Strasbourg, 14/11/2001 (Agence Europe) - The European Parliament finally ended its first reading in Strasbourg on Wednesday of the draft sixth research framework-programme (6th DRFP) without any great changes in relation to the report by the French Socialist Gerard Caudron, which was adopted by 412 in favour, 57 against and 53 abstentions. The ball is now in the Council's court, which will have to put the finishing touches, at its 10 December meeting, to guidelines to have emerged on 30 October (see EUROPE of 31 October, p.8 and 25 October, p. 15) and that demonstrated a clear convergence of views between ministers and MEPs.
The greatest difficulty in the vote was for MEPs to agree on the formulation of a mechanism setting out the ethical rules that research projects will have to respect to benefit from Community funding. The text adopted by the Parliamentary Committee for Industry was the subject of many amendments and was profoundly altered at the end of a complex vote. Following the adoption of an EPP amendment by Mr. Fiori and Mr. Liese, it now provides for no Community funding being granted for research activities into: - human cloning practised for reproduction; - the production of human embryos for research purposes; - alterations to the human genetic heritage from which these could take on a hereditary nature (the treatment of cancer of gonad mat benefit from funding). Work on surplus embryos aged at least two weeks (produced in the framework of in vitro insemination but unused thus earmarked for destruction) could be the subject of research financed by the 6th DRFP on condition that they are authorised by the law of the Member state in which it is undertaken and subject to rigorous control by the competent authorities (EPP amendment by Messrs. Nistico and Takatellis). Parliament also adopted several amendments tabled by the Greens calling in particular: - for the development of testing or methods of experimentation not calling on the use of animals; - research into skin diseases of professional origin; - environmental and social impact assessment o the research projects.
Parliament voted clearly, unanimously expressing its agreement on the programme's 17.5 billion euro and adding to priorities the fight against serious diseases, notably through research into the human genome: the rapporteur, Mr. Caudron is thus satisfied. At a press conference at the end of the vote, he expressed one regret only, that the debate should have been to such an extent polarised by bio-ethical issues: it is a "little over the top", he said, when one thinks that research into the genome only represents 1.3 billion.
My report is the result of broad consultation, and since the beginning of the year, "I've had over 250 meetings, rendez-vous and talks", stressed Gerard Caudron. "I myself, and we, have asked for account to be taken of the added value of the Europeanisation of research in addition to the accountancy value", "I myself, and we, have asked for two new sub-priorities" (combating major diseases and land and maritime transport), "I, and we, have asked for a scale of excellence to be added" to the three new instruments of the framework-programme, so as to ensure "a smooth passage from the former instruments" to the new ones, said the rapporteur, in particular. As for Euratom, he placed emphasis on the importance of research into fusion and the need to have an "experimental reactor, in Europe if possible, to ensure energy security in half a century". As for the controversial question of genetic research, Mr. Caudron said that it would have been a "bad blow" to make voting on his report dependent on that of the Fiori Report, and hoped that "good sense and tolerance will prevail, in the respect of the convictions of each".
Speaking on behalf of the Committee on Environment and Health, the CDU member, Peter Liese explained that the amendment he and Francesco Fiori had tabled on this issue (yes to research into stem cells, but not human embryos) was based on the attitude of the United States, which could not be accused of impeding research efforts…But we must avoid the female body being used as subject for research, he exclaimed, noting that feminists had already taken a stance along these lines. The own-opinion rapporteurs all broadly backed Mr. Caudron, even though Heidi Ruhe (Budgets Committee), as Green, considered that the framework-programme made too much of nuclear fusion, and Genevieve Fraisse (Culture Committee) regretted the "disappearance of digital cinema and research cinema". This broad support for the Caudron Report was confirmed during the debate, with the exception of genetic research, where there was division. We have all "fought" on ethical principles, observed Mr. G. van Velzen (Dutch, CDA), placing emphasis on the need to create both a "framework" where ethical principles are respected, and a "space" to combat at times devastating diseases. On the whole, Mr. van Velzen considers that the programme as reviewed by the Caudron Report to be "tied together better", and hopes that, now, the Council will not want to "bargain" too much. The ethical principles must be respected, stressed Antonios Trakatellis (Nea Democratia), and British Conservative John Purvis said that "genetic engineering" could not lead to eugenics. Another British Conservative, Lord Bethell, pleaded in favour of "the sufferers" faced with the rights of those defending the embryo above all else. Himself afflicted by Parkinson's disease, Lord Bethell recalled that member countries generally recognised that the embryo and the human being are "not totally the same thing". There is no dignity for those who are victims of this disease, he told those who opposed research in the name of "dignity". Within the same group (EPP-ED) radically opposite views were heard, like that of Bernd Posselt, CSU member, who went as far as speaking of "cannibalism", and Ireland's Dana Rosemary Scallon (formerly a very popular singer) who noted that this "controversial research" was banned in four Member States, including Ireland, and urged Parliament not to allow "one innocent human life to be killed" to save another. For the Greens too, there should be no funding for research using the human embryo: it's unacceptable, said Ireland's Nuala Ahern; we are walking on a minefield, exclaimed Germany's Hiltrud Breyer, according to whom research into stem cells (with which most of the members of Parliament agree) would lead to research into embryos. Belgium's Nelly Maes, for her part, asked the EP and national parliaments to follow developments in research into stem cells (of which she recognised the importance for combating incurable diseases), so as to ensure that it does not exceed its framework. The Italian Radicals, announced Gianfranco Dll'Alba, support the Caudron report unreservedly, as research stagnating in Europe. As for genetic research, laboratories are not full of "madmen", but people trying to save human lives: it is the future, and must not be impeded. Bastiaan Belder (Dutch, Europe of Democracies and Diversities) defended a diametrically opposite stance: one cannot support an activity disputed by certain national parliaments, but must also prevent research being displaced to less stringent neighbouring countries. In Austria, research into embryos is banned, recalled Daniela Raschhofer (FPO), who also raised energy research, hoping for a better balance between spending on renewable energy and nuclear energy. We often argue over fusion, remarked German Social-Democrat Rolf Linkohr, but it is an option for the future that e must retain.
As for Godelieve Quisthoudt-Rowohl, German Christian-Democrat (of Belgian origin), herself rapporteur for the framework-programme, she stressed the importance of the programme's "rules of participation", and Commissioner Philippe Busquin said that the Commission was in the process of talking to Community scientists, and would do so with Parliament. Mr. Busquin welcomed the "spirit" with which Gerard Caudron had drawn up his report, stressing that the Commission could accept three-quarters of the amendments proposed in the report (including those on medical research, food safety and sustainable development). Concerning the budgetary envelope, he acknowledged that an increase of 100 million euro would not be a problem, but hoped to stick to the 17.5 billion provided for, to avoid "bargaining" in Council.