Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-09-28-Speech-4-033"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060928.4.4-033"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
".
Mr President, I should like, in a telegraphic way, to respond to and summarise what I think is the message from today’s debate concerning innovation, funding, risks, ethics and the regulatory framework. I shall take them one by one.
Finally, on the regulatory framework, regulatory issues again form an integral part of the action plan. They are concentrated there and the Commission is working in close collaboration with research DGs and DGs active in regulatory aspects, and with external experts, with a view to addressing various uncertainties with regard to potential hazards and exposure, to addressing gaps in knowledge, and to further developing guidelines and methods. The adequacy of existing and future legislation with regard to nanotechnology products is also being examined carefully.
To summarise, without any doubt we need a balanced approach, which is transparent, with a high level of care for public health, safety, the environment and consumer protection, but aimed at exploiting the huge potential of nanosciences and nanotechnologies in research and innovation. Today’s report was a very good opportunity to underline all these components of our approach and I should like to thank honourable Members for their attention to these issues, for the support given to our work and for the concerns they have raised.
On innovation, there is no doubt that nanosciences and nanotechnologies have a very high potential. Nanosciences are very much like information technology. So a breakthrough in this area would provide results for all sectors. That is why it is very important to pay close attention to innovation.
If we were to compare ourselves to the United States, we would find that in many areas we are not lagging behind. However, the one area in which we are truly lagging behind is information technology. If you look at how much money we provide for innovation, research and development, you would find that even structurally, not just globally, we are lagging behind. We should not make the same mistake when it comes to innovation.
We are trying to engage European technology platforms, joint technology initiatives – in which we are very active – and the companies from that area. I agree that the intellectual property issue, IPR, is also important and that is why it has received special attention in the action plan.
Let me now turn to funding. We have two themes which are dealing with that very seriously. One is, of course, nanosciences and nanotechnologies and the other is information and communication technologies. However, there is more than that. There are also the questions that will be dealt with in the European Research Council, in the people programme, in the capacities programme, and in infrastructure – the things connected with regional development. So it is very hard to compare the money that was devoted today to FP6 with the money that will be used in FP7. What I can tell you is that the funding will be increased considerably in comparison with the existing situation.
Again, if we compare the funding in Europe to that in the United States, we must not forget that the framework programme is 5% of European public funding. Therefore, it is obvious, if you compare how much public funding is provided for nanosciences, that it is 30% of that public funding in Europe. Obviously, we are giving it proportionally much higher attention than the Member States are doing. That has to be clearly underlined.
Secondly, in normal circumstances, two thirds of funding should come from the private sector, where we have to focus our attention. So here one of the things we found out – and it was published in August 2006 – was what the decisive elements are according to the companies doing the research in the area of Europe: first, the existence of the market; and second, the knowledge pool, not the wage level. The wage level is almost irrelevant when we talk about knowledge and research and development. These are the areas which need attention.
Thirdly, concerning the risks, it is true that we do not know everything and it would be hypocritical to say that we do, because it is not true. However, we know a lot, and I agree with all those who said that we need to pay proper attention to that in FP7. In the action plan we have also paid proper attention to the questions connected with the risks. Informal collection of inputs for further projects under FP7 has recently been completed. It is also extremely important that the way in which we approach questions of risk should be transparent and that we educate people in the proper way.
Concerning ethics, it is quite clear that we have to maintain the high ethical standards and principles that we have always followed and pay proper attention to that."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples