Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-072"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.6.1-072"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, it is rather strange that Members of this House – such as Mr Hyland – should have accused those in favour of releasing funding for scientific research on embryonic stem cells and attempting to impose a scientific model on Europe, on the European Union and on Parliament. What is happening in Europe, with the national laws of some Member States, is exactly the opposite, namely that ethical prejudices are blocking research for all citizens, not just for those who wish to stand aloof from such research and its results on ethical grounds.
The European Commission has produced a compromise, which is already at the very limit of acceptability for scientific reasons: the European Commission excludes funds for what is known as therapeutic cloning from Union funding. Why, however, if this funding can, as it genuinely can, provide the hope of treatment and of survival – I say the hope, not the certainty, for we in this House, unlike members of other parliaments, do not have scientific certainty – for millions of people in Europe? The European Commission has already been forced to make compromises of an ethical and moral nature, as you call them, and to renounce this kind of funding. Fine, or rather it is not good at all, but now enough is enough: there need be no more constraints; there are no scientific grounds for imposing more limits.
Then, as regards the issue of the date, the draft amendments state that stem cells – I am referring to Mr Nisticò’s proposal – must have been derived before 27 June 2002. Why, however? What are the ethical grounds for using older embryos which are out of date from a scientific point of view? Indeed, you do not give the scientific grounds. The reason which you give, namely that new embryos must not be produced, is, quite simply, ridiculous, for any research scientist will tell you that this problem does not exist. If scientific research were to be allowed, there would be no difficulty in obtaining embryos, nor would there be any need to produce them specifically for the purpose. There are tens of thousands of embryos in Italy and, I imagine, hundreds of thousands in Europe, which have been frozen and for which there is only one alternative to scientific research: the dustbin. The Chairman of the Committee on Legal Affairs and the Internal Market, Mr Gargani, believes that an embryo is a human being, then? Does that mean we should consign that embryo-human being to the dustbin rather than using it for scientific research? Let Mr Gargani and all the others try and save those hundreds of thousands of lives frozen in laboratory freezers! This has nothing to do with science. An attempt is being made to impose an ethical and a moral principle, and this is being done – I am referring to those who are trying to table amendments which are even more limiting than the Commission’s proposal – by means of a device which we will not allow: setting up research on adult cells as an alternative to research on stem cells. Unlike you, we scientific research antiprohibitionists, do not know whether research on adult cells or research on embryonic cells will produce results first. We do not know and we do not claim to know, nor do we presume to tell Parliament that one kind of research is better than another: they are both valuable. We must proceed with both kinds of research, and the first to succeed in saving the lives of the citizens of Europe and the world will be the better. We do not claim to have this scientific knowledge, and it would be better if you did not either.
We hope that the Italian Presidency of the European Union, which has been so respectful of the Union’s positions in failing to muster the courage to propose a moratorium on executions, will, at this juncture, seeing as this is the approach it has chosen to adopt, do the same where scientific research is concerned and not boycott the Busquin proposal. Let us open the door to funding for therapeutic cloning!"@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples