To the dismay of many Chilean scientists, voters adamantly rejected a draft constitution that would have far-reaching implications for research, environmental policy, and the rights of indigenous peoples. His 62% of voters said ‘no’ in yesterday’s referendum on a new charter. This would have driven the country sharply to the left.

“I’m still a little shocked,” says Olga Barbosa, an ecologist at Chile’s Austral University who supported the new constitution. “There are still a lot of fears about change.”

Last month, more than 1,200 scientists signed a letter seeking approval for the draft. The draft proposed rights to nature and sentient animals and called on the Chilean government to take action against the climate and biodiversity crisis.

However, not all scientists approved it. Manuel Rosas, chief scientific officer at Patagonia-based Kura Biotech, said the new constitution would have strengthened academic science, but its economic and political reforms would have created too many uncertainties. , which would have alienated investors who could help grow Chile’s research-based industry.

Chilean President Gabriel Boric said he would meet with party leaders today to discuss what happens next. The current Constitution remains in force. But proponents of the new version hope the past year’s debate will spur change. When it comes to climate, the environment and gender equality, “there is no turning back,” says Barbosa. “I am happy that this has been an impetus for change.”

The road to a new constitution comes after massive nationwide protests sparked by public transport fare hikes led to calls for a major political, social and economic overhaul in Chile. , which started in 2019. In 2020, nearly 80% of Chileans voted in favor of repealing his 1980 constitution and creating a new one from scratch. The elected Constituent Assembly was responsible for drafting it.

The group consisted of 155 non-politicians, including several scientists, and was dominated by the Left. His draft Article 388, which it produced, called for a new economic order that would create a more equal society. Gender equality across government and institutions. legalized abortion; and universal health care. It would also have established Chile as an ‘eco-state’ and a ‘multi-ethnic state’. Within Chile, at least 11 indigenous groups would have been recognized as “states” and given autonomy.

The proposed constitution also guaranteed research freedom for scientists and mandated the states to stimulate, promote and enhance the development of scientific and technological research. (The current Constitution says little about research.)

Scientists contributed several parts of the draft. The Chilean Ecological Society, for example, helped devise protections for its unique biodiversity, says Cristina Dorador Ortiz, a microbiologist at the University of Antofagasta and a member of the Constituent Assembly.

Nicolas Trujillo Osorio, a philosopher of science at Andrés Bello National University’s Center for Multidisciplinary Research, says that both sides of the political spectrum supported many of the prescriptions for science. But the proposal as a whole was too radical for most Chileans. Many voters opposed sweeping political and judicial reforms, including indigenous autonomy, the abolition of the Senate, and his right to run for a second term as president.

Mining, agriculture and energy companies, which use about 80% of Chile’s water, had also lobbied against a draft constitution that guaranteed access to water as a human right and mandated the creation of a new water agency. Disinformation and lies also played a part in the defeat, including claims that the new constitution allowed abortions even in the last months of pregnancy.

Scientists who support this proposal admit that it is flawed and so is the route to it. The process was rushed from the beginning, says Adriana Bastías, a biochemist at the Autonomous University of Chile in Santiago and president of the Chilean Women Scientist Network. Few citizens had time to review the 170-page document. Trujillo Osorio said that concepts such as “natural rights” were too vague and their meaning and enforcement mechanisms should have been better explained. “Being in shape is not enough,” he says. “We also need informed citizenship.”

Ailen Tonco Huenucoy, a physical anthropologist at the Chilean National Museum of Natural History and a member of Patagonia’s indigenous Kawéscars, said he supported the draft and applauded the focus on science and indigenous rights. spoke of many communities, including herself. , was not properly consulted or not consulted at all. It created a sense of distrust, she says.

Still, Tonko Huenukhoi says it’s imperative that the country restart the constitutional amendment process and come up with a more thought-out proposal. “We should have a shorter, more agile body,” he says.

Although she regrets the outcome, attending the Constituent Assembly “was a wonderful experience … There are few instances where science and knowledge can be spoken of in a political context that considers the future of the country.” In fact, Bastías said. sees the active participation of scientists in this process as a silver lining. “We learned that the scientific community should get involved in important national political issues,” she says. Now that her efforts have failed, “there’s no question that deep analysis, with self-criticism and humility, is needed.”