Public hearing sees contrasting views on FP6
Experts invited by the European Parliament's Industry Committee to a public hearing on the 6th Framework Programme (FP6) for Research and Development expressed a wide variety of views, some of them challenging the validity of parts of the programme. Parliament's rapporteur, French MEP Gérard Caudron emphasised the need to keep alive the debate between scientists and the European public. He also stressed the need to ensure a seamless transition from the 5th to the 6th framework programme. The liveliest discussion was generated by the first and the last experts to take the floor. Dr Freek Heidekamp from TNO Strategy and Research Planning in The Netherlands spoke of the benefits of genomics and biotechnology for health, while Dr Mae-Wan Ho from the UK's Institute of Science in Society took the opposite view. The pair represented a fundamental difference of opinion about how science should be conducted. Dr.Heidekamp represented the traditional view, with scientific research: tending towards a reductionist model, following an agenda derived from the inertia of its own discoveries and guided by predominantly economic interests. In this model social accountability is mediated primarily through politician and shareholder. Consequently, he was basically happy with the proposals for FP6. Dr.Wan Ho by contrast argued that the question of whether FP6 is socially accountable has not even been asked and that the public has had little say in deciding the structure of the programme. Consequently, the EU is subsidising corporate science in fields such as nuclear and GM technology, which may not be in the public interest and is something that Europeans clearly do not want. Dr Wan Ho also argued that the very structure of the instruments: networks of excellence and integrated projects involving public/private partnerships, benefits big corporate science and excludes dissenting minorities doing innovative research for non-commercial ends. Dr. Wan Ho proposed the alternatives of increasing research into organic agriculture and into a holistic model of health care. The gathered representatives of corporate science did not wholly agree with this viewpoint. It was argued that the EU was lagging behind the US in funding levels: the Commission is proposing 2000 million euros be put into genomics and biotechnology for health over the period 2002-2006 while the annual US Federal budget for the same field was 700 million euros. There was agreement that more emphasis should be placed on preventative medicine and that the potential dangers of biotechnology, such as biotechnologists inadvertently producing super viruses, need consideration. The report by Gérard Caudron is likely to be adopted by the committee in September or October and put to the vote in a plenary session in October or November.