WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1160/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Additional question on radiation risk experiments
Date: 1996-05-15
Institutions: BANOTTI, European Parliament
Subjects: EAEC, animal experimentation, cancer, environmental protection, nuclear fission, public health, radiation protection, research programme, scientific research













EUR-Lex - 91996E1160 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



91996E1160

WRITTEN QUESTION No. 1160/96 by Mary BANOTTI to the Commission. Additional question on radiation risk experiments  


Official Journal C 322 , 28/10/1996 P. 0036 





WRITTEN QUESTION E-1160/96 by Mary Banotti (PPE) to the Commission (15 May 1996)Subject: Additional question on radiation risk experimentsIn response to the answer by Mrs Cresson to Question E-0560/96 ((OJ C 185, 25.6.1996, p. 71. )) by Mrs Banotti:How does the Commission choose its advisers? This question was not answered in a way which demonstrated (a) criteria for selection, (b) transparency necessary to avoid bias.With regard to openness and transparency, could the Commission confirm that none of its advisers or members of the coordination advisory committee or their scientific research staff received research contracts from the programme?Could the Commission confirm its assertion that research on human cells is well supported, by giving a breakdown on the relative amounts spent on human cell research and mouse research?Could the Commission further comment on the reasons it feels that the process of mouse carcinogenesis will be relevant to human carcinogenesis?Answer given by Mrs Cresson on behalf of the Commission (20 June 1996)The criteria for the selection of advisors for the preparation of the 1994-1998 framework programme were seniority, international recognition, current activity in research, and representativeness for the wide variety of disciplines inherent in the radiation protection research programme. An additional criterion ensured a cross section of participants from different Member States. In addition the members of the management and coordination advisory committee (CGC) 'Radiation protection', nominated by the Member States also contributed to the development of the research programme. In this way transparency was guaranteed but the programme proposal was also submitted to various committees eg. atomic questions group, scientific and technical committee, and Economic and social committee, prior to final choice.The radiation protection research programme aims to involve the best research groups working in the field and it is therefore unavoidable that laboratories associated with some advisers and some members of the management and advisory committee 'Radiation protection' have been successful in gaining research contracts. The procedures laid down for the evaluation of proposals ensured that any form of bias was avoided. Experts used in the evaluation of proposals were obliged to declare if they had an interest in a project and were excluded from the evaluation of such a proposal.The Commission considers that research on human cells is well supported in the programme. In multi-partnered projects it is difficult to present a break-down into the requested areas but some 2 Mecu is devoted to human cell research compared with some 3 Mecu for mouse research.All experimental carcinogenesis studies must clearly make use of animal in vivo models. While the mouse is not the obvious model for the human it offers certain advantages for experimental work because it is small and relatively inexpensive and much is known about its genetics and pathology. In addition, it is a mammal, radiation damage and repair is comparable, it has closely homologous genes and comparable tumour suppressor genes. Specific chromosomal alterations are associated with certain cancers as is the case in humans and there seems to be no a priori reason why the carcinogenic process in the mouse should be very different from that in man.