Ethics or budgets? The real barriers to European science

Date: 31/03/05

Two MEPs give their views on how the EU should approach stem cell research - one of the most controversial areas of scientific inquiry

The European Parliament gave the European Commission a broad hint on 10 March for its presentation of the 7th Research Framework Program. A resolution on egg cell trade adopted by the Parliament states: "No EU funding for embryonic stem cell projects since this kind of research is forbidden in several member states." Or differently put: the Commission should "apply the subsidiarity principle in connection with other forms of embryo research and embryonic stem cell research so that member states in which this kind of research is legal fund it from their national budgets".

This is reasonable. Why should member states who oppose and even put under criminal law embryonic stem cell research be forced to co-finance such activities? Tax-payers in Germany, Austria, Ireland, Italy or Portugal would not understand such practices. Of course, the Parliament did not ask to forbid this kind of research in members states where it is allowed, such as for example in the UK - as far as it is funded by national budgets. But the big majority in the Parliament in favour of the resolution was surely also due to the fact that the scandalous egg cell trade between the UK and Romania creates doubts as to whether declarations about the reliability of embryonic stem cell research are well founded.

There is no need for embryonic stem cell research. A number of promising alternatives are worth focusing on. Inter alia, adult stem cell research tells a growing number of success stories - without meeting the ethical problems of the harvesting of eggs for embryonic stem cell research. For the latter, shortly put, life is created intentionally, to be destroyed later.

Considering the fact that the EU funds for research contribute only 3-5% to national research budgets there is no need to fund embryonic stem cell research. The already limited EU research funds should be given to the numerous good projects which are not controversial. The Parliament's resolution recommends concentrating on alternatives like "somatic stem cell and umbilical cord stem cell research, which are accepted in all member states and have already led to successful treatment of patients". It is the conviction of a number of scientists that existing stem cell lines are already sufficient.

What supporters of embryonic stem cell research fail to explain is where the necessary embryos come from? Recently, even Ian Wilmut, the Scottish cloning researcher known also as 'Mr Dolly', had to admit, that 400 egg cells are "by far" not sufficient to create good stem cell lines for his research on amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. In South Korea, a team of researchers met this need of fresh, high quality eggs by taking them from women who were either part of the team itself or close to it. Surely this cannot be a suggestion for Europe.

No women will become deliberately pregnant in order to let the embryo be destroyed afterwards. And tactics such as approaching pregnant women in abortion clinics directly before their treatment in order to get their consent to 'spend' cells are dubious. It is against human rights that women are only seen as "suppliers of raw material".

The financing of embryonic stem cell research risks the creation of 'supernumerary embryos', which would be ethically unacceptable. The argument that supernumerary embryos are "destined for destruction" is fallacious. It does not justify experimenting on people destructively. To reduce supernumerary embryos and to facilitate in vitro fertilisation for women, we always asked for funds to intensify and strengthen alternatives for the prevention and treatment of infertility, such as the research on freezing of egg cells.

Years ago, genetic therapy was the talk of the town. Until now, nobody has been cured by it. We should not overestimate false promises.

It is to be hoped that the Commission does not unnecessarily risk an ethical divide but understands the clear message of the Parliament and shows that the EU functions as a community of values.

• German Green MEP Hiltrud Breyer, is a member of the committees on women's rights and gender equality and on environment, public health and food safety.

Ideology has never been the best way to approach scientific research. Stem cell research, both of adults and embryonic, constitutes one of the major hopes for curing diseases such as cancer, diabetes, Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, dystrophy, sclerosis, cardiac disease, HIV and many more.

Unfortunately, for the last couple of years the Vatican has used its diplomatic power to convince countries to ban research on human embryos. Last March, a group of countries, lead by Costa Rica and supported by the Vatican (with the participation of countries like Italy, Portugal and the US), succeeded in obtaining the adoption of a resolution at the United Nations General Assembly that treats the so-called "therapeutic cloning" (a technique aimed at obtaining stem cells that will be compatible with those of the patient) as "reproductive cloning", urging governments to ban both in the same way.

Despite support from 78 Nobel laureates against a ban on therapeutic cloning gathered by my Radical Party and the Luca Coscioni's Association, and the firm opposition from countries such as the UK, Belgium, South Korea, Japan and the Netherlands, the prohibitionist coalition succeeded in winning a majority vote. The document approved is not binding but sent out a worrying message to the world, which could have regional repercussions also within Europe, where the prohibitionist camp has delayed for two years EU funds for research concerning supernumerary embryos. Italy's, law on in vitro fertilisation, passed at the beginning of last year, prohibits even the freezing of spare embryos, making research legally impossible.

The EU should seriously address this clerical revival. Even if legislation on the matter is a prerogative of member states, Europe can play a crucial role in creating the conditions for promoting European research networks. It should not be allowed that a minority of governments should jeopardize individual attempts to benefit from European funds. The obstructionism is even less understandable if one bears in mind the fact that we are talking about embryos that are anyway destined to be discarded. It is difficult to understand why we should waste them instead of using them to foster a research that can find cures for hundreds of diseases. The argument that something that is not acceptable in one country could not be funded with EU money is nonsense. It contradicts the idea that Europe can be something different from an agglomeration of national legislation or national prohibitions. Europe should be something more and stem cell research is a good field to prove it.

To this end, Europe should clearly affirm the possibility to fund, with EU money, research techniques that use supernumerary embryos, imposing, at the same time, strict monitoring practices and full accessibility to laboratories in order to prevent abuses and hold violators of the law to account.

If the EU stayed on the side of freedom of scientific research, which is the way to stay on the side of freedom of conscience and knowledge and religion, we would seize a rare opportunity to reverse the process of marginalising our continent in global scientific competition. In promoting freedom of scientific research, we would also counter a kind of fundamentalism that is running the risk of becoming no less dangerous for our lives and the health of millions of people, than the Islamic one.

To achieve such a goal, we need to reach out and involve the public as much as possible. In fact, only last year referenda addressing scientific research won in California with 59% of votes and in Switzerland with 66%. In two months' time, Italy will also vote on a referendum to abolish the law adopted last year. It will be the biggest referendum ever held in the world on the issue. Unlike its tactic in the 1970s and 1980s to counter the legalisation of divorce and abortion, this time the Vatican has chosen a new strategy: trying to convince people to stay home and boycott the vote. The eventual success of the boycott could be a key factor for the choice of the new Pope, and will be used to impose an even more prohibitionist and aggressive line around Europe and the world.

• Italian MEP Marco Pannella is a member of the ALDE group and a substitute member of the committee on civil liberties, justice and home affairs.

Two MEPs give their views on how the EU should approach stem cell research - one of the most controversial areas of scientific inquiry.

• Primary Source