No C 159/26 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 6. 89 
Opinion on the proposal for a Council Decision adopting a specific research and technological 
development programme in the field of biotechnology (1990-1994): BRIDGE, Biotechnology 
Research for Innovation, Development and Growth in Europe (^ 
(89/C 159/10) 
On 24 January 1989, in accordance with Article 130Q(2), of the Treaty establishing the 
European Economic Community, the Council of the European Communities decided to 
consult the Economic and Social Committee on the abovementioned proposal. 
The Section for Energy, Nuclear Questions and Research which had been instructed to 
prepare the Committee's work on the matter, drafted an Opinion on 7 April 1989 (rapporteur: 
Mr De Tavernier). 
The Economic and Social Committee unanimously adopted the following Opinion at its 
265th plenary session (meeting of 26 April 1989). 
The Committee supports the objectives of the BRIDGE 
programme and approves the proposal, subject to the 
following comments. 
1. Introduction 
1.1. The BRIDGE programme seeks to continue and 
step up research and technological development in 
biotechnology; these activities were initiated with the 
BEP programme (1982-1986) (2) in 1982 and subsequent­
ly extended and supplemented by the BAP programme 
(1985-1989) (3). 
1.2. The Committee has repeatedly stressed the 
importance of biotechnological research in relation to 
the social and economic objectives of the Community 
and its Member States, most recently in its Opinion of 
27 January 1988 concerning a revision of the BAP 
programme (4). 
1.3. Like the BAP programme, the BRIDGE pro­
gramme is to consist of two distinct but related actions: 
(i) research and training and (ii) concertation. 
1.4. Activities falling under Action I are classified 
under four headings: 
— information infrastructure, 
— enabling technologies, 
— cellular biology, 
— pre-normative research. 
(') OJ No C 70, 20. 3. 1989, p. 1. 
(2) Biomolecular Engineering Programme (OJ No L 375, 
20. 12. 1981, p. 1). 
(') Biotechnology Action Programme (OJ No L 83, 23. 3. 1985, 
p. 1, as amended by OJ No L 306, 30. 7. 1988, p. 38). 
(4) OJNoC80of 18. 3. 1988, p. 7 (rapporteur: Mr deNormann). 1.5. Action II—Concertation—covers various moni­
toring, information and cooperation activities designed 
to facilitate effective application of biotechnological 
findings to the economic and social objectives of the 
Community and its Member States. 
1.6. The Commission proposes that 100 million ECU 
be allocated to this new programme, in line with the 
appropriations earmarked for research under subdiv­
ision 4.1—Biotechnology—in the framework pro­
gramme for Community action for research and techno­
logical development (1987-1991) (5). 90 million ECU are 
to be channelled into Action I and 10 million ECU into 
Action II. 
1.7. This total budget of 100 million ECU represents 
an increase of 25 million ECU over the BAP programme 
and 85 million ECU over the first programme, BEP. 
1.8. Research activities are to be implemented via 
shared-cost research contracts and the total cost of the 
programme is estimated at around 171 million ECU, of 
which 71 million ECU are to be provided by other 
national level sectors. 
2. General comments 
2.1. The Committee welcomes the particular atten­
tion the Commission has paid to assessing achievements 
under the BEP and BAP programmes since 1982, and 
the concordant, generally positive conclusions, which 
have appeared in all reports produced to date. It is, 
however, noted that the final assessment of the BAP 
programme, still in progress, has yet to be made. 
(s) OJ No L 302, 24. 10. 1987, p. 1. 
26. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/27 
2.2. The assessment is being conducted at three 
levels: by the contractors themselves, the 'Biotechno­
logy' management and coordination committee and a 
panel of independent experts. This type of assessment 
should be extended to all research programmes. 
2.3. Major successes under the BAP and BEP pro­
grammes include their contribution to breaking down 
national barriers between laboratories. A case in point 
is the Commission's innovatory action under BAP, 
which involved bringing together teams of research 
workers employed in multidiciplinary research on a 
specific objective, to work in open transnational associ­
ations known as European laboratories without walls 
(ELWW). 
2.4. The Committee considers that the Commission 
could quite usefully extend this initiative to other 
research programmes. 
2.5. The Committee broadly endorses the objectives 
and content of the BRIDGE programme, inter alia the 
emphasis on relieving bottlenecks which hamper the 
exploitation of modern biology. The causes of these 
bottlenecks are twofold: (1) gaps in basic knowledge, 
(2) constraints imposed by structure and scale. 
2.5.1. For the first category, the Commission advo­
cates the establishment of European laboratories with­
out walls. Basic scientific projects carried out in these 
laboratories will receive Community support ranging 
from 200 000 to 400 000 ECU per project per annum. 
Such projects will be entitled 'N' projects. 
2.5.2. For the second category, the Commission 
believes that the structural and scale constraints which 
lie at the root of the bottlenecks could be overcome by 
a major investment of skills and resources over a given 
period of time, with the aim of building up the necessary 
'critical mass' of resources and personnel. These large-
scale targetted projects, entitled 'T' projects, will benefit 
from Community funding of between 1 and 3 million 
ECU per project per annum. 
2.6. The new approach followed by the Commission, 
in conjunction with the relevant implementing pro­
cedures, should help to introduce the flexibility necess­
ary to ensure better matching of funds and available 
resources to Europe's biotechnological research needs. 3. Specific comments 
3.1. Ethical and moral aspects of biotechnological 
research 
3.1.1. The Committee has repeatedly stressed the 
moral and ethical aspects of bio(techno)logical develop­
ment. The most recent instance was its Opinion of 
14 December 1988 on the proposal for a Council 
Decision adopting a specific research programme in the 
field of health—Predictive medicine: human genome 
analysis (1989-1991) (!). 
3.1.2. The Committee then emphasized that 'our 
faith in science and the creativity of research should 
not blind us to the fact that there must be limits, despite 
the existence of ethical and moral standards and the 
vast scale of scientific progress. If research is to serve 
the interests of mankind, self-restraint is required to 
make the research findings controllable and to protect 
them from abuse'. 
3.1.3. This is equally applicable to the general sphere 
of modern biotechnological research, where an overall 
balance must be maintained between long-term utility 
of current or planned research and ethical aspects trans­
cending commercial, political and economic consider­
ations. 
3.1.4. The Committee notes and endorses the meas­
ures taken by the Commission in this context, including 
those taken in conjunction with other European or 
international bodies. These include the October 1989 
conference which the Commission is organizing in con­
junction with the United Nations Educational, Scientific 
and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) on genetic heri­
tage and rights of humanity. 
3.1.5. The Committee also welcomes the recent 
establishment of a working party on the ethical, social 
and legal aspects of the use of research findings on the 
human genome. The working party comprises scien­
tists, philosophers, sociologists, theologians and legal 
experts. 
3.1.6. The Committee points out, however, that its 
Opinion of 14 December 1988 called for the establish­
ment of a genuinely representative ethics committee, 
comprising delegates from the social interest groups 
concerned. It deplores the absence of such representa­
tives in the working party set up by the Commission, 
and asks it to remedy the situation. In addition, the 
Committee asks that current discussion also be 
extended to the general area of biotechnology. 
3.1.7. The Committee believes that the working par­
ty should seek to define ethical criteria for all research, 
(') OJ No C 56, 6. 3. 1989, p. 47 (rapporteur: Mrs Tiemann). 
No C 159/28 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 6. 89 
culminating in the establishment of a code of reference 
setting out ethical and moral limits for the programmes. 
This has also already been requested by the Committee. 
3.2. Risk assessment 
3.2.1. The Committee wholeheartedly supports the 
Commission in its attempts to secure a substantial 
increase in pre-normative research activities, particu­
larly in assessing the possible risks associated with the 
intentional release of genetically engineered organisms 
into the environment. 
3.2.2. In view of the limited experience with inten­
tional release of genetically engineered organisms into 
the environment, these activities should be included 
among the priority objectives of the BRIDGE pro­
gramme. No Community arrangements would in fact 
be able to guarantee sufficient protection for man and 
the environment against all potential risks associated 
with genetic engineering, unless they were adjusted to 
advances in knowledge. 
3.2.3. In this context, the Committee refers to the 
comments set out in its Opinion on the Proposal for 
a Council Directive on the deliberate release to the 
environment of genetically modified organisms, dated 
24 November 1988 (!). 
3.3. Involvement of industry 
3.3.1. In its Opinion of 27 January 1988, the Com­
mittee pointed out that 'effective involvement with 
industry, both in the research programmes and in the 
subsequent stages of development, is a key factor in 
assessing the value which will accrue to the Community 
from this proposed expenditure'. 
3.3.2. The Committee therefore welcomed the con­
siderable progress made in increasing industry's 
involvement in the biotechnology programme. It noted, 
however, that cooperation with industry springs not so 
much from direct financial participation in research 
projects as from procedures which allow firms to moni­
tor the progress of these projects, such as the organiza­
tion of seminars and round tables, which give them the 
opportunity to show an interest in exploiting research 
findings. 
3.3.3. In this respect it should be noted that, although 
industry is only directly involved in the funding of 15 % 
of the research teams, it has expressed interest in more 
than 80% of the research projects. This indicates that 
it may well become directly involved in the subsequent 
development and marketing of research findings. 3.3.4. The Committee is in no doubt, however, that 
industry needs to be kept abreast of progress in this 
field, since a study carried out by the panel of indepen­
dent experts has produced some surprising results; 
almost two thirds of European biotechnology firms, 
mostly small and medium-sized enterprises (SME), 
claim that they had received little or no information 
about Community programmes. 
3.3.5. Consequently, the Committee cannot support 
the Commission decision not to take any measures 
specifically aimed at SME; these firms should, on the 
contrary, benefit from research carried out under the 
proposed programme. It is superfluous to highlight the 
difficulties SME often face in participating in Com­
munity research programmes. 
33.6. There has been little or no involvement of 
the agricultural sector in Community biotechnology 
projects, and the Committee believes that specific action 
should be taken to remedy this; in this context, its 
Opinion on the BAP (2) programme states that it is 
vitally important to secure the support and involvement 
of the European agricultural communities for the devel­
opment of the potential of biotechnology. 
3.4. Assessment of the social impact of biotechnology 
3.4.1. The Committee reiterates the request made in 
its Opinion of 25 January 1988, that a social impact 
assessment be introduced into the BRIDGE programme. 
It deplores the fact that this request has not been taken 
on board by the Commission. 
3.4.2. As emphasized in several earlier Committee 
Opinions, the best prospects for technological progress 
are linked to economically and socially acceptable con­
ditions. Suitable consultation procedures should be set 
up with all social and trade organizations, including 
agricultural organizations, consumers' association and 
environmental conservation groups, in order to ensure 
that technological development in Europe is balanced 
in terms of social considerations. 
3.5. Intellectual property in biotechnology 
3.5.1. As was stressed by the panel of independent 
experts, uncertainties surrounding intellectual property 
rights in biotechnology have created a major bottleneck 
which has hampered the full development of Europe's 
scientific potential and placed us at a disadvantage vis­
a-vis the United States. 
(') OJ No C 23 of 30. 1. 1989, p. 45 (rapporteur: Mr von der 
Decken). (2) OJ No C 25 of 28. 1. 1985 (rapporteur: Mr de Normann). 
26. 6. 89 Official Journal of the European Communities No C 159/29 
3.5.2. In November 1988, the Commission sent the 
Council a proposal for a Directive on the legal protec­
tion of biotechnical inventions (*) which has already 
provoked certain criticism. In this context, the Commit­
tee refers to its own parallel work in the area. 
3.6. Information infrastructures 
3.6.1. Research and training activities under this 
heading extend the 'contextual measures' set out in the 
BAP programme. They are designed to (1) develop 
a communications system providing rapid access to 
biological culture collections and (2) apply information 
technology to biological research (bio-informatics). 
3.6.2. The Committee supports the continuation and 
further development of these activities; Community 
support guarantees that the information infrastructure 
will be accessible to all research workers in all Member 
States. Community intervention is also necessary to 
ensure that these activities are coordinated with, and 
complemented by, similar activities such as the ESPRIT 
programme. 
3.6.3. The Committee considers that the proposed 
centralized European data bank of microorganisms and 
other biotic materials should come under Commission 
administration or, at the very least, Commission 
responsibility; this would guarantee universal access to 
such data under conditions and arrangements, inter alia 
of a financial nature, to be specified in due course. 
3.7. Training activities 
3.7.1. The Commission is proposing that 10 million 
ECU be allocated to training activities for research 
covered by the programme. These activities will include 
the conclusion of 6-month to 2-year training contracts 
for scientists (an annual average of the 160 persons), 
and the organization of training classes and summer 
courses. 
3.7.2. These activities, which have met with such 
success in the BAP programme, should continue to 
receive particular attention because of the need to: 
— ensure that research staff are able to keep up with 
constant adaptation to complex techniques and 
rapid advances in knowledge, and — enable some Member States, less well-equipped in 
terms of research infrastructure and scientific per­
sonnel, to participate fully in the research activities 
of the programme. 
3.7.3. The Committee believes that these training 
activities can make a significant contribution 1) to nar­
rowing development gaps between Member States, and 
2) to the achievement of economic and social cohesion 
in the field of biotechnology. 
3.7.4. In this context, the Committee is pleased to 
note that the Commission intends to encourage the 
award of training contracts to scientists from Greece, 
Spain and Portugal and to organize 20 summer courses 
in these three countries between now and the end of 
the BRIDGE programme. 
3.8. Concertation activities 
3.8.1. The concertation activities, which began with 
the BAP programme, are designed 'to improve the 
knowledge and resources applied in life sciences and to 
render their strategic application to the economic and 
social objectives of the Community more effective'. 
3.8.2. While noting the successes of the BAP pro­
gramme, the report compiled by the panel of indepen­
dent experts expressed considerable criticism of the 
concertation activities {inter alia, a lack of public aware­
ness of the benefits of biotechnology and the risks 
involved in its application, and insufficient integration 
of data from other Commission directorates-general 
into BAP programme research activities). The report 
also stated that the work schedule was too ambitious 
and that the workload of the individual CUBE (2) units 
was too heavy. 
3.8.3. While endorsing the proposed concertation 
activities of the BRIDGE programme, the Committee 
considers that they should focus on: 
— identifying optimum conditions for more effective 
and coherent national and Community biotechno­
logy programmes and associated policies, particu­
larly those affecting the research-agriculture-indus­
try-environment interface, 
— informing the general public of the potential of 
biotechnology, its benefits and possible risks; an 
area which the Committee believes has been 
neglected. 
(') OJNoC 10, 13. 1. 1989, p. 3. (2) Concertation Unit for Biotechnology in Europe. 
No C 159/30 Official Journal of the European Communities 26. 6. 89 
3.9. Expansion of the BRIDGE programme to cover 
European non-Member States 
3.9.1. The Commission is proposing that 3 million 
ECU be allocated to the continuation of research activi­
ties carried out in conjunction with countries involved 
in European scientific and technical cooperation, 
entitled 'COST Actions'. 
3.9.2. It also proposes that the BRIDGE programme 
be opened up to organizations and firms from European 
non-Member States with whom the Community had 
concluded framework agreements in science and tech­
nology. 
3.9.3. This initiative is supported by the Committee; 
it meets a request expressed in one of its previous 
Opinions. 
3.9.4. However, would it not be appropriate at this 
juncture to look at long-term integration of COST 
actions into the biotechnological research programme, 
with a view to rationalizing resources? After all, the 
European non-Member States participating in these 
actions, i.e. countries of the European Free Trade 
Done at Brussels, 26 April 1989. Association (EFTA), have all concluded framework 
agreements for scientific and technical cooperation with 
the Community. Wider European cooperation trans­
cending EFTA could also be considered. 
3.10. Programme review and assessment reports pro­
vided for under Article 4 of the draft Decision 
to he forwarded to the Economic and Social 
Committee 
3.10.1. As with other programmes, the Committee 
asks that Article 4 of the draft Decision be amended to 
provide expressly for the forwarding to the Economic 
and Social Committee of (a) the report containing the 
programme review and (b) the report assessing the 
research findings. 
3.10.2. We reiterate that, in accordance with Article 
130Q(2) of the Treaty establishing the European Econ­
omic Community, the Committee must be consulted on 
any proposal for amendment, extension or renewal of 
the programme. Consequently, these reports constitute 
a key element in the appraisal of Commission pro­
posals. 
The Chairman 
of the Economic and Social Committee 
Alberto MASPRONE