Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-15-Speech-4-138"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010215.4.4-138"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Even though the draft resolution adopts a number of interesting positions, particularly regarding equal access to research for women, I must reject the guidelines for framework projects favouring finished research, characterised by big industry alongside small and medium-sized businesses in the high tech sector. I cannot accept a situation whereby research is used as a tool in the “economic warfare” conducted by firms for the control of pharmaceutical or agro-industrial markets, or must take account of developments in security and defence policy.
Priorities cannot be limited to biotechnology, genome research, new information and communication technology and nuclear technology, and Parliament instead should take action to ensure that knowledge is part of our shared heritage, quite apart from any criterion of profitability.
I am therefore opposed to patenting the living organism. Developing medicinal products that are useful to the health of society must be an imperative. In this age of GMOs and mad cow disease, we can but deplore the failure to mention the subject of democratic scrutiny regarding the goals of research.
I also reject a situation whereby establishing a “European Research Area” implies jeopardising the position of state research bodies, as evidenced by the fall in public resources set aside for long-term research or, in France, the “innovation” law which legalises the use of public resources to private ends. For all the above reasons, I voted against."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples