The need for harmonisation did not go away, so the Commission introduced a second, revised version, which sought to recognise the Parliament s concerns. When the first version of the Directive was under consideration the debate over the 'pros' and 'cons' of biotechnology and the need for creation of a standard interpretation of intellectual property rights was, crudely, portrayed as a clash between industry interested in profits and the exploitation of science, and non-profit groups who wanted to claim the moral high ground by highlighting the dangers associated with exploiting scientific advance because of the incomplete nature of our current knowledge, and a heightened sensibility to the possible risks. This led to a polarisation of the debate and a lack of clarity about the potential that biotechnology has to benefit people, and to change our perceptions about health and disease. In this debate, the voice of patient support groups was absent. It is not surprising that the significance of the issue passed many patient groups by.
Most voluntary groups are concerned with rare disorders about which little is known.
The ramifications of European intellectual property law are, understandably, not often of immediate concern. Yet the hope for a cure is universal. If scientific progress is to be developed into effective treatments, it will be necessary for patient groups to engage in the debate over patenting and appreciate the commercial incentive necessary to carry potentially interesting phenomenon through the process of clinical trials and product registration. Equally, it was important to protect possibly vulnerable groups from overweening blandishments of possibly unscrupulous interests. The inclusion in this second debate amongst MEPs of the patients' point of view provided a means whereby the focus of the debate could be shifted.