Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-11-14-Speech-3-021"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-11-14"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:European Research Area (Multiannual Framework Programme 2002-2006)2
dcterms:Language	"sv"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20011114.2.3-021"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-11-14-Speech-3-0222
lpv:speaker	lp:Astrid Thors2
lpv:spokenAs	member; Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 chair; Delegation to the EU-Romania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Svenska folkpartiet (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 substitute; Delegation to the EU-Lithuania Joint Parliamentary Committee (1999-09-29--2002-01-14)3 member; PETI (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Conference of Delegation Chairs (1999-09-13--2002-01-14)3 member; Temporary committee on human genetics and other new technologies in modern medicine (2000-12-13--2001-11-29)3 member_of_the_bureau; ELDR (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	"Mr President, Commissioner, first of all, I want to emphasise that I am not speaking on behalf of the Group of the European Liberal, Democrat and Reform Party. There are a good few of our members who have genuinely attended to this issue, who are on the way here to our debate today but who will not perhaps be in time for the vote. I personally believe that we shall be adopting too many amendments. If we examine research programmes and research issues, there is scarcely any research programme in the whole of Europe that is so driven by politicians. That is in total contrast to, for example, the assessment made by Manuel Castells – yes, it is legitimate to call him a sociologist – together with the Finnish philosopher Pekka Himanen as to why Finland is successful as an information society. In their perhaps otherwise rather vague book, they observe that our technology and innovation policy are successful because we have a complete and autonomous centre for technical development. That is something which I think invites reflection. In other contexts, it is usual to applaud Finnish innovation policy. I think that a certain lesson can be drawn from this. In addition, I want to emphasise an aspect of this proposal that particularly bothers me, namely that the social research proposed would certainly be allocated to the wrong place, under the Information Society DG. Social research does not belong in that context. I do not properly understand how this has happened. We are also aware that interest in research issues has, to a very large extent, revolved around stem cell research. Today, we can adopt a position on the Caudron proposal in peace and quiet. I personally view the committee’s proposal as being well balanced. The committee’s proposal also shows the modesty and respect that is required when we debate research issues. I think that those who say that we should now concentrate first and foremost upon stem cells from adults are not showing the required modesty faced with this new area. In the course of the work in the Temporary Committee on Human Genetics, I learned that we know extremely little. We must adhere to the old principles and proceed further within the various frameworks. Furthermore, I learned that the research projects for both forms of stem cells are dependent upon each other. It must therefore be possible for them to be given the same priority. That, I believe, is extremely important if we are to be able to move ahead as a successful society. I hope that these comments are not too alarming, but that they lead to reflection on the part of all who are interested in our researchers’ really being able to carry out good research."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph