ANGER OVER ANIMAL GENE PATENTS BACKING

PA 09.07.97 14:49


Copyright 1997 PA News. Copying, storing, redistribution, retransmission, publication, transfer or commerical exploitation of this information is expressly forbidden.


By Alison Little, Political Correspondent, PA News
The Government today defended its attitude to a proposed EU directive which would let scientists patent plant and animal genetic material.
Science Minister John Battle has written to Britain's Euro-MPs, urging them to back the proposed directive, said BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
But a British women's environmental campaign group claimed angrily that up to now the Government had given it the impression that it had yet to make up its mind on whether to support the directive, which is due to be debated by the European Parliament next week.
Dr Riccarda Steinbrecher, adviser to the Women's Environmental Network, told Today: "I feel the whole process and the way this has been treated is an absolute scandal."
She said there had been "lies, there is no openness, no democracy ... with implications for so many aspects of life and society, that there have been no ways of consultation, that's a pure scandal".
She claimed she had written to the Government "again and again", asking for meetings.
"I have not been given any information until finally, through the back door, I hear that MEPs have been given the information I had requested, because I wanted to know if the Government had a position on this, and I was told that they hadn't."
Some MEPs are demanding an ethical dimension to any new arrangements.
Ian White, MEP for Bristol and a member of the European Parliament's environment committee, told Today that he wanted an ethical committee established as a pre-condition of the directive's becoming law.
He said EU Commission President Jacques Santer had indicated that the European Commission was sympathetic to this idea.
Mr Battle insisted on Today that the Government had not finally made up its mind, but that the European Commission has been "hanging around" on the issue since 1995.
Labour in Opposition had published a position paper backing harmonisation of national laws, he said.
Animal and plant genes had been patentable in Britain since 1977.
Mr Battle said patenting put information into the public domain: "I would argue that it prevents any Frankenstein-type scientists doing something in the background in the secrecy of a laboratory. That's why I want it to be open."
He told the programme: "We support most of the directive. But we will need to consider it further.
"There is no intention to close debate. I am often accused of being too ethical in challenging scientific developments.
"It's a question of balance.
"I don't want to see Americans, because they have got their patent law sorted out, moving companies working in medical research out of Britain because we haven't got a common position in Europe."
He said the proposal would go from the European Parliament to the Council of Ministers, and he wanted the draft proposal published by the Commission so that Britain could put forward its position.
Mr Battle insisted he had written to Dr Steinbrecher, who he said had written to him only once, stating that he would be happy to meet her before the Council of Ministers debated the proposal.
He added that the question of ethics would be "high on the public agenda. But we have also looked to see how medical improvements can improve our quality of life."

A statement from Mr Battle said later that more harmonisation of national patent laws was needed to remove current uncertainty which he alleged deterred investment.
"Biotechnology is already driving the medicines of the future. It will be key to national well-being and quality of life.
"Patents have always been vital to the development of modern medicine, for example, insulin, and antibiotics.
"If you can't patent a medicine, then by using it in the public domain you risk others reaping the rewards from the substantial costs you incurred in developing it," he said.
The Government backed harmonisation where it contributed to the growth of the UK and European biotechnology industries and the functioning of the internal market.
"The directive should not, however, reduce patent protection available under present UK legislation," he said.
He warned that the longer the matter "dragged on" without production of a document which could be considered at the Council of Ministers, "the greater the risk that UK biotechnology scientists and companies at the forefront of medical research will move to the USA".
Ethics were crucial to ensure scientific developments were "life-enhancing and not dehumanising". Any detailed proposal for an ethics committee on the issue would be studied with interest.
But some "basic questions" needed asking. The UK already had a "strong framework" of ethical advice committees.
There was time for further measured debate before the draft directive returned for discussion at the Council of Ministers.
Mr Battle added that he would be happy to receive information from interested parties and to meet with the Women's Environmental Network, Oxfam and Compassion in World Farming.

Overview