Proposition 50K2182

Projet de loi relatif à la recherche sur les embryons in vitro.

General information ¶

Submitted by

The Senate

Submission date

March 20, 2001

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

bio-ethics medicine genetic engineering

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

LE FN VB

Abstained from voting

CD&V

Party dissidents ¶

• Richard Fournaux (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

April 2, 2003 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The reporters are just meeting.

I have as rapporteurs Ms Colette Burgeon and Ms Anne-Mie Descheemaeker.

Ladies, try to decide how the work works best. Who wants to start? Have you agreed that first Mrs. Descheemaeker begins and then Mrs. Burgeon follows?

Mr. Speaker, in consultation with my colleague, Mrs. Burgeon, she will present the report on the draft and its discussion, and I will now report on the hearings. Since the vision of experts on this subject is enlightening and necessary for decision-making, I would like to discuss it quite extensively.

The first hearing took place on 26 February. Professor Paul Devroey of the Center for Reproductive Medicine of the VUB calls the proposed design a model for other European countries. It provides the necessary legal certainty in this delicate matter. He calls the text constructive. The text opens up perspectives.

Professor Frank Comhaire, professor of internal affairs at the University of Ghent, largely agrees with the vision of Professor Devroey. However, he focuses his attention primarily on the possible gender selection. He notes that for several years there has been a growing imbalance between the birth of boys and girls. He calls that gender selection not a form of eugenism, or intervention in the improvement of the person, because there is no research on the embryo itself. The medical intervention takes place at the time of fertilization. The criticism of the very high cost of that treatment would disappear if the licensing method would be allowed in Belgium. Their

The professor says that often there is hope for either a daughter or a son, so some couples continue to have children until a child with the desired sex is finally born. He wondered if those other children are very desirable. He is also convinced that the birth of a child with the desired sex makes the parental project more valuable, increases happiness and thus improves the health of parents and child, especially than mental health.

Professor Comhaire acknowledges that the method ⁇ is not always efficient and does not always provide hit certainty, namely about 75% for a boy and 85% for a girl. The speaker does not understand why this treatment should be prohibited.

Sexuality and reproduction are private affairs as long as they do not negatively affect the community and those involved.

Professor Ingeborg Liebaers, head of service of the Center for Medical Genetics of the VUB, appreciates the design. The research conducted by the professor is primarily focused on the detection of genetic defects in embryos of risk couples. In those situations, the proposed design provides the possibility of implanting a healthy embryo after pre-implantation diagnosis, thereby avoiding any later termination of a pregnancy.

Professor André Van Steirteghem, Head of Reproductive Medicine at VUB, also recognizes the value of the design that opens new perspectives in relation to diagnosis and possible treatment. The establishment of a controlling, federal commission delights him and will also be able to reassure the public. He emphasizes the need to create embryos for specific studies for which there is no alternative, subject to the consent of the donors. He also points out the possibilities embryonic stem cells will offer against a large number of diseases.

In the subsequent discussion, Ms. Descheemaeker asks whether embryonic stem cells offer so much more possibilities than stem cells from umbilical blood or adult stem cells. It also responds to the causes of the imbalance in the birth rate. If, as the professor also said, environmental factors play an important role in this, can we not better address the cause? She does not consider gender selection for the sake of the preference of parents as a medical reason.

Also Mr. Germeaux fears that gender selection can lead to abuse and does not see the social added value thereof. Ms. Burgeon believes that the large price bar will prevent all parents from having the option of gender selection. Where is that famous free choice?

Professor Van Steirteghem responds that umbilical cord blood contains insufficient stem cells for the treatment of adults. Professor Comhaire confirms the need to work on the environmental factors that play a role in the birth rate, but that will only have a long-term effect. He believes that the value added of gender selection is determined by the parents concerned and not by science or society.

Mrs Van de Casteele wants to know how much demand there is for gender selection. Professor Comhaire confirms that the demand is limited because most parents give up on the existing situation. Professor Liebaers notes that many parents prefer to have one girl and one boy, and that if there were simple methods, they might use them. Professor Devroey reminds that the Bioethics Advisory Committee also states in its opinion that selection is only justified for the prevention of sex-related diseases.

Mrs. Avontroodt asks for the role of the federal committee in a negative opinion from the local ethics committee. Professor Comhaire would like to initiate an appeal procedure for unfavorable advice. Professor Liebaers thinks it is logical that a research project is dismissed upon adverse advice from the local committee. Both Professor Devroey and Professor Van Steirteghem consider the extended consent procedure highly justified. A second hearing took place in the morning of 11 March. Professor Axel Kahn, director of the Institut Cochin de génétique moléculaire, begins his presentation with a detailed description of the concepts of regenerative medicine, embryonic stem cells and so-called therapeutic cloning. The professor affirms that each human embryo is unique, but sees no contradiction in the use of deadly registered overtalled embryos in the framework of research projects of high scientific and moral quality.

As far as therapeutic cloning is concerned, he has objections. He strongly doubts the usefulness of a medicine which, in order to cure one patient, may require hundreds of human egg cells and a number of cloned embryos to take cells from there, which to multiply and stimulate to grow into a cell population that should provide healing. After that, it is necessary to verify whether those cells can actually have a therapeutic effect and not be carcinogenic.

The professor, therefore, is rather eager to face a technique that will require the sacrifice of so many eggs and opens so few medical perspectives. Professor Kahn is therefore not a supporter of therapeutic cloning. He rejects the creation of embryos for research. He does this taking into account the realistic scientific goal and the therapeutic perspectives facing the social and moral objections. Their

Professor Thomas D'Hooge of the VERTILITY CENTER of the KUL claims that embryonic research should only be allowed if all other possibilities were examined. However, he wants preliminary research on relevant models of animals. He wants this especially for primates. He complains that research on human embryos is possible. However, preclinical research on embryos of primates is prohibited. He also states that more research is needed on body cells, sperm cells and non-fertilized eggs. He believes that there should be priority research on body stem cells. Their

Professor Christine Verellen-Dumoulin, head of the Centre de génétique humaine at UCL, also calls the design a positive initiative. It creates a framework for research. They prefer not to use the term therapeutic cloning, but nuclear transfer or nuclear transfer. She also has questions in creating embryos as a source of therapeutic cells. This is due to the fact that research on animal cells has not yet been completed. After all, there is fear of disruptions and health problems. It seems to her that it is justified to consider over-sized embryos as potential donors of stem cells. With the same therapeutic value, the use of adult stem cells or stem cells from umbilical cord blood should be encouraged. Their

Professor Cassiman of the Center for Human Heredity at the KUL claims that stem cell research on embryonic, fetal or adult stem cells gives a great therapeutic potential. It does that as well as cell nuclear transfer or cloning. However, there is still insufficient evidence about the safe application. All research on clones is still very empirical. Further investigation into the fundamental mechanisms is therefore important. Furthermore, embryos are always tested in the context of a reproductive process in order to limit the number of embryos implanted, and therefore multiple embryos.

Most geneticists are reluctant to make a list of serious abnormalities because the subjective experience of an abnormality varies greatly from person to person.

According to Professor Cassiman, there is no doubt that researchers did not wait for a legal arrangement. Therefore, it is time to clearly define the framework and the boundaries. For him, it is more important to indicate on which material research can be carried out rather than to describe all aspects of research. For this purpose, it is essential that the Federal Commission is established simultaneously with the entry into force of the law. This committee will monitor all investigations and will also continue to work to help define the limits of the permissible clearly and dynamically.

Mr Custers, manager of the Flemish Interuniversity Institute for Biotechnology, says that the VIB also fully supports a legal framework for research on embryos. However, he raises questions about the possible use of human embryonic stem cells in business laboratories. Mr. Custers believes that therapeutic cloning will also have to take place outside centers of reproductive medicine or human heredity. However, this cannot be done without their involvement, because for every therapy eggs are needed. According to him, companies will form a necessary link to the final application. According to him, it should be possible for companies to fulfill this role through an agreement with a university healthcare program for reproductive medicine within the pre-established strict ethical standards and only for overwhelming purposes.

In the subsequent discussion, Mr. Mayeur and Mrs. Descheemaeker asked where Professor Kahn’s opposition to therapeutic cloning lies. Professor Kahn replies that his mindset consists in weighing the benefits against the disadvantages. He affirms the positive aspects, especially the interesting knowledge, but refers to the moral objections to the production of embryos.

He is ⁇ afraid of controversial ways of obtaining eggs, and he also disputes the indispensability of that technique.

Mrs. Gilkinet asks whether that design provides sufficient guarantees for women. Also, Ms. Descheemaeker notes that a huge number of eggs are needed in therapeutic cloning.

Ms. Avontroodt and Ms. De Meyer ask how the centers of reproductive medicine are facing an extension of research to other laboratories, i.e. corporate laboratories.

Professor D'Hooghe clarifies that women are indeed in danger if the federal commission did not play its role. Professor Cassiman also confirms this. Professor Cassiman has no problem with the fact that cells can be patented. Only the embryo should be protected.

The next hearing took place in the afternoon of 11 March.

Dr. Lambotte of the Order of Physicians emphasizes that it is not up to the Order to take a moral or life-visual standpoint, but to examine the deontological duties. In the draft, these requirements are taken into account. However, he points out the danger of instrumentalizing the woman’s body as a producer of eggs for research purposes.

Dr. Spitz, chairman of the Committee on Ethics of the Order, states that there is no plenary opinion on this subject. He sees that embryonic medicine will become a separate discipline in the future. Specifically, the question arises how donors will be recruited and how they will be protected. Gamets and embryos should not become a passport. He wants to avoid the possibility that the demand for gametes and embryos can become subject to economic laws, of which first the socially weaker can become the victim. Who and how often may participate in such procedures should be clearly defined.

Another focus is the protection of donor identity and professional secrecy, while the traceability of cell lines is necessary.

Finally, Dr. Spitz draws attention to the possible patentability, thus the patenting of stem cells, which, however, should never give the right to exclusive use or to an unpaid price.

He refers to what happened to the gene that can cause breast cancer.

Professor Michel Dupuis of the bio-ethical committee of the UCL is delighted that finally a legislative text can be introduced that can address the current ambiguous and hypocritical situation. However, he continues to question the status of the embryo and the fact that there is not enough distinction between normal embryonic production and cell nucleus transfer for therapeutic cloning in the context of cell therapy to prevent rejection. He also refers to the underlying problem of egg stimulation, namely the possible commercialization of eggs by voluntarily vulnerable persons, such as poor people or prisoners.

Professor Mylène Baum, a member of the bio-ethical committee of UCL, notes that an embryo can be considered as a potential or as a real person. However, she disagrees with the view that the moment of conception indicates the beginning of a new life that is exclusively focused on a unique and irreversible entity with rights.

She does not want to demonize the progress in research on developmental genetics and does not want the rights of women to their bodies and their reproductive rights to be undermined in the name of the protection of the embryo. She calls for emphasis on the gender dimension and on the women who are donors, because they are psychosocially vulnerable. Only women must bear the experimental burdens and take risks in the context of medical-guided reproduction. She also expresses her fear of the exploitation of women, especially in the poor South where infertility often causes social exclusion.

As for therapeutic cloning, it follows the vision of Professor Atlan who calls the transfer of the nucleus from an adult cell into an empty egg not an embryo, but an artefact.

Such artifacts shall never give rise to a human or animal organism. However, it may be the basis for new therapeutic concepts. A modified embryo should never be implanted into the womb. If this happens, the test will no longer be carried out on the embryo, but on the woman. She advocates using only artifacts developed from stem cells for research. She thus makes the distinction between what she calls an embryo and what she calls an artefact. This is the implantation of an adult cell nucleus into an empty egg. Their

In the exchange of opinions, Ms. Gilkinet points out the importance of who determines the subject of the study. She does so because there would not always be a reason to justify the creation of embryos. In this, both the local ethics committee and the federal committee will bear a huge responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, our committee examined this bill submitted by the Senate during its meetings of 18 and 26 February and 11, 12 and 13 March 2003.

In his introductory presentation, Minister Tavernier specified that the bill defines the terms, conditions, places and controls to be observed in the context of embryonic research. The formation of in vitro embryos for research purposes shall be prohibited unless the objectives of the research cannot be achieved by research on overnumerous embryos.

Egg stimulation is permitted provided that it is scientifically justified and that the woman concerned is adult and expresses her written consent. The bill also prohibits the implantation of embryos in humans, in animals, the conduct of research of eugenic character or focused on the selection of gender, with the exception of the selection allowing to exclude embryos with sex-related diseases.

Research on embryos for commercial purposes is also prohibited. Human reproductive cloning is prohibited. Therapeutic cloning, on the other hand, is implicitly permitted as long as it meets the conditions of article 3 of the bill. Any research on in vitro embryos must be submitted to the local ethics committee, which shall give an opinion on the matter within two months.

A Federal Commission for Medical and Scientific Research on In vitro Embryos is tasked, among other things, with ensuring compliance with the law. Finally, the bill responds to existing needs but will need to be supplemented on the basis of the opinions that will be given regarding the use of embryos and eggs, therapeutic cloning and germinal and somatic gene therapy.

Ms. Descheemaeker then specified the scope of her proposals 429 and 402. For the interviewer, it is important to delimit, according to social and ethical considerations, the power of scientists. Scientific progress must be encouraged while taking into account the precautionary principle. by

It is necessary to balance the usefulness of research and the protection of embryos. by

The proposed bill differs from the bill on several points. The creation of embryos for research purposes is prohibited. Therapeutic cloning is not allowed. And finally, the third, pre-implantation diagnosis is only permitted if this technique is indicated on the medical level to detect hereditary or chromosomal abnormalities.

by Mr. Paque emphasizes that Ms. Milquet’s Bill No. 157 consists of the prohibition of interventions aimed at introducing a modification in the genome of the offspring, as well as the prohibition of human cloning. The bill seeks to guarantee the respect and protection of the uniqueness of each human person, the prohibition of deciding on the genetic characteristics of an unborn child, the conception of the human person as a goal and not as a means and, finally, the sexual character of human reproduction.

Pre-implantatory and prenatal diagnostic techniques pose ethical issues and justify certain restrictions or prohibitions. Article 3 of the bill aims to prohibit the deliberate induction of changes in the genome of the offspring. Human cloning is unacceptable. Penal provisions sanctioning violations of Articles 3 and 4 are provided.

The committee then decided to hear several experts at its meetings of 26 February and 11 March 2003. Ms. Descheemaeker has just intervened for this part of the report.

In the general discussion, Mr. Hondermarcq found that the bill generates broad consensus. He stressed that it belongs to political leaders to decide and that it would be irresponsible to abandon researchers and doctors to the pressures of a sometimes conditioned patientry, as well as commercial interests.

The ethical problems raised in this area concerning human dignity imply that one refuses to consult only the specialists in the matter.

by Mr. Hondermarcq believes that a profound pedagogical work needs to be deployed, especially towards young people. There is no doubt that unprecedented moral choices will be presented to citizens in the coming years.

by Mr. Bultinck recalls, for his part, that the work of the special committee responsible for bioethical problems created in January 2001, was crowned in an unglorious way by the vote of the bill under consideration. Until now, Belgium has not provided itself with a legal framework surrounding the scientific research on embryos. This legislative gap was used as an argument to justify Belgium’s abstinence at the adoption by the Council of Europe of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedical Medicine of 4 April 1997.

The political group to which the speaker belongs has submitted a draft resolution calling on the government, I quote: "to sign without delay and without reservation, the Convention of the Council of Europe on Human Rights and Biomedicine". The speaker also regrets the orientation of the text, which he considers too lax. For him, it would have been better to limit itself to authorising research for the prevention of serious genetic diseases and to prohibit, in all cases, the constitution of embryos for the sole purpose of research.

As for me, I emphasized the great interest of the hearings organized by the Commission. I felt that the debates should be avoided from turning into passionate or leading to ideological clashes. This is primarily about providing concrete answers to the advances of science. by

There is a broad consensus that the commercialization of human beings should be prohibited. Any research pursuing eugenic objectives, as well as the implantation of human embryos in animals or vice versa, should also be prohibited.

Scientists are demanding a legal framework as medical knowledge on the possibilities of using stem cells evolves rapidly.

The bill creates a structure charged with an important role in granting the authorization to conduct scientific research.

In the future, it will be necessary to be vigilant with regard to economic or commercial aspects and to provide for labels in order to avoid the commercialization of the body of the woman.

The Federal Commission will constitute an additional guard in this regard.

Reproductive cloning is prohibited. Current legislation varies from country to country. In the United States, federal laws prohibit the use of public funds in funding research on human cloning. This work can be carried out by private companies. Around thirty countries, from Australia to Japan through most European countries, have so far passed legislation banning the application of reproductive cloning. I concluded my speech by reminding that such a law has become an absolute priority for our country. The news of the last few weeks proves this and we remember the unproven claims of Clone Aid.

by Mr. Goutry supported the development of a clear legislative framework for embryonic research. However, it expresses a fundamental objection to Article 4, which permits, under certain conditions, the formation of embryos solely for research purposes. There is, in fact, sufficient embryonic material to conduct research on overnumerous embryos. The CD&V group believes that human life, from its beginnings to its end, deserves respect.

Belgium has dissolved itself from the international community in relation to the ratification of the Council of Europe Convention. During the hearings, Professor Kahn said that authorizing therapeutic cloning would open the door to reproductive cloning. by Mr. Goutry believes that scientific progress must be able to develop without being systematically blocked by ethical considerations. Belgium has useful tools in this regard and can rely on the expertise of academics and scientists. The speaker submits an amendment to amend Article 3 of the draft, so as to allow only research on overnumerous embryos. It emphasizes the need for an absolute ban on the use of genetic material for commercial purposes.

Ms. Descheemaeker notes that biomedical advances will undoubtedly contribute to the well-being of society, but some scientists play the magic apprentices. The hearings show that scientists themselves are demanding adequate regulation. Research on overnumbered embryos and a fortiori on constitute embryos may be conducted only if all alternatives have been exhausted. She further emphasizes the need for the adoption of the bill that sets limits to uninterrupted research on embryos.

by Mr. Paque says that despite the positive advances contained in the bill, the CDH will vote against the bill because it does not adequately protect the embryo and the woman. The human embryo is fully instrumentalized. The creation of the human embryo is ethically unacceptable with regard to the status of the embryo as a potential human person, and unjustified because, in the current state of science, there is sufficient other research material such as animal material, gamets and other human cell material or the remaining embryos of an in vitro fertilization project. Donation with the consent of the persons concerned would be a substitute for the destruction of embryos or the donation of the same embryos, without the framework of a parental project.

With regard to therapeutic cloning, the prospects should be balanced with ethical considerations related to the risk of complete embryonic intrumentalization as well as the risk of commercialisation of human body products. It should not be overlooked the wide range of possible research from other sources of both animal and human stem cells, stem cells derived from umbilical cord blood, fetal tissue and overnumerous embryos.

Ovarian stimulation is a painful technique and involves medical risks. It is expressly permitted in the project but remains unacceptable, because it violates the dignity of women. Furthermore, disregarding the precautionary principle, genetic therapy is permitted while there is international consensus to not apply this therapy at the moment.

Finally, the opinion of the Federal Assessment Commission is not prevailing, since the local ethics committees may exceed its opinion if the committee has not taken a decision within two months.

The project does not insist sufficiently on the subsidiary nature of research on human embryos.

Ms Drion cited some extracts from the individual note filed in the Annex to Opinion No. 18 of the Bioethics Advisory Committee. These insist on the fact that the protagonists of the experiments are primarily women. The social question is that the debiologization of filiation, by the asexual reproduction it allows, could question the social achievements of women. The consensus is around the need to preserve the dignity of women by putting intensive techniques of assisted reproduction at the sole service of the needs of women. On the basis of these considerations, the speaker considers it necessary to arouse a public debate on the issue of women’s rights. It requires assurance that women will be fully informed of all aspects related to embryonic experimentation. Further clarifications should also be made regarding the right of women to information, a parity representation within the Federal Commission in matters of possible appeal, resources allocated to the Federal Commission and the report drawn up by the researcher.

Van de Casteele emphasized the general will to protect both women and the embryo and noted that the bill was drafted on the basis of existing practice. The project clearly prohibits gender selection techniques. Is it appropriate to proceed with such a prohibition in a text aimed solely at research on embryos? Research cannot be continued for commercial purposes, but few women are ready, apart from a parental project, to undergo trial treatment that allows them to produce ovocytes. Scientists are also aware of the need to limit research to what is strictly necessary, taking into account the amount of embryonic material available, and to promote stem cell research. The interviewer doubts whether it is appropriate to allow commercial laboratories to conduct research on embryos in vitro. In the end, it states that it does not necessarily want to exclude reproductive cloning for the future.

by Mr. Germeaux submitted to the remarks of Mrs Van de Casteele. The VLD group will support the bill which, apart from a few details, is also supported by the scientific world. by Mr. Germeaux also believes that the door should not be completely closed to reproductive cloning. The only fact that some scientists think about it deserves a thorough reflection.

Minister Tavernier, in conclusion, clarified that it is not his responsibility to regulate research on embryos. Some remarks must be made, however. Women are the first concerned. They must receive the correct information on the risks and manipulations to which they may be subjected. The issue of parity within the Federal Commission is a requirement that must be aimed at. by

In the assessment of the law, it should be possible to analyze whether the two-month period to submit an opinion is likely to make adjustments for the Federal Commission.

The embryonic formation for research purposes remains a subsidiary solution to which the researcher can only resort after having exhausted all existing alternatives.

I will conclude this report, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, by pointing out that all the proposed amendments have been rejected in the discussion of the articles. I am referring to my written report.

The whole bill was adopted by 7 votes against 2 and 2 abstentions.

To shorten the debates, Mr. Speaker, let me now be allowed to express my group’s opinion on this important project.

The Socialist Group is delighted that a legislative text on in vitro embryonic research is finally coming to light in Belgium. It will help to get out of the unrighteousness and ambiguity of the current situation. He also has the merit of frameworking research aimed at current knowledge on fertility and sterility. All the scientists we consulted agree on the subject.

The aim is, therefore, to guide the scientific research on the embryo and to avoid debris through a strict and binding framework. While there is broad consensus that the commercialisation of human beings should be prohibited, any research pursuing eugenic purposes, as well as the implantation of human embryos in animals, or vice versa, should also be prohibited.

Medical knowledge about the possibilities of using stem cells is evolving rapidly. They offer interesting perspectives for infertility problems and for treatments for certain serious diseases. by

The bill creates a structure charged with an important role in granting the authorization to conduct scientific research. In the future, it will be necessary to be vigilant on economic and commercial aspects. It should not in any case come to a situation that would instrumentalize the body of the woman. Therefore, it is necessary to provide labels in this regard.

An evaluation of the law based on the latest scientific discoveries will have to be planned in the future. Equality should also be achieved within the Federal Commission.

We also welcome that reproductive cloning is finally banned. Around thirty countries, from Australia to Japan, through most European countries, have so far passed legislation banning reproductive cloning. Our country is therefore deliberately in this perspective.

I will conclude, Mr. President, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, by emphasizing how this law has become today an absolute priority for our country. It will be in the future to be cautious of any form of research limitation and to apply to regulate future results of such research.

Yesterday we put on the agenda two draft laws relating to domestic affairs. The first is a draft law on surveillance companies, security and internal surveillance services and another series of others in the same sense. This includes the bills 2328 and 2329 plus the bill of Mr. Leterme, document 902/1 and 2. Second, there is the draft law on the new municipal law with another draft law on youth protection.

For the sake of convenience and after consultation with the Chairman of the Committee on Home Affairs, I would put this on the agenda at 14.30. This allows the Committee on Internal Affairs to suspend its work and resume it later. I have also agreed on this with the Minister of Interior, Mr Duquesne. After that, I would start with the revision of the Constitution, because the discussion — according to colleague Tant — will not take much time. This is therefore approved. The afternoon meeting will begin with this.

I have registered the following colleagues in the general discussion: Mr. Bacquelaine, Mr. Bultinck, Mr. Paque, Mr. Germeaux, Mrs. Drion or Mrs. Gilkinet — depending on the questions they will ask in the committee — Mrs. Descheemaeker and ⁇ Mrs. Dardenne.

We will try to organize the agenda according to the availability of colleagues. by Mr. Tant will take over the chairmanship of the session when I will attend the Conference of Presidents at 11:30.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, the field of living research brings both great hopes and great hopes for a better quality of life.

Alongside this hope and hope, the search for the living also leads to a number of anxieties with regard to possible derivatives. This research opens a debate and correlates science and the development of various fantasies. We believe that the development of science and technology does not know and should not know a slowdown. On the contrary, in this area, progress is constant or must be and is being considered at an increasingly accelerated pace.

The evolution of law, on the other hand, is probably slower and more measured. It follows that legislation and regulations are increasingly frequently inadequate, inadequate or phased out in relation to new situations generated by the advances of science and technology.

It seems to me that the political world cannot restrain itself in the role of an observer, even attentive, while every day scientific innovations are put into practice on the ground.

A double danger would arise from this legislative attentism. On the one hand, there would be the risk of increasing the areas of non-law or legal insecurity for all those involved, whether they are doctors or scientists, donors, recipients, subjects of experiments.

Furthermore, it is imperative to protect society against abuse, against dangerous decisions or improvisations. Scientific evolution cannot accommodate new doctors Frankenstein.

The legislator has, therefore, the duty to intervene to create the conditions for a scientific development respectful of human rights, but which does not obstruct any path whose exploration may lead to human progress or to the relief of suffering.

Likewise, the legislator must act not only through prohibitions, but also through guidance and control. Those who would choose the total ban would make a mistake, consisting in refusing to improve knowledge and combat suffering, cancers, serious genetic diseases, physical or mental disabilities, in short, those who would oppose research advocating the return to health.

Research on embryos is one of today’s sophisticated means of medical research. It raises many hopes but also raises a number of ethical questions. This method of experimentation is already present, we know, in some laboratories. He would now obey certain more or less concrete ethical rules, acquired but not codified. Given the constant evolution of these techniques, the importance they are likely to take in biomedical research and some major deviations that tend to manifest — the press has widely echoed them — it is important that a legal arrangement comes to frame this research. This is the meaning and necessity of the project that is presented to us today.

When we talk about cloning, we commonly distinguish between reproductive cloning and therapeutic cloning. Some believe that reproductive cloning should be banned radically — I share this option — and that therapeutic cloning should simply be framed. Others consider that if the door to therapeutic cloning is allowed and opened, it must be oriented towards the feasibility of reproductive cloning. I recognize the accuracy of this analysis in the sense that, indeed, cloning, whether therapeutic or reproductive, proceeds from exactly the same methodology.

Not of the same purpose, but of the same methodology, in the sense that the transfer of a nuclear material into a nucleated ovocyte, whether it is done for therapeutic research or for the creation of a finite human being, is the same methodology. It is clear that if progress is made in therapeutic cloning, it makes possible, in the end, later, reproductive cloning.

This raises the question of the freedom of science. Can scientific progress be channeled, stopped, at some point, because it would create the possible conditions for the creation of a derivative? I think this way of seeing things is quite castrating compared to scientific progress. I am very reserved about this viewpoint because, at the limit, we should also prohibit the sale of cooking knives because they can actually serve for certain murders! If reasoned in this way, everything that the human being creates or invents on this earth can be misoriented, can be used for purposes contrary to human rights, to the rules of ethics. It could then also be prohibited any research, whatever, in the various fields of human activity.

What should guide us is the framework of this research to ensure that derivatives are considered illegal. There must be rules and limits, as in all matters. There must be a reminder of the standard and there must be a penalty when these standards are exceeded.

The law we are examining today meets the objective of framing scientific research. The basic principle of reproductive cloning is completely excluded. Therapeutic cloning is only permitted under strictly defined conditions. The scientific and ethical conditions of research are strictly codified. The criterion of scientific usefulness is confirmed as the only basis for research. And in this regard, it seems to me—and I use the word “scientific utility” intentionally—that this opens the debate on the instrumentation, the “chosification” or the reification of living human material and on the notion of utilitarism. Does embryonic research come from utilitarism?

Some make a distinction between research on overnumbered embryos, i.e. embryos created for a life purpose — in particular in the context of in vitro fertilization — and which are in quantitative excess compared to the parental project, and research on embryos created outside of a parental project, only as part of a research project. Whether one “uses” one or the other of these embryos, one is in any way in utilitarism.

Personally, I find it difficult to distinguish between those who would authorize research on the overnumbered embryo, because it would proceed from a parental project, and those who would refuse research on embryos created for a scientific purpose outside of a parental project. Anyway, the embryo is used, regardless of the reason for which it was created.

Compared to the status of the embryo, there is obviously no difference. The embryo exists. This is a human embryo and it is decided whether or not to do research on this human embryo. This proceeds from an anthropological and strictly philosophical conception that one can have of the very nature of the embryo and its status.

If one considers that this embryo has a full human status, in the sense that it already constitutes a human person, one can obviously make a number of reservations and objections about the research that would be conducted on that embryo. If, on the other hand, it is considered that this embryo does not yet have the characteristics of the full human person, then the research can be considered from another angle.

For my part, I believe that we must allow this research on embryos because it contributes to a project to alleviate human suffering. It is therefore synonymous with the progress of human living conditions in our society. Refusing research on embryos could, in my opinion, resemble a kind of non-assistance in relation to a suffering humanity. We must therefore resolutely opt for the possibility of this research.

Set up priorities? This is of course. Preferably use existing embryos. This is of course; it is, in my opinion, common sense. It is indeed unnecessary to create embryos if there already exists a large number of overnumbered embryos performing in vitro fertilization, in a number sufficient to carry out useful research.

In this case, it would be aberrant to create embryos for research from all parts, while, on the other hand, there would be, in large enough numbers, overnumerous embryos. This is also the position adopted by some academic circles and in particular the Catholic University of Louvain, which accepts the research on overnumerous embryos, considering that it is a possibility to improve health in the long run and to bring relief to human suffering.

First, on overnumerous embryos, then, if necessary, our legislation will allow research on embryos created for research purposes. This research must be agreed upon by an ethics committee. This seems to me especially necessary, we must preserve ourselves from any anarchy or any amateurism in this matter. A double control of scientific value and respect for ethics by the local ethics committee, as I just said, but also by the federal commission, constitutes a guarantee of the orthodoxy of this research on embryos.

It would therefore be of the utmost importance that the Federal Commission has the means of its mission and fulfils it with the greatest rigor and that, as planned, it reports to Parliament. This latter modality, the report to the Parliament, should therefore enable the legislator to follow the evolution of a growing branch of research and, where appropriate, to adapt it, both to the scientific reality and to that of medical and social ethics. I think it is important, as part of this debate, to look at the rules surrounding medical research. We have been confronted with a series of more or less "phantasmatic" or media information, as part of the announcements of the Rael sect...

( ... ...

In what order, Mr Paque?

We have clones of Louis Michel!

I confess that I was very surprised at how the press ⁇ the information of the Rael sect regarding cloning. This announcement was taken, in my opinion, a little too seriously when, apparently, all scientists knew pertinently that it was a mystification. Per ⁇ , at that time, the opinion of informed scientists should have been taken advantageously into account in the context of the information given in this regard.

It is, in my opinion, intolerable that any experiment, whatever it is, be done on humans before it has provided proof that the method is reliable and does not pose a serious danger to the future child. In the animal, it is known that the method is dangerous, that chess is extremely common. The success rate of cloning is around 1 to 2%, especially in cows and mice, which are the two species of mammals where cloning is the most advanced, where it allows the realization of successful specimens. In cows, some specimens have been very successful at the National Institute of Agricultural Research in France. There has been a lot of talk about this cow called "Aubade" which gave birth to "Aubade B". However, in order to give birth to "Aubade B", hundreds of eggs had to be taken because, out of this hundred "fertilized" eggs, there were only 30 embryos likely to be implanted. Of the 30 embryos implanted, only a few reached maturity, and only two cows were born from these hundreds of eggs taken. Of the two cows, one died prematurely and the other gave a quite interesting exemplar.

This means that the success rate in cows is extremely low while it is in cows that we have the best result. It seems to me that in the context of animal experimentation, we are still in the failure phase. It is obviously intolerable that we are already moving from the stage of animal experimentation to that of human experimentation. This would pose a considerable risk, both for “porters” mothers and for unborn children. We must therefore resolutely and firmly oppose reproductive cloning in the current conditions of scientific research. The medical ethics prohibits the use in humans, even with their consent, I insist, of a procedure or even “a medicine whose effectiveness and safety would not have been demonstrated in the animal. Reproductive cloning is therefore intolerable, is an intolerable experiment on humans and a violation of the bio-ethical rules arising in particular, I recall, from the Nuremberg trial on the atrocities of Nazi doctors. by

Therapeutic cloning is the cloning for a derivation of pluripotent stem cells and thus of "autologous" tissues for a generating therapy of damaged organs. The debate on cell-sounds is also ⁇ interesting. Some argue that we do not need embryonic research, that we do not need embryonic cells. Some consider not only that adult stem cells are sufficient, but also that they offer more guarantees than embryonic stem cells, in particular with regard to the principle of cell differentiation. As we all know, if the cell is unable to differentiate, it is potentially carcinogenic. Treatment had to be stopped because it caused cancer outbreaks.

The question must therefore be asked. This is part of medical research, but this research must be allowed to operate. It cannot be considered today both that the stem cells of such a type would be less performing than those of such another and that this finding is valid ad vitam aeternam. Precisely, science and scientific research imply, impose, that we constantly question the findings that we make today or that we will make tomorrow. This scientific research needs to be developed.

Research on embryos is quite crucial, especially in the field of pre-implantable diagnosis that must be defended. Indeed, from the moment we have the means to do so, we also have the duty to avoid the creation of suffering and diseases, while one would know appropriately how to avoid them. This research on embryos is therefore indispensable even though it must be firmly framed in order to avoid any abuse in the matter.

Some believe that reproductive cloning would proceed from a strictly moral prohibition. I repeat that it is not about my sense of morality in this regard, it is simply about avoiding creating suffering. As much as therapeutic cloning can bring relief from suffering, so much reproductive cloning, as we can see in the animal kingdom, currently brings more suffering than progress. This is what should guide us in the refusal to allow any reproductive cloning, in the current state of our research.

I will end by quoting Professor de Duve, Nobel Prize winner in medicine and who seems to me well understand the problem. When asked about the question of reproductive cloning and manipulation of the human genome, he says this: “I think it is a mistake to deify nature, to say that it is right because it is natural. Nature is neither wise nor benevolent, nor is it evil. She is indifferent. It follows the law of natural selection. Nature has as much concern for the scorpion as for the poet. If we humans have emerged, it is because natural selection has favored, from generation to generation, the genetic modifications that led to larger brains. To the extent that we can replace the blind game of evolution with conscious action, programmed for a determined purpose and done with measure and wisdom, I believe that not only can we do it, but that we must do it. It is in some way our responsibility to use our knowledge. Of course, there is huge resistance, which I also endorse. I believe that we should move forward with great caution in this area and limit ourselves for the moment to interventions purely therapeutic. First of all, you should only use proven techniques that do not involve any risks. These techniques do not exist yet, but they will exist someday, this seems very likely. At that point, we cannot prevent men and women, somewhere in the world, from going further.”

This vision of Professor de Duve, who is a high-flying scientist — if I can afford to express it — seems to me to summarize the state of the question at the time when we are debating this delicate matter. It seems to me that the law we will vote today or tomorrow constitutes a real advance over the possibility of improving the fate of humanity or the human condition.

It is in this spirit that we will support this bill.

Mr. President, you would like to replace me as President. I think you will have to continue to work until 13:00, if you can, and then we will resume our work at 14:30, but you decide for yourself.

On 8 February 2001, a special committee on bioethical issues was established in the Senate. The aim of this committee was to create a legal framework for certain biomedical applications, in particular to create a legal framework for research on embryos. In fact, the absence of a legal arrangement for that embryonic testing was a very important cause for the fact that the Belgian government, unlike the governments of 22 other European countries, failed to sign the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedical Medicine, adopted on 16 November 1996 by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe.

The main reason for the Belgian Government’s refusal to sign the Convention is that there is a disagreement with regard to Article 18 of the Convention, which stipulates that where research on overgrown embryos is permitted by national legislation, adequate protection of the embryo must be guaranteed and that the signatory Member States agree to the principle that the creation of human embryos for scientific purposes should be prohibited. Indeed, in the absence of that legal arrangement for the examination of embryos in Belgium, the Belgian Government could not invoke Article 36 of the Convention, which allows the signatories to make reservations in respect of a provision of the Convention where a national provision is incompatible with that provision. In other words, the Belgian Government could not make a reservation to Article 18 of the Convention, which prohibits the production of embryos for scientific purposes.

During the previous legislature, namely on 9 July 1998, a draft resolution was already adopted in the Senate following the discussion of the Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedical Medicine. The Flemish Bloc also submitted a proposal for a resolution in the House that was also discussed in the Committee on Foreign Affairs, in which we concluded that, on the one hand, the approval of the principle principles of the Convention were indispensable and the government should therefore indeed sign, and on the other hand, that urgent work should be done of an adapted legislation that should prevent abuses, but which would be in accordance with the principles of the Convention. The position of our party is still the same and therefore we cannot agree with the present bill. Due to the present bill, Mr. Minister, we have at least the impression that the Convention is attempting to circumvent. Nevertheless, the Convention responded to the need to protect every human being from commercialization, taking into account the progress of biotechnology. Furthermore, it is desirable to seek the greatest possible convergence of the legislation of the respective countries, both at European and global levels. We cannot ignore the conclusion, Mr. Minister, that a large number of European countries have indeed transitioned to national legislation in the field of transactions with genital cells and embryos, and in most of them the legislation in this field is much more restrained. I refer here to Germany, Austria, Norway, Spain and France. Denmark, Finland and Sweden ultimately have less restrictive laws in this regard, but are ultimately still more restrictive than what is presented here for discussion today.

Even the United Kingdom, which ultimately offers relatively much space to this end, has a more restrictive legislation than what we ultimately discuss here today. Production of embryos for scientific purposes is permitted in the United Kingdom, but it is very clear that there is a restriction and any research must be submitted in advance to a committee, which first hears experts and then opens the debate to the public opinion. Only then will Parliament decide whether or not to approve the investigation. That is the situation. We do not know this limitation at all.

In addition, I would like to return here, Mr. Minister, to my first oral question, which I asked at the time in the Committee on Public Health. On 19 October 1999, I questioned the then Minister of Public Health about the signing of the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. In her reply, Mrs Aelvoet stated that the restriction of the research on embryos constituted the major obstacle for the Belgian signature of the Convention, even though the Convention provides for the possibility of signing them and making a reservation on any part. The difficulty was that if one made a reservation, one would of course also have to have a concluding national legislation in the matter. Mr. Minister, in fact, Belgium will soon have legislation on scientific research on embryos in vitro. I hope that nothing would hinder the signing of the Convention. Of course, it goes without saying that the additional protocol, which includes a ban on human cloning, will soon have to be signed by this government.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Colleagues, the Flemish Bloc is convinced that biomedical developments can make a significant contribution to the well-being of society and that it is important that the medical science should also have adequate opportunities for development in the future. However, this does not mean that there should be no boundaries, on the contrary. In the absence of regulation, everything is possible at the moment. We urgently need to put a stake and punch on something. For the Flemish Bloc, therefore, it is clear that there is a need for a legal and controllable framework for embryonic studies, but within the limits of the Convention, and this was perfectly possible.

It would have been possible to develop a legal and controllable framework for current practices that would prioritize the protection of the embryo. More and more people are experiencing fertility problems. The Flemish Bloc has always supported techniques of medical-guided reproduction for couples who cannot have children by the natural method. Since these methods are ultimately life-giving and couples choose to create life with the aim of creating life, it is obvious that we also accept the negative side effects of these methods. These effects are then a surplus of embryos that are not implanted and are usually destroyed. Their

From our group, from a human and social point of view, we have always advocated for better reimbursement by health insurance of medical-guided reproduction techniques. This follows logically from our view of man and life. Life-generating measures should indeed be better reimbursed by our social security system. However, this does not apply — as is now the practice — to the reimbursement of abortion. Their

Currently, approximately 8,000 attempts are made annually for medical-guided reproduction. On average, a dozen eggs are fertilized per attempt. This results in an average of about six embryos. To reduce the risks of multiple pregnancies, only about two embryos are usually preserved for implantation. All other embryos are therefore available for other purposes. In most cases, we have to establish that these embryos are destroyed. This happens because the parent couple usually — and ⁇ if they have had a child themselves — still very rarely gives permission to make preserved embryos available to another couple. By the way, the group of parent couples who give permission to conduct scientific research on these over-sized embryos is also not so large. In most cases, these large embryos are simply destroyed. Their

Since the application of IVF techniques inevitably involves the negative effect of excess embryos, it is clear to the Flemish Bloc that scientific research on these excess embryos must indeed be possible. It must then be possible only and only under very strict conditions that there is absolutely no alternative to the research, that this knowledge can contribute to the improvement of the reproduction techniques and has the aim of preventing or treating hereditary genetic diseases. In this case it is of course that informed consent of the couple concerned must be given. Their

The hearings have clearly shown that today in university centers only and only studies are conducted on overcrowded embryos. The professors, by the way, assured us that today no embryos are created to conduct research on them. Nevertheless, our country is indeed a leader and has always played a leading role in scientific research related to the treatment of fertility problems. Currently, there are still plenty of embryos in total. No less than 20,000 embryos are produced annually. Their

The question of committee members during the hearings whether this number would be reduced in the future was answered by the professors, by the way, negatively. Some even believed that scientific evolution would result in an increase rather than a decrease in the number of overwhelming embryos. After all, more and more efforts will be made to actually implant as few embryos as possible. This will automatically increase the number of overcrowded embryos. One must produce these overtalled embryos because the chance of effective pregnancy by the introduction of one embryo eventually increases if one can choose this one embryo from a large number. The legal and controllable framework that, according to the Flemish Bloc, should have been discussed, was therefore to be put within the criteria of research on these overtalled embryos. Their

The question of the ethical acceptability of the research related to medical-guided fertilization has so far been properly answered by the centers for reproductive medicine on an individual basis. There were no criteria or conditions and yet it could be determined that most centers in our country maintain and respect high ethical standards, but the risk of abuse and arbitrariness was ultimately not excluded.

It is, of course, still important to mention a number of royal decrees issued at the time concerning the standardization for health programs of reproductive medicine. There is, of course, a need for a broader legal framework. We must confirm, Mr. Minister, and that disappoints us a little, that the present bill was not really intended to provide a legal framework. As far as we are concerned, this bill goes far too far and therefore we — the Flemish Blok group — cannot approve this bill.

For the Flemish Bloc, it must be very clear that the creation of embryos for research purposes should remain absolutely prohibited. Therefore, Article 4 of the present bill, which, under certain conditions, allows the production of embryos for purely research purposes, is unacceptable for us. As far as we are concerned, gender choice, cloning, and experiments that alter the human properties themselves should also remain prohibited.

In addition to the unacceptability of Article 4, Mr. Minister, I must honestly admit that Article 3 too goes too far for us. Article 3 refers to studies on over-sized embryos, where it is very vaguely defined that they are studies which may prevent diseases. This definition is too broad for us. There is no limitation to genetically related diseases, even no limitation to serious diseases. We could only conclude that the amendment replacing genetic diseases with diseases tout court was approved by the majority parties at that last meeting of the Senate committee at the time. We expressly regret this.

It is therefore obvious that the Flemish Bloc has no other choice but to vote against this bill later, not because it would ultimately only be about a number of details with which we disagree, but because for us it is about a number of fundamental ethical issues that we think here are interpreted too broadly.

For us, Belgium would have ultimately had to sign and ratify the Convention and the Additional Protocol relating to cloning without delay. This Convention provides the necessary safeguards against biomedical waste and aims to protect the dignity and identity of the human being and to respect the integrity and other fundamental rights and freedoms of every person in the application of biology and medicine.

The Convention makes it sufficiently clear that the interest and well-being of man must prevail over the merely interest of science. For us, in other words, the protective value of the embryo counts. This must be and remain the starting point, and in that sense we also opt for absolute respect for the beginning of human life, which is the embryo.

Reflecting on in vitro embryonic experiments is one of the main issues of the debate on the signing and ratification of the Council of Europe Convention on the Rights of the Child and Biomedicine. This convention, inspired by the desire to protect human beings as individuals and in their belonging to society and the human species, also aims to promote a certain harmonisation of national legislation in the sensitive field of bio-medicine.

Belgium, of course, cannot remain on the margins of the European bioethical movement initiated by this convention. However, its signature and ratification is now subject to Belgium’s position on Article 18 of that convention, relating to research on embryos and the creation of human embryos for research.

Article 18 of the Convention stipulates that “When in vitro embryonic research is permitted by law, it ensures adequate protection of the embryo.” Second, “constitution of human embryos for research purposes is prohibited.” Until now, the Belgian Government has not considered itself able to sign the Convention and consequently its Additional Protocol concerning the prohibition of human cloning, with Belgium struggling to take a position on this Article 18. In fact, some believed that it was indispensable for Belgium to make reservations regarding this article.

According to Article 36 of the Convention, it is therefore possible to make a reservation concerning a particular provision of that Convention insofar as existing national legislation is not in conformity with that provision. This reservation may be made either at the time of signature or at the time of ratification of the Convention. Since research on embryos is currently not subject to any legal framework in Belgium, the Belgian Government therefore considered that it was impossible to make a reservation on the provision in question on the basis of Article 36 of the Convention.

The adoption of legislation laying down the conditions of access and the framework for research on in vitro embryos, by ensuring adequate protection for embryos, would therefore allow Belgium to sign and ratify the Convention in compliance with the provisions of Article 18. Conscious of the importance of certain scientific research, in particular on human embryos in vitro, for the advancement of reproductive medicine and the improvement of knowledge and methods of treatment of certain serious diseases, we considered, however, that it was indispensable to organize a precise legal framework for such research in order to give the human embryo the high level of protection it deserves.

For the CDH group, certain research, as long as their purpose is democratically recognized as absolutely imperative, must be able to be conducted on the human embryo in vitro, provided that certain fundamental ethical values are respected. It is important to promote and respect the fundamental value of human dignity. The question of the dignity of the person must include that of the dignity of the human embryo. It would be exaggerated to consider the pre-implantable human embryo as a mere cluster of human cells. The exact nature of the embryo at the first stage of its life remains a mystery from the point of view of scientific ontogenesis, even outside of religious dogmas. Because of this very enigmatic character, the human embryo, from its formation, must enjoy the respect associated with its quality.

The status of the human embryo is uncertain. However, it must be recognized that just as every human being has necessarily been an embryo, the embryo belongs to the human order. The human embryo, if it develops, can only become a human person. As a potential human person, the embryo deserves a high level of protection. For our group, it is important to oppose the tendency to instrumentalize the human being by perceiving it as a mere means or a market object. In this perspective, we intend to prohibit any commercial approach to man and products of his body. Nevertheless, our party is not opposed to any research on overnumbered human embryos from a medical assisted procreation process practiced as part of an initial parental project. However, he demanded that such research be subject to strict rules and be subject to social control. Some of my colleagues Senators also submitted a bill in April 2001 in favour of a legal framework for the research on human embryos called overnumeric. We therefore intend to limit the practice of research on in vitro embryos to only overnumbered embryos from a process of medically assisted reproduction and to prohibit the creation of human embryos for the sole purpose of research. by

Several bills on embryonic research have been submitted to the Senate and the House, showing both the interest of the issue, its timeliness, consensus points and divergences in this matter. The discussion eventually took place on the bill that is being submitted to us today. This project ⁇ contains positive advances, which have almost always been unanimous or the subject of broad consensus within the Public Health Committee. I will quote the most notable, namely, first of all, the prohibition of reproductive human cloning. This prohibition is fundamental. The CDH bill submitted to the Senate, as well as that submitted by my colleague Mrs. Milquet, also made this prohibition clear. by

In the name of the principle of human dignity, of the right of every individual to his own identity and of the risks of instrumentalization of the human being that these techniques may generate, I believe that it is fundamental to oppose the implementation of any form of reproductive cloning. The identity of an individual, as well as its dignity, is also constructed in a process of interaction between individuals. With regard to the clone, the construction of this own identity risks to pose problems in so far as the cloned person will be the genetic quasi-replica, by its physical appearance, of a person already existing and that it will not be two contemporary beings. While the fact of having the same genome does not imply in any way that two people have the same psychism, reproductive cloning inaugurates no less a fundamental disruption of the relationship between genetic identity and personal identity in its biological and cultural dimensions. by

The second point of prohibition concerns the choice of gender, except in cases of sex-related illness. This prohibition also contained in our bill proposal seems to me equally essential. It is urgent to legislate on this point, especially in Belgium where some scientific or medical voices are heard in favor of the choice of sex. Already in its opinion of 17 November 1997 on the choice of sex, the Belgian Bioethics Advisory Committee had considered unacceptable the installation of a “gender clinic”, as pre-conception methods are not reliable and offer no guarantee of good outcome. In addition, the Committee recommended that the application of post-conception methods of gender selection be limited to the prevention of serious hereditary diseases related to sex, and only when it is impossible to make a precise diagnosis of the hereditary disease.

The therapeutic exception allowed, for the rest, I think that choosing the sex of the child, even for reasons of family balance, namely the possibility of choosing the sex of an embryo to ensure a balance between girls and boys within the same family, constitutes the first step towards sexual discrimination. This orientation is very dangerous especially when one knows the little consideration that little girls are subjected to in certain societies. Moreover, accepting to choose the sex of the child means sooner or later accepting to choose another characteristic of an individual, be it his size, the color of his hair, his eyes. Sex planning leads to a tailor-made child and can be a further step towards eugenics.

The CDH is therefore pleased that this prohibition has been reintroduced in the project. However, it seems to me that the provision should be amended to be in line with Article 14 of the Biomedical Convention, which appears to be more restrictive on the possible exception to this ban. The use of reproductive medical assistance techniques may not be permitted to choose the sex of the child to be born, except for the purpose of avoiding a serious hereditary sex-related disease.

With regard to the prohibition of any eugenic practice, we fully support this position, which was also expressed in our proposal submitted to the Senate. However, this ban should have been supplemented by a ban on germinal gene therapy. We believe that the current state of science and technology is far from allowing a sufficiently safe application, without side effects, of germinal gene therapy. Genetic therapy at the level of germinal cells to modify the genes transmitted to the next generation should therefore not be permitted at present.

Furthermore, it was necessary to clarify the concept of eugenic practice: an intervention on the human genome can only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons. Interventions aimed at modifying genetic characteristics that are not related to a ⁇ serious pathology in a subject, such as those that tend to modify behavioral or physical traits that do not constitute a disease or general physical genetic characteristics, should therefore be prohibited.

Last positive point that I will point out, the proposal provides for a procedure for admission and control of research, which involves local ethics committees and involves the creation of a new body, namely the Federal Commission for Medical-Scientific Research on Embryos in vitro. This framework, also provided in our proposal, is absolutely indispensable, even though we differ in terms of access to research and the preponderance of the role played by the Federal Commission. In the project that is submitted to us, the opinion of the local ethics committee is prevailing. Since if within two months the Commission does not take a decision or if it does not issue, within that period, a negative opinion with a two-thirds majority, the research project is authorised. We believe that the opinion of the Federal Commission must remain predominant in order to ensure a kind of unity of jurisprudence.

Despite the positive points it contains, the CDH considers that this project that is submitted to us does not adequately protect the human embryo and the woman.

First, the scope of its application. In the project, research on in vitro embryos is permitted as long as this research is aimed at preventing or treating any disease, whatever it may be. The human embryo becomes fully instrumentalized.

It loses all potential value of being human to become any biological material: an embryo-medicine. This scope is ⁇ wide even compared to the scope of the most liberal foreign legislation in the matter, namely the Spanish and British legislation. Can any disease justify experimenting on a human embryo? We are of the opinion that not.

The CDH proposal, on the other hand, limits in vitro embryo research to therapeutic research for the embryo concerned by this research, to research on fertility problems, design control, as well as research aimed at advancing knowledge on serious genetic disease, a list of these genetic diseases to be established by the Federal Commission for Scientific Research on Embryos in vitro established to control this research.

Furthermore, although the project specifies that in vitro research on embryos is permitted, where there are no alternative research methods with comparable effectiveness, it does not, however, insist sufficiently on the subsidiary nature of research on human embryos and the need for the mandatory transition to animal experimentation.

For CDH, in vitro research on human embryos shall comply with the following principles: - first, this research shall have a subsidiary character compared to other research which may be carried out on other cellular material of animal or human origin of a comparable effectiveness; - then, the research shall first be carried out on the surplus embryos we are viable; - and finally, the research shall be carried out within seven days after fertilization, not including freezing period.

Subsequently, the project authorizes the creation of human embryos, whether this creation takes place by cloning or by donating gametes for the sole purpose of research outside the framework of medically assisted reproduction. For our group, this creation is ethically unacceptable with regard to the status of the embryo as a potential human person, and unjustified because, in the current state of science, there is sufficient other research material, such as animal material, gametes or other human cell material or, if this proves inevitable, the remaining embryos of an in vitro fertilization project.

There are still more than 200,000 embryos frozen in liquid nitrogen and 10,000 over-number embryos obtained during the procreation process are frozen each year. Only half of these embryos are intended to be unfreezed and reintroduced into a reproductive process. In this case, the donation, with the consent of the persons concerned for research, would be an alternative to the destruction of those embryos or to the donation of those same embryos as part of a parental project concerning other persons. by

For its part, the CDH intends to limit the practice of research on embryos in vitro to only overnumerous embryos from a medical assisted procreation process. The ethical acceptability of research on overnumbered embryos can be understood if one has in mind the two driving principles of our reflection, namely the truly and entirely subsidiary character that research on human embryos must have, as well as the prohibition of creating, in a deliberate manner, in the context of medical assisted reproduction of overnumbered embryos for research purposes.

Donation of overnumbered embryos for research purposes is then presented as an alternative to the destruction or donation of those same embryos as part of a parental project. There is a fundamental ethical difference between creating human embryos for research purposes with the prior intention, therefore, to destroy them and, on the other hand, using embryos that have not been created for this purpose. In addition, the creation of human embryos for experimental purposes is prohibited in Europe, with the exception of Great Britain.

Then comes the question of whether therapeutic cloning should be allowed. The therapeutic cloning technique could constitute a dramatic breakthrough in tomorrow’s care prospects. In this regard, however, the ethical objections and the technical and medical obstacles associated with this technique should be confronted with the potential benefits it could offer.

With regard to ethical objections, they are, in our opinion, as follows: to what extent, within what limits and under what conditions is the instrumentalization of the embryo or the egg donor acceptable? We must be aware that in therapeutic cloning there is a complete instrumentalization of the embryo. Its implementation entails the creation of embryos outside any parental project, followed by the destruction of these same embryos. As a result, the embryo loses all human value and all potential value of being human, especially that of its own purpose and dignity, to become really a thing, like any biological material.

This technique also involves a real risk of instrumentalization of ovocyte donors and a risk of marketing, since it is already known that donations by ovarian stimulated women alone as part of an AMP would not satisfy therapeutic needs.

To produce a cloned embryo, it would take at least 100 to 200 eggs. This would create real traffic, rich countries going to serve themselves in poor countries. One cannot fail to raise the question of the origin of the ovocytes and the risk of recourse to ovocyte donors from countries or regions and categories of the poorest population. The issue of the cost of the nuclear transfer technique is also linked to this objection. This technique, which involves creating an embryo for each patient, would be an extremely expensive solution, which would only be reserved for certain patients who could bear the cost.

Furthermore, the technical obstacles and medical risks associated with the application of therapeutic cloning in humans are a scientific reality often silenced. Research has yet to go a long way to control cell differentiation, to prevent tumor-causing risks, to verify actual compatibility with the receiver. Therapeutic cell cloning therapy is therefore a promising horizon but is not a reality. This has been emphasized repeatedly by scientists, ⁇ during hearings by Professor Axel Khan. For him, therapeutic cloning is illusory. “Among serious people, no one believes,” he says, “in therapeutic cloning. The scientists almost unanimously acknowledge that scientific prospects are null and that there are other ways of research to combat transplant rejection.”

In the last objection, which is often denied, the technique underlying therapeutic cloning and reproductive cloning is strictly identical. How can therefore the risk of violation of the prohibition on reproductive cloning be countered if research on therapeutic cloning is allowed. In fact, the same embryos could, in theory, be used for both reproductive and therapeutic purposes. An absolute ban on reproductive cloning at the international level is indispensable and expected.

Furthermore, a reflection on therapeutic cloning must be accompanied by an optimization of the study of alternative treatments to therapeutic cloning which is not yet underway. Does the public know that the most spectacular advances in research have been in adult stem cell materials? It should also be emphasized the potential of fetal stem cells and cells extracted from the blood of the umbilical cord. In the latter case, rejection problems can be solved if cord blood is taken and stored at birth for subsequent therapeutic use.

Furthermore, before authorising therapeutic cloning, should not the conditions necessary to ensure the maximum protection of the egg donor and the embryo be considered? The creation of embryos implies that women are subjected to ovarian stimulation, in order to obtain ovocytes. These ovarian stimulations of the woman in order to obtain these ovocytes, for the sole purpose of research, are expressly permitted in the project, outside the scope of medically assisted procreations and without these being sufficiently protected against the risks of commercialization of these ovocytes.

This stimulation is permitted by the proposed text for practicing research in order to cure any disease. Personally, I find that this provision, in addition to being poorly written, constitutes an unacceptable offence to the dignity of the woman and presents a certain risk of "marketing" of the human body.

In addition, ovocyte sampling is a dangerous technique for women’s health. It must be guaranteed that the risks incurred by the donor as a result of the collection are minimized. However, the text does not contain any particular requirement as to the scope in which this practice can be permitted, as to conditions related to the woman’s personality, except for age, as to the accurate information of the woman and the medical risks that she may incur.

It should at least be provided that the woman who would undergo this ovocyte sampling has already had a child. With regard to consent, Article 8, which deals with the consent of gametes or embryos donors, has a general scope. However, when it comes to taking ovocytes for the purpose of conducting research on therapeutic cloning, I think that a specific consent and information should have been provided and the terms of which should have been defined in law.

Furthermore, it was necessary to organize a very strict process of control and evaluation a priori and a posteriori, of each use of the technique in order to ⁇ very concretely the measurement of the risks and benefits expected and to integrate, not only the immediate effects, but also the more distant and secondary effects of these interventions. The control process proposed as part of the embryo experiment should have been strengthened in this regard.

In addition, according to the authors of the project, everything that is not expressly prohibited is allowed. In addition to the fact that this postulate on bioethics is unacceptable, it should also be emphasized that the list of prohibited practices contained in the project is incomplete on key points.

I would like to point out two basic prohibitions. In addition to the specific prohibition concerning the creation of embryos for research purposes, which the CDH had reiterated in its proposals and which are missing in the project, I will cite the prohibition of conducting research for a profit or with direct and/or indirect remuneration of the persons concerned and the prohibition of practicing germinal gene therapy.

While we can, indeed, welcome that the project provides for the prohibition of using embryos, gametes or embryonic stem cells for commercial purposes, it fails to supplement this prohibition by compensating directly or indirectly the donors or donors of gametes or embryos. This is ⁇ important when considering practices permitted purely and simply by the proposal.

I think that the text should contain at least the prohibition of allocating a payment, whatever its form, to the person who pays for an ovocyte collection, except for the reimbursement of the costs incurred.

Furthermore, in disregard of the precautionary principle, germinal gene therapy is allowed. While somatic gene therapy treats individuals and causes mutations that are not hereditary transmissible, germinal gene therapy, by modifying the genetic capital of reproductive cells, modifies the genome, not only of the individual, but also of his offspring.

There is international consensus for not applying this therapy at the moment, given its unreliability and uncertain side effects on the genome. Should we remember that France has abandoned its research for the moment?

This technique raises questions of principle. In addition to the undisputed objections recognized unanimously at the international level of "health security", the essential question must be raised whether this technique does not infringe on the dignity of the human being who is entitled to inherit a genetic model not modified by human intervention. Is it acceptable to undermine the natural diversity of man? by

The consequences for the biological evolution of humanity are uncertain, given the irreversibility of mutations. Moreover, this position contradicts Article 13 of the Biomedical Convention, which expressly prohibits germinal gene therapy.

Article 26 of the Convention, which prohibits any restriction to certain “protective” provisions contained in the Convention, including in particular Article 13, seems to me already impossible for Belgium to make a reservation on that article.

Article 13 of the Biomedical Convention on Interventions on the Human Genom introduces a distinction between somatic gene therapy and germinal gene therapy. The bill deposited in the House as well as the bill deposited in the Senate expressly stipulate, like the Convention, that an intervention aimed at modifying the human genome may be undertaken only for preventive, diagnostic or therapeutic reasons, and only if it is not intended to introduce a modification in the genome of the offspring.

The current text, in addition to not prohibiting germinal gene therapy, as prescribed by Article 13 of the Biomedical Convention, is not sufficiently clear on the type of interventions that can be undertaken on the human genome.

One last word on the criminal sanctions contained in the text. We are pleased that our idea of punishment in the form of a professional ban has finally been incorporated into the text of the law. It will ⁇ be a deterrent in research on reproductive cloning. However, we regret the lack of coherence of Article 13, which does not provide for criminal sanctions, in particular when there is a violation of the principle of research subsidiarity — a principle which, as I recalled, seems to us quite fundamental — or when the provisions on consent and information of the data subjects are not respected.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, if we fully subscribe to the principle of the legal framework for embryonic research for the purpose of protecting the human embryo, and to the principle of the freedom of scientific research when it can benefit humanity, we think that the text proposed to us falls within a too scientific perspective.

The arbitration between equally important values of promoting human health, protecting women and protecting the human embryo as a potential human person has not been achieved and has not led to the most balanced conclusions.

The amendments I have recently submitted in the session are largely aimed at responding to the objections I have listed above. I will explain them during the discussion of the articles of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker. It’s not that what the previous speaker said would not be so interesting, but I think that if I let myself be seduced to a technical discussion, it ⁇ ’t fascinate everyone.

Remarkable for me as a doctor is that twenty years ago as a young student I was confronted with a new service, IVF, at the VUB. On a fairly amateur basis, something new was started. There were a lot of brakes and questions. In other institutions or universities, it was clearly said that these techniques could not. The evolution of the early years in embryology, genetics, bioengineering and fertility also made it clear that one had embarked on a field of enormous possibilities. However, they also realized the need for regulation.

Great was my surprise, Mr. Speaker, when I saw that twenty years later there was a discussion to write texts and laws on this subject. When I got the text for me, I was even more surprised. What we are trying to resolve today was ultimately necessary twenty years ago. In the field, we are already far beyond in many areas. That has taught me that making laws and texts will ultimately not limit the evolution in thought. The most beautiful example, unlike in the early 1980s, when some demonized in vitro fertilization—this allows me to make a few remarks on the interventions subsequently which seemed to me somewhat hypocritical—has now reached general acceptance. I also heard the rightful comment that in vitro fertilization support is now even repaid. You see that in twenty years everyone can evolve and this apparently without exception.

Dear colleagues, it is therefore absurd today to confront the rise of scientific research on embryos. Whoever claims that this advance can also be used to harm, we must point out that ultimately every broadcast and every technique can be used to harm. In addition to science, our society is evolving very rapidly. Who, by the way, in the 1960s had thought that 40 years later the same-sex marriage would be a fact and that single parenting after a divorce would be so easily accepted.

Some in our midst will try to deny all this. Colleagues, whether or not we want to share with time, this is also a form of social progress. Ethics, by the way, is a dynamic given and sociocultural linked. In this sense, the legal regulation must be of such nature that there is room for diversity, and this also applies to the embryonic law. It is especially important that when assessing each particular case, the ethical approach of the doctor and the autonomy of the patient can play unhindered to reach a solution.

Therefore, the local ethical committee linked to the institution where the research is carried out has a very large contribution. This gives the necessary space for ethical consultation to find in concrete clinical cases, together with all stakeholders, what benefits the patient.

After all, what is acceptable in one case will not be acceptable for the other. These fundamental differences in ethical perceptions, even among scientists, are overly known to us. The Advisory Committee therefore stated in its final opinion as follows. I quote: "The value and protection worth of the embryo and fetus can be widely recognized within the human community if this value is brought in relation to its actual state and to the way in which people spontaneously respond to it. The question of how high that value will be estimated in each particular case cannot be answered in a unambiguous way. The attribution of value, on the one hand, to the embryo itself and, on the other hand, to the results of the investigation depends upon the whole conception of life.”

However, clarification of the relevant aspects can lead to majority and sometimes even consensus for certain concrete problem situations.

Traditionally, in the past, in law, it was usually thought of black and white, where the abstract rule of law was applied to the cross section that was called for everyone, without exception, the norm. Well, without taking into account the many shades of concrete cases, it is ⁇ difficult to establish a norm on ethical issues.

Biomedical law should not prevent the search for the concrete good in clinical practice. On the contrary, it must create space for it. This is a challenge for current and future judicial formation, especially when criminal law comes into play.

Colleagues, I had said that I would not speak too long. I will then conclude my speech. I would like to conclude with a simple puzzle: although conservatism is still so fast, science is obsolete. Therefore, I do not believe that this law will be able to solve the problems of science for the future. New challenges will quickly make the law obsolete. I said it in the beginning: for me, this law is already outdated. Nevertheless, this law is a first initiative — and that idea was also shared by the field — to solve the concrete problems under examination or the microscope. I think we could have made the law a little better. We could have gone a step further and we should have given more confidence to the highly qualified experimental research at our universities.

Thank you, Mr Germeaux, you kept your word. Your presentation was short.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, I personally look forward to this beginning of the normative framework but it remains for me very insufficient in terms of the rights of women, the first concerned. It seems that despite two years of debate in the Senate and House, we have failed to make a majority of members of Parliament hear that the people targeted by these experiments are women and that consequently, measures should be provided in the law to reaffirm their rights. I thank Minister Tavernier for the answers he provided to the questions I had asked in the committee and which I think are going in the right direction. This law will therefore need to be reviewed in the next legislature in view of its evaluation and also of a broad public debate that I wish to see arise because it has remained too long inside the Parliament rooms.

It is important to put on the table the guarantee of the acquired rights of women on the control of their bodies, the guarantee of their objective and comprehensive information and the clarification of the debate by highlighting the economic and moral issues that encounter. To caricate, I would say that the profits of pharmaceutical firms, the dreams of researchers and the reactionary movements wishing to return to a situation prior to the abortion law, all this cannot prevail over the right of women to control their fertility. This is not a caricature. I think these three currents are very present in the debates that have taken place around the law regarding in vitro embryo research, but this has not always been clarified as such. by

For me, the status of the embryo is clear. It was discussed during the law on the partial decriminalization of voluntary termination of pregnancy. It is something acquired that it is not a matter of questioning the discourse of false arguments that, in a new context, would want to transform the embryo into a subject of law. Women are subject to law. The law on the decriminalization of voluntary interruption of pregnancy is therefore the normative reference; it is about reaffirming it loud and strong. by

Information on Risks and Women’s Rights. Paque has long mentioned this in his exhibition and I thank him for it. by Mr. The Minister responded that he was in favor of giving more accurate information. This is a crucial issue because the decision-making network surrounding in vitro embryonic research includes the protagonists of the medical-assisted reproduction that has begun, such as Mr. Germeaux just said it, several decades ago, at least 20 to 25 years ago. Medicalization of fertility has reached an unprecedented stage today that makes me fear for the authentic, enlightened consent of women. This highlights the risk of shifting fertilization from the female body to the laboratory. Women must therefore be accurately informed of the risks they encounter. We think of course of the possible consequences of ovarian stimulation, painful and whose mortality can go up to 2%, to the potential infertility of young women who have not yet had children. The economic interests at stake cause fear of moral pressures, even indirectly, on women, all the more fragile as they are in doubt about their fertility. They should also be given the opportunity to bring an appeal. All this needs to be amended in a new law. by

All this is all the more crucial when one knows that the law does not exclude the production of embryos solely for research purposes with in fine the risk of seeing the body of women transformed into a machine to produce ovocytes, caricaturing yet: productive uteruses. by

Finally, I regret that, neither in the Senate nor in the House, the obligation of paritary composition within the Federal Commission for Embryonic Research has been brought about. This is something that will need to be changed in the future. by

Finally, I demand — I have already done so in a committee — the means for a broad public debate in the opinion, to which women and feminists, men and women, are associated. In a democracy, in order for the public to feel interpelled by a question, it must be not only informed but also enlightened. Now, as I said recently, the debate has remained locked in the rooms of our Parliament for too long, even though a few press articles have echoed it.

It is necessary to explain things in simple terms to show the complexity of the issues arising. For my part, there is a tension between two values: that of the individual freedom of women to control their fertility and that of an abstract universalism that makes that the current law does not guarantee the rights acquired in the last thirty years in terms of reproductive rights.

Women cannot be laboratory objects. We want women’s associations and feminist movements to be associated with a broad public opinion campaign. I believe that the Ministers of Health and Equal Opportunities, as well as the future Parliament, should commit to this.

To date, it is not forbidden in Belgium to create or use embryos for scientific research, provided that the donors concerned are informed.

Until now, selection based on gender is not prohibited in Belgium. Selection can be medically responsible in case of sex-related, serious abnormalities. However, it can also be a personal preference of future parents.

Until today, it is not forbidden in Belgium to apply the cloning technique, both therapeutic and reproductive. Does this mean that everything that may be possible should also be possible? If there are no boundaries set, no one knows what scientists in the secret of their labs bushes. After all, we are here not only in the field of biomedical science, but at least equally in the field of bioethics. It is not the scientists who define the boundaries of the sector, but the society.

Both emotions and philosophical views should not hypothesize the serenity of a bio-ethical debate aimed at finding consensus around necessary regulation on this subject. A democratic rule of law needs overlapping consensus about choices and values that are important for the future of our society.

Biomedical developments will undoubtedly make an important contribution to the well-being of society. There must therefore be sufficient opportunities for the development of science, but without respect for the human material and for its moral impact it must not be overlooked.

The hearings of experts clearly showed that they are the requesting party for clear legislation. Of course, some want to go further or less far than others.

What does the present draft say? The draft will allow research on over-sized embryos under clearly defined conditions and with the consent of the donors concerned. The production of embryos is prohibited unless there is no alternative to a specific, high-level investigation. Any research or treatment for the purpose of eugenics or gender selection shall be prohibited, except for the prevention of gender-related hereditary disorders.

Each study must first be submitted to the local ethics committee. In case of a favourable opinion, it should be submitted to the Federal Ethics Committee, which decides by a two-thirds majority.

Research can only take place on an embryo until the first fourteen days of the development stage. This term is generally accepted because it forms the neural tube from which the brain and the nervous system develop. Research can also only be carried out within the framework of a clearly defined, qualitative study on infertility, transplantation and the prevention or treatment of diseases.

In our original proposal, research could only be done on over-sized embryos. When freezing, the embryos are destroyed. If the embryos are used for research, it can be assumed that there is a form of solidarity between a life that will never fade out and the future improvement of other human life. It can be compared to the organ transplant of a deceased donor.

By the way, even in natural conditions, 8 out of 10 beginner embryos do not develop further and are spontaneously eliminated. Our original proposal did not provide for the creation of embryos and therapeutic cloning. After an internal study day, discussion and dialogue with various experts, we became clear that there is no alternative to some studies. Therapeutic cloning consists in inserting the nucleus of an adult body cell into an egg cell that has been separated from its nucleus. It is intended to create cells, tissues, and ⁇ even organs for patients who need a transplant. Consider, for example, the possibilities for skin transplants for severe burns. Because this transplant is not recognized as a foreign body, rejection symptoms are avoided in the donor of the cell nucleus. Couldn’t it be better to talk here about nuclear transfer where an artefact is created and not an embryo? Such an artefact can and should never be inserted into the womb and will therefore never grow into a human being. Their

Reproductive cloning is absolutely forbidden, not only because of ethical arguments, but also because of medical objections. There are countless egg donations needed and there are clear risks of disability, malformations or diseases. Reproductive medicine, too, cannot and should not refrain from the discussion of the desirability of what is technically possible and of what is the social support of those scientific possibilities. No matter how tragically unwanted childlessness is, the right to a child is never absolute and therefore can never provide sufficient ground for the ethical justification of reproductive cloning. Since any research can only be conducted in recognised centers and must be approved by both the local ethics committee and with a two-thirds majority by the federal ethics committee, we still have confidence in strict compliance with this legislation which sets a temporary hierarchy and clear conditions.

Finally, I want to highlight the ethical field of tension. Apparently, anyone can accept the research on overtalled embryos that are originally the result of an old-age wish. There is more hesitation towards creating an embryo that is forbidden as implantation and that can in fact be considered as an artefact in which an empty egg is filled with the core of an adult cell, for therapeutic purposes and only when there is no alternative. An essential element here is the instrumentalization of the woman as a supplier of eggs. My colleagues are going deeper into this.

Our group initially advocates to encourage research into the potential of adult stem cells and of umbilical cord blood stem cells. However, our group also advocates that the adoption of this draft ends the current ambiguous situation, where nothing is forbidden and where the embryo enjoys no protection. This is not about a thinking exercise. It is about formulating a response to the pertinent question of how far we as a society want to go in the feasibility of man. This proposal is an ethical issue. Everyone will vote according to their own opinion and conscience.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, Mr. Colleagues, as well as my colleague AnneMie Descheemaeker said, the vote will be free in our group.

From the beginning, I will tell you that as far as I am concerned, I cannot vote for the text that is submitted to us and I would like to explain the reasons for this.

Among them is the fact that I am a woman and as such, I am more sensitive to certain aspects of the bill that is proposed to us. Yes, I dare to say, at the risk of appearing rude in the eyes of some, several aspects of the bill annoy me. This bill lacks precision, avoids some essential questions, in short, is not sufficiently successful to be voted in the state. I explain to myself.

The bill is positive when it prohibits cloning for reproductive purposes. There was no law in Belgium on this issue. It is a good thing that a text comes to affirm this prohibition.

However, the bill, at the same time, allows research on embryos in vitro. I regret that a text coming to us from the Senate obliges us to address two aspects at the same time: research and the prohibition of cloning for reproductive purposes. I regret this because I think this approach has prevented us from investigating important points on aspects related to in vitro embryonic research.

I hear well, and I acknowledge that the text organizes a series of tags for research, but for me, these are too weak and sometimes inaccurate. Thus, if research is clearly permitted on overnumbered embryos, by means of certain tags, one of them disturbs me. This is the one that is cited in point 6 of Article 3, namely — I quote — "research is permitted if there is no alternative method of research" — and I draw your attention to the latter terms — " having a comparable effectiveness."

I can understand and accept the interest of opening up the possibility of research on overnumerous embryos. However, for me, this should be reserved for the most ultimate cases. It can only take place when all other possibilities of research have been exhausted, even those that prove to be of more limited effectiveness. I am concerned that by opening the possibility of research as soon as an alternative with comparable effectiveness is not identified, one is too quick to attempt to use overnumerous embryos, while other search routes are not exploited, for example those concerning other stem cells, such as those of the umbilical cord.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, therefore, we should first have exhausted the other possibilities of research before opening up those concerning in vitro embryos, even though the effectiveness is not comparable.

Ethics should focus on efficiency.

As you can see, I already have some reluctance about the text regarding over-number embryos, but my reluctance increases when I examine Article 4 which opens the possibility of producing embryos for research purposes. This article annoys me even more, because, in my opinion, it has not been the subject of a sufficiently thorough reflection, and in particular because the law is totally silent with regard to cloning for therapeutic purposes that this article opens.

The law does not tell us anything about it, it authorizes de facto this one, of course, with tags, but with insufficient and insufficient tags.

As an insufficiency, I would like to mention this one. If the opinion of the Federal Commission is to be requested, it is not mandatory that it be delivered in order to initiate a search.

In fact, the text specifies that "if within two months this committee has not given an opinion, the research is authorized." Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, if I seemed somewhat mesquine or “tatillone” but life taught me to discover a number of traps that were hidden in the texts. Thus, if I was a researcher and if I absolutely wanted to start a research in a field not covered by this law, I would not hesitate to introduce my file and my request for opinion at the end of June. I would then be almost 100% assured that the committee would not be able to give its opinion since it must, in addition, meet at two-thirds and that, during the months of July and August, I doubt the possibility for the committee to meet with a sufficient two-thirds quorum.

When it comes to an ethical dossier, I would have preferred much more caution and a binding opinion.

The second point that annoys me is the following. It is not stated in the texts that all the results of these investigations must be brought to the knowledge of the Federal Commission. All results, this means that they are either positive or negative. I personally believe that one can extract as much information from a negative outcome as from a positive outcome. Furthermore, in this particular case, it is extremely important to know the negative results because they avoid duplicating searches on a material, an artefact that is not banal. I recall that these are overnumerous embryos and possibly embryos produced for research purposes.

If I am sensitive to this question and if I regret like others that in this debate we have not paid enough attention to the question of gender, it is probably because I am a woman and as such I produce ovocytes. Every donor of embryos is initially a donor. There can be no embryo without ovocytes. Until now, no other method has been found to produce ovocytes; it is the natural method that prevails.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, the proposed project opens too much the way for a new exploitation of the female body. I think we haven’t set the conditions enough.

I could hear the desire for research on embryos, especially overnumerous ones, but on the condition of strengthening the tags related to point 6 of Article 3, that is, "on the condition that all other methods of research have been exhausted." I could also hear the strengthening of the role of the Federal Commission, provided that the production of the results, whether positive or negative, is compelled, and provided that parity in the places of decision is achieved. But I cannot accept the project in the state. I will not be able to vote for this project.

This is what I wanted to say to you. Obviously, the question is the following. Will this project be voted against? And the question persists. You can’t vote negative either, and that’s the difficulty because there is no current law governing this matter. If this text disappeared, we would avoid having the tags that persist today. We are therefore forced to say that indeed, somewhere, this text is better than nothing at all. But, really, Mr. Speaker, I think it is time to give a clear signal to this assembly and to say that this text is not suitable for some of us. That is why I will abstain.