Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Council of Europe Policies on Biotechnology

  • Chapter
Modern Biotechnology in Postmodern Times?

  • 93 Accesses

Abstract

If biotechnology indeed is an entity of diverse means and objectives formed in the nexus of academic, political, and economic interests, it is necessary to locate this nexus. Such an endeavour surpasses merely demonstrating that e.g. research in biotechnology is being carried out at universities or that particular practices of biotechnology are employed in order to generate products intended for sale, for a quick internet search, a phone call or a site visit could prove this in instants. Instead, the idea is to give an impression of the values, goals and institutions shaping the European debate on biotechnology in order to let the distinct contours of biotechnology emerge, for public deliberations and policies contribute quite as much to the actual state of biotechnology as the techniques employed in its name.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. As the latest example, see e.g. the rationale for the 6th framework programme: “The Commission aims to restore European leadership in life sciences and biotechnology research. The 6th Community Framework Programme for Research, Technological development and Demonstration activities (2002-2006) proposes this area as the first priority and will provide a solid platform for constructing, in collaboration with the Member States, a European Research Area.”Commission of the European Communities: COM (2002) 27, 8. The financial resources reserved for this project are considerable, e.g. 2,2 billion € for genomics and biotechnology for health and 685 million € for food quality and safety. 15% of the budget is reserved for the SMEs, i.e. small and medium sized businesses. See Bruno Hansen, Director Research DG European Commission: Biotechnology Research in Europe. The Sixth Framework Programme. Unpublished manuscript of speech delivered at the Belgian-Danish Forum for Innovation in Biotechnology. Hilton Brussels 29 May 2002, 15.

    Google Scholar 

  2. These states have acceded 1st January of the following years: Austria (1995), Belgium (1957), Denmark (1973), Finland (1995), France (1957), Germany (1957), Greece (1981), Ireland (1973), Italy (1957), Luxembourg (1957), Netherlands (1957), Portugal (1986), Spain (1986), Sweden (1995) and the United Kingdom (1957).

    Google Scholar 

  3. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers: Biotechnology and intellectual property. Reply from the Committee of Ministers to the Recommendation 1425 (1999), adopted at the 730th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (22 November 2000), Doc. 8894. Strasbourg 27 November 2000, point 3.

    Google Scholar 

  4. The Treaty on the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) was signed by Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands in Paris in 1951.

    Google Scholar 

  5. The Treaty on the European Atomic Energy Community (EAEC or Euratom) was signed by the same states in Rome in 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  6. The Treaty on the European Economic Community was likewise signed by these states in Rome in 1957. Cf. for a brief and very clear presentation of the EU structures: M.A. Theofilatou: The emerging health agenda. The health policy of the European community. Doctoral dissertation at the University of Maastricht, s.l. 2000, especially pp. 24-74.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sometimes, this can also be sensed in the field of ethical reflection. When describing its own set-up, the European Group of Ethics, appointed by the European Commission, stresses its independence as opposed to e.g. the “Council of Europe’s Steering Committee on Bioethics (CDBI) (which drafted the convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine) (…) composed of members who are delegated by their governments and therefore have the task of presenting their positions.” European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission: General Report on the activities of the European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies to the European Commission 1998-2000. Luxembourg: Office for Official Communications of the European Communities 2001, 3.

    Google Scholar 

  8. E.g. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers: Resolution (78) 29 on harmonisation of legislations of member states relating to removal, grafting and transplantation of human substances, preamble.

    Google Scholar 

  9. The now single court of human rights replaced in 1999 the two-tier structure of the (European human rights) commission and the European court of human rights. This reorganisation was intended to improve administration: “Doch diese Strategie ist offensichtlich fehlgeschlagen und für die bislang zugelassene Zahl von 1000 Fällen für das erste Halbjahr 1999, die nur einen geringen Prozentsatz der insgesamt eingereichten Menge beinhaltet, ist bereits mir (scil, ‘mit’, LR) einer Wartezeit von fünf Jahren zu rechnen bis es zu einer Verhandlung kommt.” Schwinger (2001), 81.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Council of Europe, Directorate of Information: European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg 1953,3.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Council of Europe, Directorate of Information: European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg 1953, 3. The convention itself is published as: Council of Europe: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms as amended by Protocol No. 11, Rome, 4.XI.1950. European Treaties Series (ETS) 5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Second Summit of the Council of Europe: Final Declaration. Strasbourg 11 October 1997, in: Council of Europe, Directorate of Legal Affairs: Texts of the Council of Europe on bioethical matters. CDBI/INF (98) 5. Strasbourg 1998, 101-108, 101.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Council of Europe, Directorate of Information: European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg 1953, 3. The brochure is popular in tone, presenting the main structures and aims of the COE very clearly. It is also outspoken: “…Hitler and other dictators, past and present, showed that human rights and fundamental freedoms can be jettisoned in less than no time. Today action is needed if human rights are to be secured.” Ibid., 2.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Resolution 613 (1976) on the rights of the sick and dying, point 1.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers: Resolution (78) 29 on harmonisation of legislations of member states relating to removal, grafting and transplantation of human substances. Adopted by the Committee of Ministers

    Google Scholar 

  17. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Recommendation 1046 (1986) on the use of human embryos and foetuses for diagnostic, therapeutic, scientific, industrial and commercial purposes, point 4.A.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 934 (1982), 15f.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Ibid., 17.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1046(1986), 19.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ibid.,20.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ibid., 21, with the extensive list of the procedures desired banned.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ibid., 20.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ibid., 22.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1100 (1989), 25.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Ibid., 24.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ibid., 25.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ibid., 29.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Ibid., 26.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1160 (1991), 33.

    Google Scholar 

  33. This is done by way of traditional understatement: “Taking account of the work of the parliamentary assembly in this field, including Recommendation 1160 (1991) on the preparation of a convention on bioethics;” COE: Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. European Treaties Series (ETS) 164, preamble.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1213 (1993), 36.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 934 (1982), 15.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Cf. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1213 (1993), 36.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1240 (1994), 37.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Ibid. The assembly points out that the European Patent Convention, which had been signed prior to the first child born after In vitro fertilisation, was not drafted with such a reflection. 136Ibid., 38.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Ibid., 39.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1399 (1999), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1425 (1999), 51.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1425 (1999), 51.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Ibid., 52.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Ibid.,51.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Ibid.,51-2.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1468 (2000), 54. This highly unusual crossing into the domain of the EU could give the impression that some COE parliamentarians would use the assembly, formed by members of national parliaments, as a platform for EU politics, which of course is very unlikely.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Ibid., 53.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Ibid., 53-4.

    Google Scholar 

  56. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1418 (1999), 50.

    Google Scholar 

  57. In its reply to this recommendation, the committee of ministers “notes that the legal position differs from one member state to another on advance refusal of certain treatments and on euthanasia.” Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Protection of the human rights and dignity of the terminally ill and the dying. Doc. 8888 7 November 2000. Recommendation 1418 (1999). Reply from the Committee of Ministers adopted at the 728th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (30 October 2000). In the same document, when referring to the human right of self-determination as expressed in article 9 of the “Bioethics Convention”, the committee thereby uses a name for the convention, which was not adopted after all.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1418 (1999), 49.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Protection of the human rights and dignity of the terminally ill and the dying. Doc. 8888 7 November 2000. Recommendation 1418 (1999). Reply from the Committee of Ministers adopted at the 728th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (30 October 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  61. Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe: Protection of the human rights and dignity of the terminally ill and the dying. Recommendation 1418 (1999). Doc. 9404 8 April 2002. Reply from the Committee of Ministers adopted at the 790th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies (26 March 2002), 1.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Parliamentary Assembly: Recommendation 1512 (2001), 55.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Ibid., 55-56.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Ibid., 57.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Ibid., 56

    Google Scholar 

  67. Cf. ibid., 55-6.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Zilgalvis (2002), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Resolution (78) 29, 47.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (79) 5, 51.

    Google Scholar 

  71. European Communities Council Recommendation of 30 June 1982 (82/472/EEC).

    Google Scholar 

  72. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (84) 16, 59.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (90) 3, 60.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Ibid., 60-64, principles 2, 3 and 13.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Ibid., 62.

    Google Scholar 

  76. lbid.,61.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (90) 13, 65.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Ibid., 67, principle 4.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Ibid., principle 6.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Ibid., principle 9.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Ibid., principle 2.

    Google Scholar 

  82. 17th Conference of European Ministers of Justice (1990): Resolution No. 3.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (92) 1, 69.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (92) 3, 74.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Ibid., 75, footnote 1.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Ibid., 75.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ibid., 79.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (93) 4, 80.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Ibid., 82.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Weijer (2002) considers the use of placebos problematic, because it is carried out with a strong scientistic bias: “Whether a placebo-controlled trial can assess the contribution of various treatment components rests on the assumption that each treatment component has an additive effect. Only on this additive model can the observed effect be thought to be constructed from a series of components, each adding a discrete proportion of the observed efficacy.” (70) This view is too simplistic, opines Weijer, because psychological and physical effects may interact. Indeed, “the clinician’s office is not a laboratory anymore than a research subject is a lab rat. Clinical care and human response to disease are simply too complex to be captured by such a simplistic model.” (71)

    Google Scholar 

  93. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (93) 4, 83.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (94) 1.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (97) 5, 95.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Council of Europe Committee of Ministers: Recommendation R (97) 15, 100.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Zilgalvis (2002), 3.

    Google Scholar 

  98. European Treaty Series No. 35

    Google Scholar 

  99. Reuter (2000), 186.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Verstraeten (1985), 56.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Immanuel Kant: Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten, A 66f.

    Google Scholar 

  103. With regards to the discussion in Belgium, cf. Nys (1998), 43-63; 49, and 62f. Cf. also Trouet(1998),94f.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Art. 16: “Organs or tissues shall not be removed from the body of a deceased person unless that person has been certified dead in accordance with the law.”

    Google Scholar 

  105. According to some, “a drug typically takes around $ 250 million to bring to the market, and most of them fail along the way…” Bains and Evans (2001), 256.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Cf. Bart Hansen/Paul Schotsmans: Stem Cell Research: A Theological Interpretation. Manuscript of forthcoming publication, for a helpful clarification on this and other forms of cloning.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Centre for Bioethics, University of Aarhus, Denmark

    Lars Reuter

Authors
  1. Lars Reuter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2003 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrechtts

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Reuter, L. (2003). Council of Europe Policies on Biotechnology. In: Modern Biotechnology in Postmodern Times?. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1015-3_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1015-3_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-010-3768-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1015-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation