Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2003-11-17-Speech-1-094"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20031117.6.1-094"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the Commission does of course attach great importance to your work and has taken a keen interest in it; it has also examined your amendments closely.
Mr Nisticò, the amendments that you have tabled here are not entirely neutral, however, and this also answers Mrs McNally’s question. When you link cells and supernumerary embryos with cells and lines already in existence before 27 June 2002, you put a total restriction on research. Nevertheless, I would like to make it clear – for the sake of Mr Liese, who is obviously very familiar with the dossier, but sometimes confuses the different concepts, lines and dates – that, on 27 June 2002, there were no stem cell lines in existence in Europe, at least formally speaking. The existing European stem cell lines appeared later in Sweden. In response to Mrs Thors, I would say that you can ask the researchers in Karolinska; three lines turned up there sometime after September 2003.
If you incorporate this amendment, you will therefore create the following problem: the only stem cell lines that were in existence before 27 June 2002 are in American, Israeli and Asian hands. This means that you are linking them to trade mechanisms, because the American lines are available but under commercial contract. You would not give Europe the slightest possibility of developing this type of research, which is worthwhile; you would not allow Europe to move from embryo lines to existing stem cell lines. Today there are more of them in existence. There are two in the United Kingdom and seven in Sweden (three in Karolinska and four in Gothenburg), but they appeared after 27 June 2002. You are therefore putting Europe at a disadvantage in two respects: in terms of scientific value and also because of the fact that the lines from before 27 June 2002 are sold on the open market. This is therefore completely contrary to the spirit of what many people have in mind, which is for that matter what the Commission also has in mind: under no circumstances can supernumerary embryos be a source of profit. I cannot be clearer than that. We do not want stem cell lines to become marketable commodities; they should simply be made available to the European scientific community.
At present, they are not available to the European scientific community, except in exchange for payment. They are also being imported into Germany. Research is being carried out on imported stem cells that have been traded. I have every respect for differences in ethical views, but your line of argument does not hang together. Your reasoning is internally consistent when you say that you do not want research on supernumerary embryos. That is consistent. But you cannot link this to a date; the date is a symbolic gesture, a compromise, so as not to encourage the creation of supernumerary embryos and stem cell lines. That is totally contradictory and runs completely counter to high-quality research at European level, quite apart from the fact that it does not resolve the ethical problem either. We could not accept this amendment if it were to be adopted in plenary. I am quite happy for you to try to find solutions, but this one does not make any sense.
I would like to thank Parliament for its work on this difficult and sensitive dossier, which affects each one of us and indeed life itself. I understand that there are differences of opinion. That is a sign of Europe’s greatness. But there is also a value: research. The purpose of the Commission’s proposal was to try to respond, as has been said, to a concern expressed both by Parliament and the Council of Ministers at its meeting of 20 September 2002. The Commission has worked to provide a framework for this research with strong, consistent ethical rules, in such a way that fundamental principles can also be defended in this area.
It was pleased to see that, at the vote in the Committee on Industry, External Trade, Research and Energy, a clear majority emerged in favour of providing Community funding for research projects involving the procurement of human embryonic stem cells from supernumerary embryos and therefore the creation of new lines. This is an important point in support of research which will in all likelihood have beneficial effects on the treatment of major health problems.
The Commission does, however, have some difficulties with those amendments that seek to remove the 27 June 2002 cut-off date for the creation of supernumerary embryos, as proposed by the Commission on 9 July. I acknowledge the fact that this date has no scientific basis: it is simply linked to when the framework programme was adopted. In effect, the Commission, like Parliament for that matter, had gone along with the majority at the vote on the framework programme and that is why this date has been taken as a reference date. Furthermore, this proposal should be seen, as Mr Bowe said, as a compromise gesture, a signal to those who want – and I understand this, as it is quite legitimate to hold a different opinion on the subject – to prevent in vitro fertilisation being diverted from its objectives and being used to create embryos for research. We have always said very clearly that we do not want embryos to be produced specifically for research purposes.
The aim of including this date is then to show that we are not encouraging the creation of embryos for research purposes, but that existing supernumerary embryos may clearly be used for research because, as several Members have said, they are no longer part of a parental project.
On this basis, the Commission is able to accept a majority of the amendments, which are I might add excellent, thanks to the work done by the rapporteur and the whole of the committee. The amendments concerned are Amendments 1, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17 and 18, either in full or in part, subject in some cases to their being redrafted. These amendments clarify the content of the proposal and thus correspond, as Mrs Plooij-van Gorsel stressed, to the position agreed by Parliament when the framework programme was adopted. I would remind you that Parliament’s proposal was also based on the opinion of the European Group of Ethics, which had set out what could be done.
In response to Mrs Breyer, I would add, along the lines of what I have just said, that the fact that there have not been many expressions of interest – nine so far – was to be expected, because generally speaking there are few really competent research teams working in new research areas. Moreover, it is better that this be the case, because in an area like this it is genuinely competent teams that we need, which can provide a maximum guarantee that the dossiers will be dealt with ethically.
The Commission cannot however accept Amendments 2, 3, 5, 10, 11, 16 and 19, in particular because they seek to remove the date fixed for the reasons that I have just explained. We wanted to produce a compromise and we wish to keep this date. This applies, amongst others, to Amendments 5 and 10, which delete the reference to this date.
Amendment 11 removes a condition from the Commission proposal. I will take this opportunity to stress the conditions, because much has been said about different methods, in particular those that use adult cells or cells from the umbilical cord. In this regard, we state very clearly, in the point deleted by Amendment 11, that we need to ensure that all other alternative methods have been examined and demonstrated not to be sufficient for the purposes of the research in question. This is also a signal to those who are not in favour of these research developments. This type of research will only be developed if it really is a solution that is scientifically proven to be necessary. In other words, many scientists, including those who are not, from an ethical point of view, in favour of research on supernumerary embryonic stem cells – like some of the professors who took part in our meetings – have to recognise that this method is worth exploring, that it complements research on adult stem cells and that it should not be ruled out.
I would like to finish with the amendments that Mr Nisticò has tabled here in plenary. I recognise that Mr Nisticò always goes to great lengths to reach a compromise. I might add that he made a similar effort at the parliamentary vote in June 2002, because it was his amendment around which the consensus was built that formed the basis for the Commission proposal."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples