Seven years ago, in a Press
release of 22.12.2006 relating to the final adoption of the 7th Research
Framework Programme (FP7), the General Secretary of COMECE stated that
“given that the financial means available for research are limited, EU
funding must – in order to spend the available means in the most appropriate
manner – concentrate on joint priorities.” This statement was produced in
view of the possibility, foreseen under the FP7, of funding research in human
embryonic stem cells (hESC), a research that entails the destruction of human
embryos. If this was plainly valid in 2006, it is simply incomprehensible that
the new programme, Horizon 2020, that has just been adopted by the European
Parliament (EP), sticks with that wrong, ethically reproachable approach to
research.
A key Programme with a major ethical problem
Horizon 2020 is an EU programme to run from 2014 to 2020 and was proposed in
a legislative package
of proposals presented by the European Commission on 20 November 2011. As a
major instrument for promoting growth through research and innovation in the
European Union Horizon 2020 is to be welcomed.
After almost two years and 1824 amendments tabled in the ITRE (Industry,
Research and Energy) Committee of the European Parliament, the procedure has
finally came to an end. Unfortunately, as regards the ethical framework of the
Programme, some shortcomings have to be mentioned; for example, no reference is
made to key principles applicable in the field: protection of human dignity and
the principle of primacy of the human being – putting the interests and welfare
of the human being before that of society or science.
Nevertheless, the major ethical problem of Horizon 2020 is still the
possibility of funding research on hESC. On 21 November last, by voting against
six amendments which reproduced the Opinion adopted on 18 November 2012 by the
JURI (Legal Affairs) Committee, the EP Plenary upheld the common text allowing
for such funding as already agreed with the Council in the context of the
trilogue negotiations. It is worth saying that JURI is the EP Committee actually
competent to analyse the compliance of European Union acts with primary law and
for the interpretation of European law and the analysis of ethical questions
related to new technologies.
A position grounded on solid reasons
The Secretariat of COMECE has voiced its position against funding such
research on many occasions ever since the proposals were published (cf. Press
release of 13.09.2012 and Press
release of 7.12.2011). In October 2012 the Secretariat welcomed the granting
of the Nobel Prize for Medicine for research on alternatives to embryonic stem
cells research (cf. Press
release of 8.10.2012). Horizon 2020 as now adopted does not even prioritize
funding research in alternative, much more promising research (can we still say
that hESC are promising?) on non-ethically problematic sources of stem cells
(see Europeinfos
no. 140, of July-August 2011), and this is a matter for regret. On the other
hand, the text of Horizon 2020 as adopted has not duly taken into consideration
the ruling in the case of Greenpeace
v. Brüstle, whereby the European Court of Justice
reaffirmed the legal protection of the human embryo, defined as
“any human ovum after fertilisation », and the
non-patentability of inventions that make use hESC (see Europeinfos
no. 139, of June 2011, and Europeinfos
no. 144, of December 2011).
Inconsistency and perplexity
The EP Plenary also adopted an amendment referring to a statement of the
European Commission on the ethical framework of Horizon 2020. This statement is
very much the same as the one adopted by the Commission in 2006 with regard to
FP7, so the status quo as concerns funding research on hESC is
basically maintained. By paragraph 12 of the statement now adopted, the
Commission commits itself to “continue with the current practice»
which means that it will not consider «projects which include research
activities which destroy human embryos, including for the procurement of stem
cells», making sure however that «the exclusion of funding of this step
of research will not prevent Community funding of subsequent steps involving
human embryonic stem cells». This is rather inconsistent from an ethical
perspective, especially if we bear in mind that such funding of subsequent steps
stimulates the procurement of hESC and, thus, escalates human embryo-destructive
research. The Secretariat of COMECE has always upheld the exclusion of any
research involving the use of hESC including in steps subsequent to their
derivation.
Meanwhile, as the European citizens’ initiative One
of Us (see Europeinfos
no. 150, of June 2012) calls for the EU to stop funding such kinds of
research, the reply is much awaited to a Question
for written answer asking what measures will the Commission take to ensure
that the adoption of Horizon 2020 will not pre-empt such an initiative, the
biggest so far with about 1.9 million signatures.
By way of a conclusion to what has been said above, one can say that for
ethical reasons, but also in the light of new scientific and legal developments
and their impact on the economic rationale of research, it is surely to regret
the missed opportunity to take this step forward in the field of EU research
policy with regard to stem cells.
