Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-065"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.6.1-065"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, I agree with a lot of what has been said so far. This has been a difficult report which arouses strong emotions and we do not have a European consensus on the issue.
The use of human embryos to create embryonic stem cell lines and embryonic stem cell research are contentious, but we have discussed the issues and have reached a useful consensus in the report by the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy. I had to modify my views on the subject – which are quite liberal – in order for a consensus to be reached, and I know Mr Liese has modified his views too.
However, I am now concerned that many amendments that were comprehensively defeated in the Industry Committee are being retabled. I appeal to colleagues to think again. We have quite a good compromise, which we should support. The vote in the Industry Committee was a reasonable and proper one.
One or two amendments need to be addressed. A number of colleagues have sought to reintroduce a very restrictive deadline on the use of supernumerary embryos, which is a very serious problem. It means that, to create any new stem cell lines, you must use ageing supernumerary embryos which are not in the best condition. If you accept this restrictive deadline, more embryos are inevitably destroyed to create useful and viable stem cell lines. It means that if you restrict yourself to using just existing stem cell lines created before the date stated by Mr Nisticò and others, you will be confined to using ageing stem cell lines from the USA that have been made by using mouse-derived proteins and that are not suitable for treatments for human patients. This is the trap that the USA has fallen into and we should learn from that. We should also take note that research scientists are already leaving the USA for the UK and Asia to avoid the problems created by the introduction of a deadline.
Personally, I would prefer that there should be no deadline, but I think that what the Commission proposes is the maximum practicable limit. The rapporteur says there is no immediate prospect of therapies being available to patients; if he gets this restrictive deadline reinstated, he may be right.
I appeal to this Parliament to support the compromise proposed by the Industry Committee and not to support restrictive deadlines. Stem cell research will then bring relief to millions of Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and diabetes sufferers, some of them known to us personally and some in fact colleagues in this House.
Please vote for common sense tomorrow and on Wednesday."@en1
|
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples