Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2005-10-25-Speech-2-283"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20051025.22.2-283"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
".
Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the topic with which we are concerned here this evening is a sensitive one. Even before the adoption of Directive 98/44/EC, there was a very controversial discussion on this issue, for which some fellow Members were present. There are several front lines, and there are some who are generally opposed to biotechnology. The Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and European Democrats is not among them. Biotechnology is necessary; it must be used to solve many of our problems.
There are some who are generally opposed to patents. The PPE-DE Group considers that stance, too, quite wrong. Patents constitute an incentive for innovation, and designing these properly helps us make headway. There are some who are generally opposed to the Directive on the grounds that it opens up many possibilities that conjure up terrible images for them; but I believe that the Directive is better than it is made out to be.
Back then, following long discussions, it was clearly stipulated that not everything that can be patented may be patented in the European Union. This is the argument I have used to defend the Directive against criticism from many quarters again and again in recent years. We must also ensure that the Directive is applied, however, and in addition we must speak up whenever we have the impression that there has been an infringement of this Directive.
In February of this year, the European Patent Office issued a patent that, among other things, regards even parts of the human body, namely human sperm cells, as a patentable invention. This is incorrect in accordance with the Directive.
I have studied this patent several times and also consulted with patent agents. It is indeed an infringement of the Directive. Human sperm cells are being patented. If we become aware of an infringement of this nature, we must question it from a political point of view. Parliament’s Legal Service has informed us that Parliament itself cannot raise an objection, but others can, and should, in order to resolve this issue.
The Directive must be applied, and therefore so, too, must Article 6(2). This Article states that techniques involving the destruction of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes are unpatentable. Whether or not one disagrees on this issue on ethical grounds, the Directive is relatively unambiguous on the subject, and that must be pushed through.
According to the current state of the art, human embryonic stem cells cannot be produced without destroying human embryos. Regardless of whether or not one considers this ethically acceptable, my view and that of the PPE-DE Group is that it follows that human embryonic stem cells cannot be patented. The objection could be raised that more recent scientific developments have taken place. These only relate to experiments in mice, however, and it took almost 20 years for research on embryonic stem cells of mice to progress to humans. The 1998 invention by Thomson of methods for producing human embryonic stem cells came almost 20 years later than a similar invention with regard to mice.
In addition, in my interpretation and in the opinion of many experts, the science published two weeks ago amounts to no other than the cloning of human embryos. That is most definitely excluded. I would ask the Commissioner once more to examine the matter carefully. I had not planned to criticise the Commission this evening, but the Commissioner is guilty of a misinterpretation. I would invite him to read the Council’s explanatory memorandum, and also the joint resolution: these regulate the issue of cloning unequivocally.
There is one issue on which the Directive is not clear, and that is on the patentability of human DNA. We would therefore ask the Commission to clarify this. Apart from that, the Directive is good, and we should defend it."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples