Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-03-30-Speech-4-103"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000330.4.4-103"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Scientific research is now doing more than explore and analyse the world, it is changing it. The Patent office has acknowledged a ‘linguistic’ mistake which does not seem to be entirely corroborated by Article 11 of the description of the intervention. A mistake like that becomes symbolic, a sort of Freudian slip, and it has impelled us today to hold this fundamental debate on cloning, certainly, but above all on whether the living organism should be patented.
Soon we will be cloning our pets. Just recently there was the statement by Bill Clinton and Tony Blair on free access to the genetic heritage of human beings, plants, animals and genes have been patented, and Craig Venter claims to own 97% of the human genome. GM corn, manipulation of the living organism, transplanting animal organs into human beings – we are entering unknown territory and there are great fears we must confront. Where will it end? Why should we put our trust in science alone in this new context? The issues and debates we face are increasingly complex and politicians will soon have to be multilingual and multicultural scientific experts as well, if they want to understand and not accept the word of experts as gospel. As elected representatives and citizens, we are outpaced by issues where the scientific component is too strong.
Science and the experts are suffering the consequences of serious crises (for instance, mad cow disease) and indeed the implications of crises to come, because they cannot tell us what the results of their interventions will be: dissemination of GMOs in the environment, manipulation of the living organism, genetic manipulation. Science itself seems outpaced by the onward rush of sorcerer’s apprentices with no longer any taboos, moral boundaries or ethics. Their research laboratories, which long ago became ivory towers, are increasingly surrounded by the business offices which are proliferating in this new biological El Dorado between knowledge and profit. There is plenty of money at stake. Will the political authorities have the power to regulate this new market and ensure that the ethical dimension is respected in genetics? Or will we soon find ourselves in the kind of world depicted in that excellent film ‘Gattaca’? It is not enough for the Patent Office to acknowledge a mistake and make its excuses. There are so many uncertainties at the legal and moral level, about the future acceptability of patents applied for, which are currently in the thousands.
The debate about the moral boundaries of biotechnology and how to control them has begun. Categories of ‘forbidden knowledge’ must certainly be created but without making the mistake of those who condemned Copernicus, Harvey (the heart is not the repository of the soul, but a large organ), or Jenner (the smallpox vaccine)."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples