WRITTEN QUESTION P-2931/00 by Marie-Noëlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission. Observance of Directive 98/44/EEC as regards human cloning.
Date: 2000-09-11
Institutions: European Parliament, Provisional data
Subjects: United Kingdom, bio-ethics, biotechnology, cloning, invention, medical research, patent law

8.5.2001

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 136 E/111

(2001/C 136 E/126)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2852/00

by Antonio Tajani (PPE-DE) to the Commission

Subject: Go-ahead for human cloning given by UK Government

(5 September 2000)

On 16 August the United Kingdom authorised the first forms of human cloning for research purposes in
violation of European Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC (1) of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection
of biotechnological inventions, which explicitly prohibits any form of human cloning. Article 5 of the
directive stipulates that:
(cid:145)the human body, at all the stages of its formation and development, and the
simple discovery of one of its elements, including the sequence or partial sequence of a gene, cannot
constitute patentable inventions(cid:146).

Will the Commission President call on the UK Government to end this anti-European initiative which is in
breach of Community laws,
the
international community enshrined in the Treaties establishing the Union and which the UK Government
has seriously flouted?

invoking the principles of responsibility, solidarity and defence of

Does the Commission also have any information concerning pressures which may have been brought to
bear on the United Kingdom Government by those who support human cloning for economic purposes
and ends, and, if so, will it immediately inform the European Parliament thereof?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

(2001/C 136 E/127)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2931/00

by Marie-Noºlle Lienemann (PSE) to the Commission

(11 September 2000)

Subject: Observance of Directive 98/44/EEC as regards human cloning

Does the Commission not consider it necessary to make representations to the British authorities to ensure
observance of Directive 98/44/EC (1) which specifically prohibits the issue of patents on inventions
involving the use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes?

(1) OJ L 213, 30.7.1998, p. 13.

Joint answer
to Written Questions P-2852/00 and P-2931/00
given by Mr Busquin on behalf of the Commission

(3 October 2000)

The member responsible for research stated a position on behalf of the Commission during Parliament(cid:146)s
plenary session on 6 September 2000 with regard to the report by the UK group of experts concerning the
authorisation of research into human embryonic stem cells and their therapeutic uses.

On this occasion he pointed out that Parliament and Council Directive 98/44/EC of 6 July 1998 on the
legal protection of biotechnological inventions regulated the conditions under which an invention based
on biological matter may receive patent protection. However, the aim of the directive is not to lay down
conditions under which the research itself may be carried out.

Respect for the national identity of the Member States and for subsidiarity has caused the Treaty on
European Union to leave the prerogatives to legislate on matters of ethics to the Member States
themselves.

C 136 E/112

Official Journal of the European Communities

EN

8.5.2001

The Commission cannot impose any constraints on the freedom of states to lay down the conditions under
which they wish to regulate research. Its role consists of promoting a debate on ethics while maintaining
the diversity of our cultures and our sensitivities in Europe. It is thus one of the aims of the European
research area.

The Commission has in its possession no information on any pressure on the UK authorities.

(2001/C 136 E/128)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2853/00

by Hiltrud Breyer (Verts/ALE) to the Commission

(5 September 2000)

Subject: BSE in Germany

In July the Scientific Steering Committee designated Germany a risk country in regard to BSE. Germany
classifies itself as BSE-free. So far there has been no scientific evidence to support this claim.

1.

Is the Commission aware that there is no scientific evidence that Germany is free of BSE?

(a) What action will the Commission take against Germany(cid:146)s obviously false declaration?

(b) What action does the Commission have in mind, particularly in view of the findings of the Scientific

Committee, to correct this false and misleading claim?

Is the Commission aware that with the exception of the Land of North Rhine-Westphalia, virtually

2.
no BSE checks are carried out in Germany?

Is the Commission aware that some L(cid:228)nder, for example, Bavaria, have deliberately been applying the

3.
test on a selective basis?

4.
Does the Commission agree that the deliberate failure to apply the test, in order not to publicise any
instances of BSE, is an infringement of the precautionary principle and it is unacceptable that consumers
are at considerable risk as a result?

5. What action will the Commission take against the lack of checks and the deliberate endangering of
consumers?

Does the Commission intend to support the introduction of BSE tests in German slaughterhouses,

6.
despite the high-handed behaviour of bureaucrats? If not, why not?

7. What guarantees are there that BSE-infected meat is not available in butchers(cid:146) shops and cafØs and
restaurants?

Answer given by Mr Byrne on behalf of the Commission

(10 October 2000)

The Commission is not aware of any evidence supporting the allegations of
false declarations and
deliberate endangering of consumers by the German authorities. The epidemiological situation in
Germany, with respect to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), must be viewed in the light of the
opinion of the scientific steering committee (SSC) of 6 July 2000. Following an analysis of the available
information on the key risk factors, the SSC came to the conclusion that the presence of BSE could not be
excluded in any Member State. It also concluded that in Germany, Italy and Spain the presence of BSE in
the national cattle herds is likely, even if hitherto no domestic cases had been identified. This opinion and