Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-322"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.14.2-322"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I should like to congratulate the five rapporteurs and the Commission, who have steadfastly showed their willingness to listen to the European Parliament, both in the Caudron report and since. I will speak briefly about each of the reports.
First of all, I welcome Mr van Velzen's emphasis on life sciences other than genomics and his advocacy of translational research, which means rapid transposition into clinical applications. This is something which will appeal to the public.
I also welcome our amendment, which adds nanosciences to nanotechnology. The recent excellent STOA report on nanotechnologies makes it clear that we are still at the stage of nanoscience. That must be emphasised.
As far as aeronautics is concerned, I am glad that there will be some attention to the health of passengers. I support our amendment on space science. Indeed I would like more attention to the big science projects in the European research area outside the framework programme. Of course I support Parliament's new emphasis on health and safety at work.
I support Mrs Zorba's conclusions. Like her, I was delighted with the increase in funding for science and society. However, I agree with her that some funding should come from the priority thematic areas for the science and society implications. Multidisciplinary research, yes; a European higher education area, with the synergies that implies for the European research area. We should be training people in research management and ethics.
Mr Piétrasanta has made an excellent analysis of the new tasks of the JRC as a technical reference body and a support mechanism for decision-making. I greatly welcome his emphasis on the need for monitoring and the need for the European Parliament to be involved in such monitoring – not just in the JRC.
As far as Mr Alyssandrakis' report is concerned, I would welcome a breakthrough in fusion research, not least because it is far less dangerous than nuclear fission and we need to have an alternative to that form of energy.
I am fairly sceptical about whether or not ITER will proceed within this framework programme, but we will see. Every citizen wants action on radioactive waste. The Royal Society in the UK emphasised that recently. It has not been solved yet. I am a great advocate of transmutation and partitioning and welcome any support that can be given to those technologies. I am not, however, a supporter of spending EU money on research into new reactors. This is something that should be funded by the nuclear industry itself. We are not in the business of giving industrial aid to that particular sector. That is not what the public is calling for.
As far as Mr Schwaiger is concerned, he is absolutely right to say that we must have, before long, some sort of
in the sector of nuclear safety. So congratulations to everyone for their good work and cooperation and good luck to all our scientists."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
"aquis communautaire"1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples