MEPs this month approved EU legislation designed to ensure the legal protection of new inventions involving biotechnology and gene development. This ends a long process, and a struggle between industry, which considered the legislation vital for safeguarding Europe's emerging biotechnology industry, and parties such as the Greens who argued that there were insufficient ethical controls to guard against abuses.
A similar proposal foundered in 1995 when MEPs refused to accept a compromise deal with the Council. They believed that the wording of the law could allow for the patenting of human embryos, and other unacceptable practices. This time, however, Council accepted stricter phraseology requested by Parliament, and the legislation now excludes any patenting of parts of the human body. New discoveries, based on treating weak or defective genes for medical purposes, can be patented.
This time MEPs were convinced of the benefits that the technology can bring for illnesses such as Alzheimer's disease, cancer and leukaemia. Christine Oddy (UK, PES) felt that this time the right balance had been struck between taking account of ethical concerns, and enabling the pharmaceutical industry to prosper. The legislation rules out any use of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes. Included in the legislation are provisions for setting-up an independent working group on ethics, which would monitor closely the observance of the legislation and would report where necessary to MEPs. Winnie Ewing (Scotland, ERA) could not accept legislation which would allow any form of tampering with the human body. She said it "debased the currency of humanity". But Willi Rothley (D, PES), who has been trying to construct an acceptable compromise, expressed his satisfaction with the final outcome. "The European Parliament can feel its role as co-legislator has been fulfilled," he said.
One point at issue was the aspect of the legislation that has allowed patents to be taken out on new kinds of genetically-engineered seeds. Some MEPs argued strongly for "farmers' privilege" - the idea that farmers would be exempt from paying royalties for using such new products, but this wasn't taken up in the legislation adopted.