In the eye of the biotechnology storm

Date: 03/07/1997

FEW issues can stir up as much feeling as biotechnological research.

The actual processes involved may be highly technical and comprehensible only to those with keenly trained scientific minds, but the fruits of that research have far wider consequences.

For supporters, the technological advances offer possible breakthroughs which can give new hope to people suffering from hitherto incurable diseases. Others point to the employment and competitive advantages which stem from European companies' successes in this area.

Opponents, however, introduce wider ethical issues, challenging the wisdom of tinkering with the natural order of things and, in more hyperbolic moments, raising the spectre of a Frankenstein world where the cloning of humans, animals and plants is a matter of course.

As the European Parliament prepares to vote later this month on legislation to provide protection for biotechnological inventions in the Union, MEPs are being bombarded with arguments from all sides in one of the most intensive lobbying campaigns ever.

This frenzied activity reflects the financial, ethical and emotional issues at stake and, more generally, a growing recognition of the Parliament's ability to determine the shape - and fate - of much EU law.

“This is one of the biggest issues in my mail bag. I am getting letters from right across the Union,” says British Socialist MEP Ken Collins, chairman of the Parliament's environment committee. “Some people see it as an environmental and public health issue, so they write to me. Other letters come from constituents who might have a relative suffering from a particular disease or because they are worried about the ethical implications.

“This lobbying from all sides is a recognition of the institution's power and that is something which lobbyists have recognised earlier than the media.”

One of the key targets for the various campaigns has been the Parliament's legal affairs committee, whose members have had the task of preparing the institution's response to the Commission's proposal and have been in the lobbyists' sights for months.

“Our main contacts have been with industry, patient organisations and animal welfare groups. It has not been pressure so much as collaboration, to exchange information and improve the legislation,” explains a collaborator of German Socialist MEP Willi Rothley, who has drafted the committee's report.

The flavour of the current lobbying campaigns is made all the more poignant by the fact that it is the second time round the course for most of the participants.

On the last occasion, opponents of the proposed EU rules emerged the unexpected winners in March 1995 when the Parliament used its new Maastricht Treaty co-legislative powers to reject the draft directive.

What surprised - and angered - many of those involved in the complex decision-making process then was that a group of leading parliamentarians had worked out a compromise deal with EU governments, who wanted the legislation, only for this to be rejected by back-bench Euro MPs.

Their minds had been swayed by the effective campaign waged by organisations such as Greenpeace, which organised high-profile stunts such as abseiling down the Parliament's Brussels headquarters, and by the contrasting complacency of the pro-biotech lobby.

This time round, opposition to the legislation is centred on a loose coalition of environmental, developmental, animal welfare and medical organisations, churches, sundry scientists and agricultural breeders.

The lead is being taken by the environmental organisation Global 2000. For months, it has deluged parliamentarians with detailed briefing notes on different aspects of the draft legislation and, only this week, it organised a second dinner/debate for Euro MPs with a small group of independent outside experts.

“We started by sending twice-weekly faxes to about 250 MEPs on the six key committees. Since then we have developed our personal contacts and attended parliamentary committee meetings, listening to and analysing developments,” explains Thomas Schweiger, who has worked full-time on Global 2000's campaign for the past 18 months.

He says most Euro MPs have been ready to listen to Global 2000's arguments and remains undeterred by the fact that the organisation does not appear to have swayed members' minds.

“We might not have managed to change any MEPs' views on the legal affairs committee handling the proposal. But I think we might have managed to lead the debate and encourage them to take issues on board such as the idea of an ethics committee and the opposition to human reproductive cloning,” he says.

While opponents of the legislation have refined their 1995 tactics, multinational drug companies have had to rethink their strategy after the painful rejection of the earlier proposal.

“Up until March 1995, the pharmaceutical industry had not woken up to the implications of Maastricht and the fact that it gave MEPs more powers. When the Parliament used its veto, it was a very effective way of concentrating their minds,” explains one observer.

A change of tactics was inevitable. In 1995, the pharmaceutical industry primarily used its various trade associations and federations to put across its views, and these were invariably articulated by scientists and patent lawyers. “They might have been familiar with the industry, but they did not understand the Parliament,” recalls one official.

Now, individual companies and their government affairs staff, who have a good knowledge of the Parliament's inner workings and pressure points, are playing a far more prominent role in explaining the need for the EU patent legislation.

“MEPs are very busy, busier than national parliamentarians, and the main difficulty is in getting views across to them when they have a very crowded agenda. You have to prove that your issue is more important than the others,” explains David Earnshaw, director of government affairs at SmithKline Beecham pharmaceuticals.

The parameters of the debate have also been changed by the presence of patient groups. Largely silent two years ago, they are now among the more vocal participants. By focusing on the potential medical benefits of biotechnology, they have added an extra dimension to the economic arguments of finance and jobs which industry is advancing in support of the patent legislation.

Alastair Kent, of the European Alliance of Genetic Support Groups, says his organisation's perspective “is one that does ring bells with many MEPs”. Its views have been put across in one-to-one meetings and in a series of workshops and seminars for parlamentarians.

The appearance of the patient groups has been criticised by some who claim they are tools financed by pharmaceutical companies. It is an allegation Kent rejects.

“We are financed from a range of sources, including our own groups, donations in kind and the Commission. We have some support from industry, but we only accept funding as long as there are no strings attached. Provided that is accepted, we would take anyone's money or else we would not be able to put our views across,” he explains.

The drugs industry also rejects the allegations. “Patient groups are end-users of industry's products. They are staffed by people who do not want to be patients. They have a passion and desire to save themselves and their families. They are not the sort of people you can buy,” insists Earnshaw.

Some Euro MPs readily admit their annoyance and fatigue at being constantly under siege. “The whole thing has been overkill. We have been lobbied from all sides and I personally am receiving about 20 letters a day. It has got to the point where people are no longer reading the material or listening to the arguments,” complains one senior member.

But another target, UK Socialist MEP David Martin, believes that the patient groups and animal welfare campaigners have been among the most successful practitioners of the lobbyist's art.

“The people who do best are those who are trying to influence the content of the legislation, not to get the directive rejected outright. I feel that both the Commission and the legal affairs committee have produced legislation which will defend the EU's commercial interests, safeguard patients and provide animal welfare protection,” he says.

Despite the complaints of some colleagues, Collins is convinced that the degree of outside interest as MEPs process the biotechnological legislation is an excellent litmus test of the institution's status. “A parliament which is not lobbied might as well not be there,” he says.