategy.

To that extent, the Social Democrats, their members in the government, and other political parties, are right to explore more practical alternatives. One is to create a national bioethics advisory council with broad responsibilities to monitor specific bioethical issues as these arise, for example through the activitities of targeted working groups. Another would be to explore the ‘consensus conference’ model, allowing non-experts to form judgements based on a critical review of the evidence.

At the same time, however, it would be short-sighted if any alternative to the commission was to be so narrowly focused as to lose sight of the broader perspective. In that sense, the Greens, despite their overly romantic, anti-technology stance, are right: whatever it's faults, an Enquete Commission allows for a range of views to be discussed with a breadth and seriousness appropriate to the significance of the topics under debate. This must not be lost.