Brussels, 11/05/2001 (Agence Europe) - The temporary committee of the European Parliament on human genetics and the other new technologies that make up modern medicine has stepped up the hearings of experts since the beginning of the year in order to allow MEPS to better understand all the aspects of this extremely complex dossier. As its president, Luxembourg Socialist Robert Goebbels remarked, the strong participation of MEPs shows not only the fascinating nature of the subject but also the real need to know more in order to truly understand all the ethical, scientific, economic and public health stakes of these new technologies. Step by step, the temporary committee attempts to pinpoint the fragile equilibrium between the promises of gene therapy, feasibility, the expectations of patients, risks, respect of human dignity and other ethical principles.
The temporary committee has already heard the chairperson of the European Ethics Group, Noëlle Lenoir, representatives from patients associations, experts of human genome sequencing, specialists in genetic testing (post- and pre-natal or pre-implant) and assisted reproduction, as well as scientists involved in research into therapeutic cloning, stem cells, etc. It is to devote a further hearing, on 15 May in Strasbourg, to the use of genetic information and to the protection of personal data. The following hearing, to be held in Brussels on 31 May, will tackle the sensitive issue of patentability. On 18 and 19 June, a meeting is scheduled in Brussels with the representatives of the parliamentary committess of the EU Member States and candidate countries working on this theme. The central point of discussions should be research on embryos. Finally, on 9 and 10 July, the temporary committee will organise "assizes" in Brussels that will allow the opinions of those representing interest groups and the civil society to be heard. It has also opened the following website: http://www.europarl.eu.int/genetics .
During its last hearing, the committee mainly discussed with experts on the problems of cloning and cell therapy. British geneticist Anne McLaren (CRC Institute, Cambridge) insisted on the way the press over-simplifies everything, wrongly calling "cloning" what in fact is only a transfer of one nucleotide in a cell in order to produce cells or tissues that may be used for therapeutic purposes. She explained that the British parliament had simply authorised an extension, within well-defined limits, of the research possibilities for gene therapy and has never authorised cloning as some have written. Stressing that it will be more difficult to obtain results with adult cells because of the problem of cell division, she felt that it is necessary to continue research on embryonic cells coming, as is the case in the United Kingdom, from embryos of less than 14 days old. In her view, the two lines of research must be continued in parallel because they provide therapies that could be effective for the treatment of different pathologies.
This opinion is not shared by Doctor Jacques Testart (INSERM, France), who speaks of a "persistent failure of gene therapy", and considers that there should be greater focus on the results of diagnosis, an area where genetics has shown its worth. This does not mean it is necessary, however, to ban all research into gene therapy but "rules are needed to authorise therapeutic cloning and definitively ban reproductive cloning", he said, affirming that "the researcher cannot be free. He is not an artist without social effect". Except for certain chromosome anomalies (Down's syndrome, for example), he considers that priority should be given to research on adult cells. Regarding research on embryos, he wondered what the Anglo-Saxon concept of "pre-embryonic" means, a concept used to justify the research on embryos less than 14 days old. He also criticised the subjective distinction made by some between the being and the human person. Mr Testart also expressed concern about the possible aberrations of pre-implant diagnosis (he mainly mentioned an article published by a team of American research workers who are delighted by the possibility of being able to determine all the genetic features: stature, baldness, obesity, hair colour, skin colour and even intellectual quotient) and clearly took a stance in favour of restricting pre-implant diagnosis to the detection of a major genetic anomaly. He went on to conclude that it is not enough to define the embryo. At the end of the day, an ethical choice should be made by the political institutions.
Professor Carlos Bedate (Centre for Molecular Biology at the autonomous University of Madrid) recommended directing research towards the identification of cell stems determined in different tissues, but stressed that the use of embryonic cells remains far simpler than the transfer of somatic cells.
Professor Regine Kollek (Hamburg University) nevertheless felt that it is necessary to promote research into the retroprogramming of adult cells (use of ovule factors for the returning of cells to the pluripotence state) because the concept is egalitarian and directed towards the future, but that it is impossible to renounce research into embryonic stem cells. However, she questioned herself over the true validity in our civilised society of the development of therapies that resort to the use of embryos and ovules.