Table Of ContentEUROPEAN FOUNDATION FOR THE IMPROVEMENT OF LIVING AND
WORKING CONDITIONS
BIOTECHNOLOGY IN FUTURE SOCIETY
Scenarios and Options for Europe
Edited by EDWARD YOXEN
Department of Science and Technology Policy University of
Manchester
VITTORIO DI MARTINO
European Foundation for the Improvement
of Living and Working Conditions
Dublin
OFFICE FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATIONS OF THE EUROPEAN
COMMUNITIES Luxembourg
DARTMOUTH Aldershot
CONTENTS
Preface by Phili Viehoff, MEP vii
List of European Commission, Parliamentary and
European Foundation reports on biotechnology xi
List of Contributors xiii
PART ONE: INTRODUCTION
1. The Context of this Volume 3
Edward Yoxen, Vittorio Di Martino
2. Biotechnology in Europe: The Role of the 9
Commission of the European Communities
Mark Cantley
3. Historical Perspectives on Biotechnology 19
Edward Yoxen
PART TWO: HEALTHCARE
4. Future Pharmaceutical Markets and Human 37
Health Care
Peter Daly
5. Social Dimensions of Biotechnology: The Case 47
of Vaccines
David Banta
6. Biotechnology in Human Genetics: Developments 55
and Problems
Nadine Fresco
PART THREE: FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
7. Biotechnology and Food/Agricultural complexes 67
Pascal Bye
8. The Impact of Biotechnology on European Agriculture 75
Gerd Junne, Jos Bijman
v
PART FOUR: WORK AND EMPLOYMENT
9. Qualifications and Training for Biotechnology 87
Guiseppe Lanzavecchia, Danielle Mazzonis, Anna Luise
10. Human Resource Planning in Biotechnology 97
Richard Pearson
PART FIVE: PARTICIPATION
11. Public Debate on Biotechnology: 107
The Case of Denmark
Jorgen Lindgaard Pedersen
12. Public Debate on Biotechnology: The Experience of 117
the Bundestag Commission of Inquiry on the
Opportunities and Risks of Genetic Engineering
Wolf-Michael Catenhusen
PART SIX: CONCLUSIONS
13. Learning about Participation in Biotechnology 127
Edward Yoxen, Vittorio Di Martino
Bibliography 139
vi
Preface
by Phili Viehoff, MEP
It is an honour to be invited to speak at this international seminar organised by the
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. The fact
that I am here for the second time within a year shows the strengthening of the links
between the European Parliament and the European Foundation. I am very pleased about
this development and I hope that it will be continued, because I think it is in the interests
of both organisations.
As Rapporteur for biotechnology in the European Parliament since 1984 I have
benefitted from the international research that has been organised by the European
Foundation. Despite the importance of this research, there are still many important
questions that remain unanswered over the wide field of biotechnology. Moreover many
more questions are emerging as the diffusion of biotechnological products and processes
begins.
One of the conclusions which emerged from the research on biotechnology funded by
the European Foundation is that at many levels our interaction with the technology is
very much a learning experience. We need to learn much more about the complexity of
the new biotechnologies and its possible medium and long term impacts. Only by
learning about these trends can we develop adequate policies to support biotechnology
in socially responsible and desirable ways.
There is therefore an urgent need for future-oriented, forecasting and assessment
studies of the social and economic dimensions of biotechnology. I strongly recommend
that this kind of research should get utmost priority on the research agenda of the
European Foundation.
Let me now say something briefly about the activities of the European Parliament in
the field of biotechnology. In response to proposals from the European Commission to
vii
set up biotechnology programmes, the European Parliament has discussed in several
reports, working documents and in hearing with experts, the potential, the utility, the
limitations and the possible risks of biotechnology.
When we started to discuss biotechnology for the first time in 1980 not many
politicians were really interested in the subject. This was not only the case at the
European level, but also at the national level. Possibly the Federal Republic of Germany
and somewhat later Denmark were exceptions to this rule. But in general biotechnology
had to fight for its place in political debate, although in scientific and administrative
circles planning for the new biotechnology was going forward at high speed.
But along the way biotechnology got more and more attention in the European
Parliament, not least because in the reports we prepared for the Committee on Energy,
Research and Technology, we took a very broad view. In our reports we showed the
possible impact of biotechnology in all kinds of policy areas, from agriculture to health
care, from environmental regulation to the problems facing less developed countries.
We also stimulated other Parliamentary committees to think about the particular
impact biotechnology could have for their own areas of concern. So in 1985 we organized
a hearing to bring together the different Parliamentary committees and to discuss the
impact of biotechnology with experts from all over Europe. I am pleased to say that some
of the experts who took part in that hearing are here today as well. In 1986 biotechnology
eventually became a subject for seven committees in the Parliament and now several,
more specialised reports have been drafted, for instance by the Legal Affairs Committee
and the Committee on Agriculture. In January 1987 the main report, Biotechnology in
Europe: The need for an integrated policy was discussed in the plenary session in
Strasbourg and in February 1987 the Parliament accepted the report and its (amended)
resolution.
Within my own political group we have set up a biotechnology working group to
exchange information from the different committees. In a recent publication of our
group, a brochure called, Biotechnology: A challenge full of promise and pitfalls, we
recommend the establishment of an interparliamentary working party on biotechnology.
Such an interdisciplinary working party could be of great help in planning for a more
coherent policy for biotechnology at the European level. For instance, it does not make
much sense to study ecological problems without knowing the European judicial
framework, within which solutions must be sought. The same can be said for the social
and economic dimensions of biotechnology. We have to learn how the different aspects
relate to each other, which aspects are of most importance and why; what the consequences
will be of the unequal development of biotechnology in the different Member States and
how we can prevent European disintegration. The last aspect relates particularly to the
possible effects that biotechnology may have on European agriculture, a subject already
reviewed by the European Foundation.
The difficulty we had in the Parliament in writing our reports, and no doubt many of
the experts here have experienced the same problems, is that with a complex set of
technologies it is difficult to foresee all the effects and consequences at an early stage.
The concrete facts do not exist yet or are still secretly held in laboratories. So the
construction of reliable scenarios for the future depends entirely on close reading of
industrial and scientific material and the disciplined exercise of the imagination. If that
is not done, and if any effort at forecasting is delayed until the technology has reached
viii
an advanced stage of development, then it will probably be too late to intervene
effectively to influence subsequent developments.
In daily political life we have to balance the need to encourage promising new areas of
research and technological application on the one hand against the need to enforce
every reasonable safety precaution both in the workplace and to protect the environment if
genetically engineered organisms are released into it. The emphasis here on balance is
also central to an enticing new development in which biotechnology would play a
crucial role. From our research and that carried out by others, it is easy to show that the
increased concentration of power over the combined agriculture and food-supply chain,
together with a trend to larger and larger units in the dairy and stock-rearing sectors, is
placing political and economic relationships both within the Community and outside
under increasing strain. Similarly in health care organising the production of services in
larger and larger units has led not merely to 'white elephants' but even to 'white
mammoths'. These unworkable health factories, which often themselves create disease,
consume vast amounts of resources and often act against the very goals they were set up
to advance. Such trends then display a continuing move away from balanced systems of
food production and health care.
By contrast with this one can consider the prospect for decentralisation. The use of new
information technologies linked to those of biotechnology could replace the old
obsession with economies of scale by new principles of flexibility. For example
biotechnology could make regions less dependent on agricultural imports, because the
diversity of cultivation could be increased and the processing of crops be done much
more intensively than is now the case. An important consequence of reduced dependency
would be more political freedom of manoeuvre at the regional and local levels. It is a
political challenge to use that leeway to give specific content to decentralised decision-
making. Several of the new European technology programmes are aimed at backward
regions. With the installation of new communications networks these regions could very
well make more use of biotechnology and become more integrated into the Community,
without giving up their historic characteristics. Also in industry it would be possible to
apply biotechnology in such a way that, instead of increased centralisation and hierarchy
of control, more scope is provided for self-determination in the workplace.
The terms in which biotechnology eventually becomes established ultimately depend
on the balance of political and economic power. However, and I must stress this, the
manner in which biotechnology is consolidated can certainly be influenced and is not
preordained.
Before we can enter a stage of decentralised development in biotechnology, much
research has to be carried out. This research is also important to stimulate public debate.
For this reason better dissemination of research is essential. This is true also of research
carried out by the European Foundation. Although scientists and researchers very often
prefer to write for established journals, they should be aware that these only reach a very
limited number of people, who are very often already well informed. Therefore it is
necessary to translate the results of research into accessible language and into an
appealing form to increase awareness among a wider public. In this meeting many
experts discussed the latest information about the social implications of developments
in biotechnology. For it is 'learning by learning' that can help us increase the social
benefits of biotechnology for society at large in a responsible way. Unfortunately we
ix
cannot afford to stay in the 'learning by learning' phase. Strong industrial and research
lobbies in the Community and outside are pressing for 'learning by doing' and 'learning
through application'. If progress towards greater use of biotechnology is not to be
frustrated, when all possible safety precautions have been considered, this pressure for
continued innovation has to be recognised and further support for biotechnology made
possible. But this must be only on one condition: that parallel to the application-oriented
activities more research on the social impacts in the broadest sense must be carried out.
In other words, I make a plea for an intensification of social and economic research to
assess the impact of biotechnology on living and working conditions. As I said earlier,
the European Foundation can play an important role in these assessment studies. I hope
that this seminar will strengthen the view that research that builds on the base of expertise
already established by the Foundation in this area should be carried out in the years to
come.
x
List of European
Commission, Parliamentary
and European Foundation
reports on biotechnology
List of reports on biotechnology from the European Commission, the European Parliament and
the European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.
European Commission
Proposal for a Council Decision adopting a multiannual research action programme of the EEC
in the field of biotechnology (1985-9). COM (84)230
Proposals for Council directives on the approximation of national measures relating to the placing
on the market of high technology medicinal products, particularly those derived from biotechnology.
COM (84)437
Stimulating agro-industrial development: discussion paper. COM (86) 221
Review of the Multiannual Research Programme COM (86) 272
A Community Framework of the Regulation of Biotechnology COM (86) 573
Biotechnology Action Programme - Progress Report 1987 Vol. 1 An Overview CD-NA-11-
138-EN-C; Vol. 2 Scientific Papers CD-NB-11-138-EN-C.
Proposal foraCouncil Decision to adopt a first multiannual programme(1988-93) for biotechnology-
based agro-industrial research and technological development - ECLAIR. COM (87) 667
xi
European Parliament
Synopsis of the Hearing on Biotechnology: Committee on Energy, Research and Technology
(Brussels: CEC, 14 January 1986).
Report on behalf of the Committee on Energy, Research and Technology, Biotechnology in
Europe and the need for an integrated policy. Rapporteur: P. Viehoff. Document A 2-134/86.
Report on behalf of the Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, on the Effects of the use
of biotechnology on the European farming industry. Rapporteur: F.W. Graefe zu Baringdorf.
Document A 2-159/86.
A. Roobeek, Biotechnology: A challenge full of promise and pitfalls, (Brussels: Socialist Group,
European Parliament, 1987)
European Foundation.
The impact of biotechnology on the environment ISBN 92-825-7529-2
The impact of biotechnology on working conditions ISBN 92-825-7528-4 (in Italian)
The international dimension of biotechnology in agriculture ISBN 92-825-7531-4 (in Dutch)
The social impact of biotechnology ISBN 92-825-7530-6
The impact of biotechnology on living and working conditions - Consolidated report ISBN 92-
825-7532-2
xii
List of Contributors
Dr. David Banta, Prof. Giuseppe Lanzavecchia,
Professor of Health Economics ENEA,
Rijksuniversiteit Limburg, Viale Regina Margherita 125,
Maastricht 0098 Rome,
The Netherlands Italy.
Pascal Bye, Richard Pearson,
INRA-IREP, Institute of Manpower Studies,
BP47X, University of Sussex,
38040 Grenoble Cedex, Falmer, Brighton,
France. United Kingdom.
Dr. Peter Daly, Biotechnology Jorgen Lindgaard Pedersen,
Group, National Board for Institute of Social Sciences,
Science and Technology, Technical University of
Shelbourne House, Shelbourne Denmark,
Road, Dublin 4 Eire. Building 301,
DK-2800 Lyngby,
Denmark.
Dr. Nadine Fresco, Wolf-Michael Catenhusen,
U158 INSERM, Bundestag,
Hopital des Enfants Malades, Bonn, Federal Republic Germany
149 rue de Sevres,
75015 Paris,
France.
xiii
