Mr President, the work of the temporary committee on human genetics has been complex and interesting. The detailed and thorough report by Mr Fiori which accompanies the motion for a resolution is testimony to that. The motion for a resolution, presented by the rapporteur in committee, was, in its turn, a balanced synthesis of the conclusions that could be drawn from our inquiries. These dealt with the many ethical and political problems raised by the major scientific breakthroughs of recent years: the development of genetic tests which open up prospects of early identification and possible remedies for serious degenerative diseases, but also pose risks for the protection of personal data. In this field, such data concern not only the individual in question but all of his or her blood relatives as well. Therefore, alongside the right to know, everybody’s right to know the likelihood of being predisposed to diseases in the future, a new right now emerges: the right not to know, to deliberately face up to the fate that life holds in store for us, trusting in the future. The committee addressed problems raised regarding the application of the patent system, the traditional instrument of industrial policy which favours the private funding of research, to those biotechnological and biomedical innovations that have to do with living organisms and therefore pose delicate questions of the limits between invention as a product of human activity and the discovery of living material, which cannot be appropriated. Finally, the committee addressed the most far-reaching dilemmas of the new frontiers of research into stem cells, which offer extraordinary potential for possible applications. They may be able to root out diseases that have hitherto been intractable, but they also pose radical questions of ethical principles which must be considered insurmountable. We are not starting from scratch, thanks, partly, to the useful work of the European Ethics Group and the large number of instruments drawn up at Community and international levels, to the extent that, two weeks ago, Parliament was able to adopt by a large majority, cautious, common criteria on this subject on the occasion of the launch of the sixth research framework programme. This programme prioritises the research needed in this field, funding especially those projects dealing with adult stem cells and embryonic cells from abortions or so-called supernumerary embryos, produced for the purposes of in-vitro fertilisation and no longer usable for those purposes, to the extent that the laws of the Member States permit. Unfortunately, the original project became distorted in committee and an attitude prevailed that was inspired by fear rather than hope. The spectre of monster-generating cloning was brandished, leading to the absurd conclusion that it is better to let supernumerary embryos die or be destroyed rather than to use them for the benefit of medical research that can save human kind, our children and future generations from the scourges that have afflicted us in the past and still threaten us. We do not want women’s bodies to be used to produce embryos for research, but it is immoral to prevent the use of those that already exist for the benefit of human kind. Human dignity was invoked not in support of saving people from humiliating suffering but just to safeguard the first clusters of cells in the early stages of the embryo. Never, but never in the history of human kind, has the human embryo had the kind of protection it has today. Lawful, regulated and controlled research is being branded as about to open the door to dreadful speculation, almost as if we should ban organ transplants, which save lives, just because there may be a black market in organs. Let us combat the black market, but do not let us sacrifice hopes of recovery! Some invoke religious laws in order to get out of the responsibility, which strict secular ethics place on those who are democratically elected, of making choices for the common good. What we need to do, instead, is to weigh up the values that are at stake and – proceeding with all due caution and prudence, keeping within all reasonable bounds and opposing all commercial arguments – still allow freedom of conscience, freedom of research and hope for new breakthroughs in the treatment of terrible diseases. That is why my group hopes that the European Parliament will not go back on what it wisely decided only a fortnight ago.

Political group: PSE