Speech Lissabon - 27.1.2006

Stem cell Research

The European perspective

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Dear José Ribeiro E Castro

I want to thank you very much for the invitation to speak to this important audience today in Lissabon. I want to thank all the those who helped to organize this meeting, especially José Ribeiro E Castro. 

José Ribeiro E Castro is, as I understood, a very prominent and influential politician in Portugal, but I can tell you, he's also very influential and very active in the European Parliament. He is spokesman of the biggest parliamentary group on Human Rights and besides that, in the particularly area we address today, he has worked a lot and helped a lot to bring the debate forward in the European Parliament.

But of course, as a member of the EPP-ED group in the European Parliament, I cannot avoid giving tribute to the President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso, who is doing, in my opinion, a very good job in difficult times for the European Union. Concerning the question we discuss today, José Manuel Barroso has also put forward some very important initiatives: during the negotiation of the 6th Research Framework Programme, the Portuguese Government, led by Mr. Barroso, proposed a very important compromise which, in my view, is still the only chance to overcome the controversy inside and between the European institutions which has been lasting for a lot of years now.

Last but not least, let me refer to Jorge Moreira Da Silva.

Jorge Moreira from the PSD was a very active colleague in the European Parliament and after that, Secretary of state for Research and later Secretary of State for Environment in the Barroso government. His contributions and initiatives have always been very helpful.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

the question how to deal with human cloning, research on human embryos and embryonic stem cell research is very controversial in almost all countries in Europe. There are strong arguments in favour of a very permissive approach and there are also strong arguments in favour of strict limitations and bans of this kind of research. The debate touches a lot of aspects and I will give more details later on, but let me stress two important aspects at the beginning of my speech:

First, biotechnology does not equal cloning and research with human embryos. I am convinced that biotechnology is necessary to overcome a lot of our problems in future. We will not solve our energy problems or environmental problems and our health problems without biotechnology. There are many technologies that really help that don't face fundamental ethical concerns. To be in favour of biotechnology does not mean to be in favour of all kinds of its applications.

Second, I followed the debate on cloning and research with human embryos in Spain a lot and, according to what I have learned during the past days and weeks, there is a quite similar debate in Portugal. My feeling is that especially in Spain and Portugal, those who are against all kinds of human cloning and against research with human embryos, are said to be only a more and more small group of very conservative or traditional catholic people. It seems to be the general opinion, that to be in favour of research with human embryos is considered as being progressive.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

the structure of the debate is not like this in other European countries and in the European institutions. If you want to give only one example for this, I would like to mention that on Tuesday this week, the Women's Rights Committee of the European Parliament adopted an opinion on the Future Research Policy of the European Union and this with 27 to 0 votes. In this paper, the Women's Rights Committee included an amendment stating that no kind of research with human embryos or human embryonic stem cells should be funded from the EU budget. This particular amendment was controversial, but it was voted in favour by a stable majority. As you can imagine, members of the Women's Rights Committee are -  like in the national parliaments also in the European Parliament - not those, who hold the most traditional opinions or who are the most influenced by the Catholic Church. It is the opinion of a lot of people from all over Europe that, especially from Women's Rights' perspective, one has to be against this kind of research.

Before I outline a little bit more on the political situation in the different member states and in the European institutions, I would like to present you some more details on the scientific base of our discussions.

(Scientific details: see attachments)

I am sending my apologies to those who already know all these details but I have made the experience that the terminology and the scientific background is very confusing for a lot of people, so it is better to explain it before starting a detailed political discussion..

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The legislation on the technologies I was talking to you about differs a lot in Europe. There's is no country in Europe that bans stem cell research completely. Adult stem cell research, research with stem cells from the umbilical cord and other alternatives are allowed and supported in all 25 member states. But the legislation on research with human embryos and embryonic stem cells differs a lot.

Some countries are very permissive: e.g. in Belgium and Great-Britain it is allowed, not only to use a human embryo for research, but to produce a human embryo solely for research purposes. Nine countries explicitly ban all kind of research that destroys human embryos. These countries are Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Slovakia, Malta, Ireland, Luxemburg and Lithuania. You may recognise that those countries are not only so-called Catholic countries and, if you allow me, I would like to explain a little bit more about the situation in the country I know the best, which is Germany.

People with Catholic belief are definitely not in the majority position in Germany. The embryo protection law from 1991 prohibits all kind of research with human embryos if this research is linked with the destruction of the human embryo. The law from 1991 of course didn't cover embryonic stem cells because they didn't exist at that time. Only in 1998, the US researcher Thompson published this kind of research in Wisconsin, United States. The new development led to an intensive debate in the German society and in the National Parliament (Bundestag). After this intensive debate, a huge majority of the German national parliament decided to keep the protection of the human embryo in research and not to lift the ban. This decision was supported not only by Christian-Democrats who were in the opposition at that time, but also by the Greens and most of the Social Democrats in the Parliament. Not only Catholics in the German society supported this decision - according to a survey that was published before the decision, the share of Protestants that had argued against destructive research with human embryos was higher than the share of Catholics, and even more then 50% of the non-believers in the German society supported that strict approach.

What have been the arguments of the members of our national parliament to keep the ban on destructive research with human embryos?

There was of course the argument of the protection of the beginning human life. It is difficult to argue that life begins later than at the time of the fertilisation. Of course, there are other opinions, but my colleagues were convinced that it was better to be careful and apply the precautionary principle in cases where you are not sure. Please note that also a lot of members of the National Parliament, who are not in favour of banning all kind of abortion, voted in favour of embryonic protection. In this case, the point was made especially by feminists that the difficult situation in which a women is who undergoes an unwanted pregnancy can't be compared with the situation of a researcher. In this respect, the very hypothetical promises of embryonic stem cell research and the advantages of adult stem cells research has been mentioned.

 The second big argument was that, given the argument of supporters of human embryonic stem cell research, also the creation of cloned human embryos is necessary to overcome the problem of rejection of the tissue. Members of the national parliament argued that this kind of so-called "therapeutic cloning" would unavoidably lead to reproductive cloning because the technology used is the same.

A third very big argument was the danger of the exploitation of women through egg cell trade. You cannot create a human embryo without a woman's egg, you cannot clone a human embryo without lots of human eggs and there is a shortage of egg cells for the purpose of in vitro fertilisation. This shortage has already led to illegal activities of British fertilisation clinics in Romania. Unfortunately, the British authorities have not really tackled the problem. There are calculations that millions of women would have to undergo the life threatening procedure of donating eggs if this so-called "therapeutic cloning" would be applied in a large scale.

These have been the most important arguments in the German debate. Also relevant was in my opinion that the industry did not really urge for a liberalisation. There are again and again some industry representatives who ask for more permissive rules, but most of the industry leaders understand that this is not the way to go forward and that there are a lot of alternatives which are much closer to the patient and that's why there are much closer to the market.

Of course the German law has a weakness and in European debates, people who don't know the details very well attack the German law as being the most hypocritical solution. I don't share this view but there is a problematic area. As I said the members of the Bundestag stick to the ban of any kind of destructive research of human embryos but, as you know, embryonic stem cells are not embryos. An embryo, if implanted in the womb, will grow to a baby. An embryo is a human being. According to most scientists, embryonic stem cells are no longer embryos, they are no longer able to create a baby. That's why the majority of the Bundestag accepted an exclusion of the general ban of embryonic stem cells research under the condition that certain criteria have been fulfilled. Of course one can argue that this is hypocritical; people say that Germany has banned research with human embryos but at the same time embryos are imported. This is not true, as embryonic stem cells are not embryos. Even though, there is an ethical problem because the acceptance of embryonic stem cell research without the acceptance of their production could lead to a situation where the demand of German researchers to get embryonic stem cells leads to the destruction of embryos abroad. That's why a lot of those who have been engaged in the debate including myself, recommended a total ban but we have to recognise one important point: the German Parliament did not allow the import of new embryonic stem cells, only those imported cells that have been created before the adoption of the law can be used by German researchers. The cells had already been obtained from the embryos and they were already that. The ethical dilemma is therefore not that dramatic.

As I said, I recommended to my colleagues in the National Parliament not to allow this exception, because a clear "no" to embryonic stem cell research and the concentration of all the efforts to get further with adult stem cells and other alternatives would have been better. On the other hand there is a general feeling that one should not ban this kind of research completely and in this situation, the German law offers an outcome which avoids the fundamental conflict. The German decision has been inspired by the rules in the United States, the most prominent authority in medical research, the NIH, close to Washington, applies exactly the same rule. Also the Portuguese compromise for a European solution that has been promoted by José Manuel Barroso and Jorge Moreira Da Silva in 2003 is built on this principle.

Please note that all those compromises are not allowing or supporting research with so-called supernumerary embryos. Embryos, whether they are named 'supernumerary' or not, are human beings, according to the law of a lot of Member States, and that's why they shouldn't be used for research involving their destruction. I will come back to this point later.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The protection of the human embryo is not the only background of the German stem cell act, but also in reproductive medicine this principle is respected. In a lot of European countries you have hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos, because the way how in vitro fertilisation is done in most countries leads to the creation of more embryos then will be implanted immediately in the womb. In Germany, we have enforced by law another technology: IVF is possible, but only as many embryos can be produced than will be implanted in the womb. That's why we don't have hundreds of thousands of so-called supernumerary embryos in Germany. According to a survey of the National Ministry of Health some time ago, there have only been frozen about 100 embryos in Germany. Most of them are frozen only for a couple of weeks, because there is a time between the creation of the embryos and the implantation and during this time some things can happen to the woman, like an accident or an infection, so that the implantation of the embryo has to be postponed.

I have to admit that the success rate of IVF in Germany is slightly lower than in other countries but it is possible and this small difference is not the most relevant in my opinion because IVF is anyhow not very successful, even in the countries with the most permissive rules. But I think we should all work on an improvement of the technology: fertility treatment must be improved without creating thousands of so-called supernumerary embryos.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Germany is not the only country which adopted a law oriented on the protection of the human embryo after a long and intensive debate. The scenario in Italy was quite similar: some time ago, a cross-party initiative adopted a law prohibiting, like in Germany, any kind of research with human embryos, when the destruction of this embryo is involved and similar rules for IVF has been adopted. Even though there was a broad cross-party majority behind this law, some politicians argued that the majority of the society had a completely different opinion and they launched a referendum. This referendum to abolish the Italian law for the protection of the embryo failed dramatically: only about 15% of the Italian population voted in favour of changing the law and this happened even though a lot of influential associations and politicians argued in favour of the referendum. Not only the radical party and some members of the Socialist Party but also Foreign Minister and Allianza Nazionale party leader Fini argued for the referendum. This is another hint for those who think that the question is only a "left and right" question. Please note that most of the members of opposition leader Romano Prodi's party Margarita - which is part of the liberal group in the European Parliament - voted against the referendum or didn't participate to bring the referendum to a failure, and Gianfranco Fini is definitely not a left or even center-politician. His Allianza Nazionale is in a way the successor of Mussolini's fascist party. Of course, the party changed over time, but an average left politician in Europe would see Fini as an important political enemy.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Now I would like to describe the discussion in the European institutions.

Various times, the European Parliament has discussed the issues we addressed today. Some questions are very controversial and we cannot see a stabilised and final opinion, particularly after the outcome of the new elections last year. But one thing has been clear for years: the European Parliament is against all kind of human cloning. We supported an initiative from Costa Rica to ban all kinds of human cloning (reproductive cloning and so-called therapeutic or research cloning) on the level of the United Nations. I am happy to remark that José Manuel Barroso's government also supported the U.N. initiative. The support for this Costa Rica initiative to ban all kinds of human cloning has been expressed by the European Parliament several times, I want to quote only the most important decisions. In this respect, in a report presented by a Socialist former MEP from your country, Mrs. Damião, a report about the future of biotechnology which is quite positive on biotechnology. Here, the European Parliament decided on the following wording: "[The European Parliament] repeats its insistence that there should be a universal and specific ban at the level of the United Nations on the cloning of human beings at all stages of formation and development and urges the Commission and the Member States to work towards this end."

We repeated this position in January last year when we dealt more specifically with the United Nations questions in the presence of Secretary General Kofi Annan who received an award which the European Parliament allocated to the United Nations because of their work all over the world. In the same meeting in which we gave the award to Kofi Annan, we adopted a resolution about the relationship between the European Union and the United Nations. On cloning, we say "(The European Parliament) reiterates its call for a worldwide ban on the cloning of humans, and supports Costa Rica's initiative in this connection and the UN General Assembly's decision to work on a corresponding convention in 2004". The European Parliament is against all kinds of human cloning and if there is an opportunity, we will for sure try to implement a Europe-wide ban. Definitely we welcome that the initiative of Costa Rica supported by the former government of Portugal and a lot of other governments led to a resolution at United Nations level that has been adopted by almost a two-third majority in the General Assembly and that asked the Member States to ban all kind of human cloning.

Naturally we agreed in the European Parliament that something we would like to have banned all over the world should not be funded by European Research Policy. Therefore, under the 6th Research Framework Programme, all kind of research that is linked to human cloning will be excluded, and this will also continue to be excluded in the 7th Research Framework Programme. More complicated is the debate about the so-called supernumerary embryos; as I said, in countries like France, Spain and Great-Britain, hundreds of thousands of embryos are frozen because in an IVF treatment more embryos than are immediately implanted were produced. A lot of politicians in the European Parliament and as I understood also here in Portugal argue that it is better to use the embryos for research than just to destroy them. But I think the question is not as easy: first of all, we have to recognise that there are alternatives. It is possible to do IVF treatment without production of supernumerary embryos. We would discourage the doctors and researchers to work on these technologies when the use of supernumerary embryos is promoted. It is also possible for infertile couples to adopt those embryos (this has been done in the United States, e.g.). I could add much more arguments but the most relevant argument especially after the latest news is that you can't see or control for sure if an embryo is really a supernumerary embryo. The researchers wanting to use these embryos always argue that they are to be destroyed anyhow. But is this really the case?

The question of control and the question of pressure are of particular importance. It is common practice, e.g. in the United Kingdom, that parents who undergo fertility treatment are asked whether they would donate some of their embryos for research purposes. In case they donate, other embryos are frozen for free in case that a couple wants to have another child some years later. In case they don't donate for research, they are charged a high amount of money for freezing the embryos. Are these embryos supernumerary or are they produced for research purposes?  The same problems apply to the requirement that no financial incentive should be given for the donation of embryos or for the donation of the egg cells. Of course also those promoting research with supernumerary embryos would exclude any kind of financial pressure. But it is difficult to control. Sometimes, authorities will be not even willing to control. BBC has reported that British Fertility Centres paid Romanian women high amounts of money to donate their eggs. These egg cells have been fertilised in Romania with the sperm of British men and have then been implanted in the men's wives' or partners' womb. In my view and in the view of the European Parliament this is clearly trade with human egg cells and human embryos and is a case of commercialisation of the human body which is prohibited under European Law. But the British authorities just say they didn't find any evidence for payment. In fact I spoke to the responsible persons at the BBC, and it took them only two days to find out the evidence. The German Television made the same experience. This shows that when there is some will to do this kind of technologies, the limits which are set may be overcome easily.  That's why we need to establish rules that can definitely be checked. This is more relevant after the Hwang scandal in South Korea. Most of you have heard that the South Korean researcher Hwang has claimed that he cloned human embryos and that he has produced patient specific cells. He was praised by a lot of so-called 'liberal progressive' politicians and by the almost the whole research community for his breakthrough and he was even mentioned to be a candidate for the Nobel prize. During the last weeks it became evident that the whole study was faked (by the way: it has also been proven that Hwang forced a female researcher in his team to donate egg cells for the study). The real scandal in my view is not that somebody did fake a publication; the scandal is that the whole scientific community was not able to proof that that was faked. And to proof this would have been very easy. It was mentioned that I worked in human genetics, and I know that to check if the DNA of the cells is identical with the patients' DNA (and that the cell is a so-called patient specific cell) is a very easy task. To prove that embryos are created for research purpose and are not so called supernumerary embryos, is not possible with this kind of easy technology. There is no scientific test to determine that. And to prove that no incentive has been given, that there is no commercialisation taking place, is as difficult.  Therefore I have the impression that different from the last legislation period we in the European Parliament now have a majority also against the financing of research with the so-called supernumerary embryos.

We have adopted an amendment which asks to exclude all kind of embryo research from EU programmes in March last year, as I said the Women's Rights Committee has adopted another amendment with the same content Tuesday this week.

There's one argument besides those arguments I already outlined which, again and again has to be stressed in the debate, and that is the argument that human embryonic stem cells lead to cancer when transplanted to the human body. The reason that no researcher all over the world transplanted human embryonic stem cells to any patient is this cancer risk. The characteristic of human embryonic stem cells is that they grow and grow and grow; this is good for research, but bad for the patient when transplanted. Several experts have testified in the European Parliament that this is not a minor problem, but it is very, very difficult to overcome.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

I want to conclude by saying that of course the question how Portugal will deal with these difficult issues is a national decision, and it is not my task, as a European Parliamentarian, to draft a law for Portugal. But I would like ask you the following:  please take an informed decision and don't use the wrong arguments.

When people say "in Europe, regulations are more permissive", this is not true, at least for 9 of the 25 countries. Portugal would be in good neighbourhood if it sticks to the protection of the human embryo.

When people say "only the conservative traditional Catholics are in favour of the protection of the embryo", this is not true either. In other countries and in the European institutions a lot of Liberals, Greens, Socialists and Communists come to the same conclusion that it is better to be careful in this area.

When people claim "only embryonic stem cell research can cure patients form Parkinson disease, Alzheimer and stroke or similar diseases", this is also not true. At the moment, the scientific evidence is much more strengthening the argument that adult stem cells are the solution to be preferred.

Thank you very much for your attention.