Clarifying the Eu position

“The vote on the Seventh Framework Programme for research at the end of November cannot be taken for granted. In June we did not have a common and effective strategy, which we are now formulating”, commented MEP CARLO CASINI in launching a new campaign to “ensure that the EU does not fund the destructive experimentation of human embryos”. MEPs OF VARIOUS NATIONALITIES. During the parliamentary session of November in Strasbourg Casini underlined his own commitment to this objective at a press conference at which he was flanked by various colleagues including Patrizia Toia, Hiltrud Breyer, Mario Mauro and Roberta Angelilli. The “cross-party” political group proposed two amendments to article 6 of the Programme, “aimed at excluding in future European funding for the destruction of human embryos for experimental purposes”. These amendments – presented on Wednesday 22 November – ask among other things that the statement made by the Commission on 24 July, which pledged not to fund projects that envisage the destruction of embryos, be clearly spelt out in an unequivocal manner. “To be true, this statement – say the MEPs – presupposes that the phase of derivation of embryonal cells from embryos should not only not be funded [by the EU], but also be separated in its chronology and in its aims from the phase of experimentation on the cells extracted”. So, in this sense, “projects that utilise cells derived from embryos destroyed subsequent to the date of the Seventh Framework Programme” ought not to be funded. THE NEXT VOTE IN THE CHAMBER. The group of MEPs is apprehensive about what might happen during the vote in the Parliament in Brussels on 30 November, when the question of the Seventh Framework Programme on research for the period 2007-2013 will be debated. “It is clear – they explain – that there is no majority in favour of the funding in Parliament”. The group’s new “strategy” also comprises a declaration that bears many signatures of MEPs, including: Dariusz Maciej Grabowski, Andrzej Zapalowski, Bogdan Pek, Witold Tomczak, Urszula Krupa and Miroslaw Piotrowski. On 15 June, during the vote on the Programme for research, these MEPs had denied that there was any consensus on amendment 319 proposed by Angelica Niebler. They expressed the view that “any experimentation on embryonal stem cells is ethically unacceptable, since their supply presupposes the deliberate killing of human embryos, whereas the amendment in question permitted such experimentation on cells extracted before 31 December 2003”. The same MEPs, on the other hand, had voted in favour of amendment 354, presented by the legal committee (chaired by Gargani) and the committee for women’s rights (chaired by Zabroska): an amendment “aimed at preventing European funding of any use of embryonal cells”. AMENDMENTS APPROVED AND REJECTED. The decision to say “yes” to the Gargani-Zabroska amendment and to reject the text proposed by Niebler had been made by 34 MEPs (of whom 23 had voted against the Niebler text, 8 had abstained and 3 had not participated in the vote). “It is obvious – says the signatories of the document – that if the 34 had voted in favour of the Niebler amendment, rejected by only 19 votes, it would have been approved by 289 votes against 251. That would have determined the rejection of the more permissive amendment 66”, presented by the committee of industry and research, which was passed because “50 MEPs who had expressed their preference for the Niebler amendment (having denied it previous to the Gargani-Zabroska amendment), then voted also in favour of amendment 66, considered the lesser evil”. ETHICAL INTERESTS AND CHOICES. It seems clear that “a battle is being waged” in the corridors of the European Parliament: a battle that is delicate from the political and complex from the legal viewpoint. Nor can it be ignored, as explained to SIR by Carlo Casini, that “the parliamentary voting procedures will be of no help to us in this case”. But, he adds, “the battles already lost are those that were never fought”. He also underlines the “strong interests that revolve around the research sector and that cannot wait to get their hands on EU funding”, ignoring “any other possible ethical question linked to the Seventh Framework Programme”. On these aspects the group of MEPs explains: “The minor modifications we intend to introduce will not postpone the final approval of the Programme and therefore will not impede support for European research as a whole, because they are aimed solely at eliminating the ambiguities of the common position”. The European Council “could immediately accept the amendments as a form of clarifying interpretation”.