Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2002-06-11-Speech-2-331"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20020611.14.2-331"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to the rapporteurs for the excellent work they have done, and I support these reports. I give particularly strong support to the reports by Mr van Velzen and Mrs Zorba, which I believe improve on the Commission proposal and take us in the right direction. I attach great importance to what Mr van Velzen had to say about cancer research, on which European assistance for research must continue to focus. We fought hard for that when the Framework Programme was going through Parliament, and so we need to underline it again today. As regards sustainable development, research needs to be used to deal with environmental problems. I have tabled a number of amendments on this, which have met with the committee's support, for example one on research into sustainable biofuels. I disagree with what Mr Graefe zu Baringdorf said, and believe that biotechnology can play a thoroughly positive role, in which it would also benefit the environment.
I would just like to say, with reference to the ethical aspect of research, that I urge the Commission to support Amendments Nos 17 to 20. These were part of the package in the Caudron report, and could give a positive indication that we support those technical solutions that offer alternatives to what has very frequently been a matter of dispute here in Parliament. So this would be a positive and constructive approach.
We have refrained from resubmitting the celebrated Nisticò amendment on cloning and stem cell research, about which we have argued so much. The main reason for this is that serious problems with specific parts of this amendment arose in Council. I still do not understand why the Council was not able to come closer to this amendment. Parliament wanted to go further than the Common Position had done. I now hear, though, that a statement by five Member States has moved the Council to start discussing ethics, which cannot but be satisfactory from our point of view, and I call on the Commission to take a constructive approach and smooth the path to an agreement in Council. Parliament will certainly not raise any objections if something is introduced in the ethics field approximating more closely to our amendment than the Commission's declaration and the Common Position did."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples