BioWorld International Correspondent

BRUSSELS, Belgium - Further support for the promotion of Europe's biotechnology industry has come from one of the European Union's principal consultation bodies, the Economic and Social Committee.

Reviewing the EU's 30-point action plan unveiled in February for boosting life sciences and biotechnology, the committee has concluded that the EU should be playing a bigger part in promoting biotechnology and in ensuring that international discussions of biotechnology take due account of EU views. "Its voice will only be heard if it is a major player in the sphere of biotechnology," said the committee's report, which is due for formal approval today.

Within the EU, too, "It is imperative that there should be greater awareness of the implications for competitiveness, growth and job creation," the report said. Everyone involved "must mount a strong and sustained effort to cooperate, and there must be a shared strategy and instruments" - including a simplified EU patent system to allow smaller firms to get rapid and cheaper intellectual property coverage for their innovations. The committee declares itself fully in support of patent protection as "the only effective means of creating a crucial incentive for research and development and . . . for protecting investment." Above all, the committee said, "A creative approach is called for, with greater emphasis than before on stimulating and providing incentives and opportunities. Ensuring the EU's place in the biotechnology sector means acting with determination and resolve."

To head off antagonism from parties critical of biotechnology, the committee calls for "comprehensive consultation" of organized civil society, nongovernmental organizations and "the relevant public and private professional sectors, institutions, and national and European organizations." It wants to see "a structure for the governance of the life sciences and biotechnology, integrated into the EU's broader system of democratic government . . . compatible with Europe's scientific heritage and clearly acceptable to European society."

But consultation will not of itself resolve all problems, the committee admits.

"The political authorities must have the final say in sounding out and taking the necessary strategic decisions." So far, "the EU seems to be holding back," the committee said. "The response must be political." It recognizes that securing public backing for biotechnology is difficult and urges that "the EU must therefore devise a responsible policy with a worldwide focus on the future."

In practical terms, the committee insists that the insufficient supply of skilled personnel must be remedied and all bottlenecks to progress must be eliminated. The EU should stimulate life sciences research, particularly in the area of applied genetics; intensify industrial involvement at the upstream stages with outside laboratories and with biotech industries; and remove unnecessary regulatory obstacles, as well as cut through red tape deterring or hampering initiative, the committee said. But the support for biotechnology is not entirely unconditional. The EU should, the committee argued, propose an international conference to consolidate the application of the precautionary principle. And it should introduce effective legislation on preventing and remedying environmental damage resulting from biotechnology.

The analysis of the biotechnology sector concluded that the EU "fell behind significantly during the 1980s, but is now attempting, with some success, to catch up." Meanwhile, the debate on the ethical issues arising from advances in biology and biotechnology "has underscored significant differences in approach between the EU and the United States." Recognizing that differences of ethical approach extend beyond biotechnology itself and concern the values of different societies, it speculates on the impact of "European society's Kantian, normative approach" and the "more utilitarian approach of the English-speaking world, which is suspicious of pre-established principles, preferring to judge the morality of an act in the light of its practical consequences." This difference in the hierarchy of values is, it said, "an example of why American government and opinion is reluctant to introduce specific legislation governing biotechnology."