Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-28-Speech-4-018"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060928.4.4-018"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, ladies and gentlemen, I believe that Europe needs a consistent system of cutting-edge infrastructure, research and development in order to remain competitive in the field of nanosciences and nanotechnologies. Nanosciences and nanotechnologies can play a positive role in achieving important economic, social and environmental goals, and I hope that they will be able to meet the needs of the citizens and thus contribute to the well-being of the nations.
There are undeniable facts that we cannot overlook: a whole host of technological advances are just round the corner thanks to the way in which atoms and molecules have been aggregated to form new materials. It is vital that more funding be granted to this area of research so as to guarantee the competitiveness of the European industrial system, but there must always be respect for inalienable ethical principles and public health and environmental criteria.
I agree with some of the amendments tabled by Mr Hammerstein and Mrs Breyer, and they are: Amendment 1 to paragraph 2, which is a useful and sensible recommendation on the assessment of potential risks to human health and the environment and the subsequent social and ethical implications and which takes nothing away from the original text; Amendment 6, which maintains that funding for research must be granted exclusively to projects that use at least half of the resources to carry out risk assessments; and Amendment 8, which stresses that the risk assessments must be carried out throughout the life cycle of the products obtained from nanotechnologies, from conception to completion.
We cannot overlook the fact that there appear to be many toxicological risks linked to nanotechnologies, a point that is also upheld by countless experts interviewed by the prestigious MIT periodical ‘Technology Review’. The report does, however, also consider this side of things.
As regards the new paragraph 5a, I believe, instead, that it is only right to advise caution in terms of a satisfactory risk assessment and to guarantee the traceability and labelling of, and accountability for, products based on nanotechnologies. However, although I agree about the limitations of research, I find the text to be slightly vague and so I shall abstain, just as I shall abstain on the proposed new paragraph 17.
To conclude, the nations and Europe have to be competitive in the field of nanosciences, and the effort proposed seems minimal – a half-hearted commitment – in terms of trying to bridge the gap that already exists between us and both the United States and the Far East. The report rightly considers both the economic and strategic perspectives of the knowledge triangle and the requirements in relation to sustainability and people’s health. I shall therefore vote in favour of Mr Ransdorf’s excellent work."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples