Proposition 52K1811

Proposition de résolution relative aux nanosciences et aux nanotechnologies.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Mark Verhaegen
LE Brigitte Wiaux
MR David Clarinval
Open Vld Yolande Avontroodt
PS | SP Jean Cornil
Vooruit Christine Van Broeckhoven

Submission date

Feb. 13, 2009

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

resolution of parliament new technology technology scientific research

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V Vooruit LE PS | SP Open Vld LDD MR FN VB

Abstained from voting

Groen Ecolo N-VA

Party dissidents ¶

• Luc Sevenhans (VB) abstained from voting.

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 ¶

May 28, 2009 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The present proposal for a resolution relates to nanoscience and nanotechnology. The text of this draft resolution is the result of discussions and a series of hearings in the Advisory Committee on Scientific and Technological Issues.

The topic of nanoscience and nanotechnology was proposed and prepared by Ms. Avontroodt and was extensively discussed by all members of the Advisory Committee. Finally, it was decided to prepare a proposal for a resolution. The text of this proposal was commented and updated by the members of the Advisory Committee and it was eventually signed by several members from different parties, after which the draft resolution was submitted to the Committee on Public Health, Environment and Social Renewal.

As regards the general discussion of the text of the resolution, Ms Avontroodt referred to the very comprehensive explanation, included in the proposal, which was the result of the preparatory work and the discussions in the advisory committee.

I will not explain the entire text, but I think it is important for the members of the Chamber to give a brief explanation to situate nanoscience and nanotechnology, thus emphasizing the importance of this resolution.

Nanoscience and nanotechnology have created a lot of high expectations. Expectations are very high, not only among scientists but also in industry and society. It is also expected that these areas will be able to make a very strong contribution to the economy in the future. A whole range of solutions is also expected for problems in various fields such as environment, healthcare, nutrition, renewable energy.

In Belgium, there is already a very large activity in this field, at the international level. Nevertheless, the Advisory Committee was of the opinion that there is a need for coordination and a multidisciplinary approach to maintain and strengthen the competitive position of nanoscience and nanotechnology. The competition is very intense, both in Europe and internationally, not only in research but also in industry.

Nanotechnology is a nice word, but I think there are a lot of people who don’t know what nanotechnology is and that there are very few members – that’s not criticism – who know what we mean by nanotechnology. It is impossible to explain this in all details, but it is important to explain what “nano” means. It is a science and technology that works on a nanoscale, namely 0.1 to 100 nanometers. A nanometer is a billionth of a meter. In the Chamber, we often talk about billions. There is more talk about billions than about nanometers.

In fact, it corresponds to the size of a small molecule. You can probably imagine nothing at all. You cannot even see it with a regular microscope. It is not visible to the eye. It requires very specific techniques to be able to work with nanoparticles or nanotubes.

I just want to give you an idea of the scale on which it works.

Nanotechnology is expected to have many benefits, such as better use of raw materials, more efficient use of raw materials, production of less waste and less pollution. One thinks of lower energy consumption and one also thinks of reducing costs.

There are already a number of applications and there will be more applications in the future. One of the applications on which we are already working and which is already partly applied lies in the window of nano-electronics, where one will produce ever smaller computers, but for example also cheaper solar cells, something that today could be an important contribution in the window of energy use.

It is expected that in the future more and more so-called new materials and new systems will be able to realize. One actually says – that could be called a hype – that nanotechnology together with biotechnology – which is another domain – will signify the industrial revolution of this century. This revolution has already begun, it is already underway. The intention of the present resolution is to a large extent to accompany that revolution by improving the management of objectives and production.

This is an interdisciplinary area. That is one of the difficulties of nanoscience: one makes combinations of scientific fields of chemistry, physics, biology, biomedical science, engineering techniques, and so on. In other words, the knowledge in nanoscience exceeds the knowledge of a single scientist, who usually master one domain of knowledge, which requires multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary work. That asks a lot of scientists. It can also only be accomplished by bringing together the forces of researchers and specialists in those different fields. One proposal in the present resolution is also to unite those forces within the framework of what is called “speer points” or “heavy points”, focusing on those areas where expertise is already present, within Belgium, I mean very specifically. The aim is not to spread widely, but to focus on the knowledge and expertise already present in Belgium.

The result of spearheads is the creation of a critical mass of researchers and expertise, which in turn should lead to a rapid translation into the society of the aforementioned knowledge through innovation.

Nanotechnology and nanoscience are already economically important today. Today, it is estimated that the economic value is approximately EUR 2.5 billion. In 2015, it would increase to several hundred billion euros. Now we are also talking about billions of euros, but then in the nanodomain.

With regard to the future of nanoscience in healthcare, molecular electronics, biosensors and a matter that is more within my domain and which is of particular interest to me, in particular the bio-implants. This allows brain cells to grow on electronic chips, which can then be applied to brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s dementia and Parkinson’s. These are diseases in which brain cells are lost. That is for the future.

The present resolution was, as I said, discussed in the Committee on Public Health. During the discussion Mr. Henry of Ecolo-Groen! A series of amendments were submitted. An amendment by Mr Bultinck of the Flemish Interest was also discussed.

It is not necessary to overlook all points. During the discussion, an interesting discussion was conducted, which still – where necessary – led to an adaptation of the text of the resolution.

In particular, Mr. Henry wished that more emphasis should be placed on sustainable and responsible development, taking into account social and environmental aspects, and on the timely development of ethical guidelines. He also directed an annual report of nanoscientists, which would be submitted to the federal Parliament.

Therefore, a number of amendments and amendments made by Mr. Henry have been incorporated into the amended text.

Mr Bultinck wished to include or add a text that would emphasize the cooperation between Belgian and Dutch researchers. In his words we have replicated that research in the field of nanoscience and nanotechnology is a data at the European and international level and therefore also has an impact at that level, so that no restrictions can be imposed on the researchers.

The resolution, the text adopted by the Committee on Public Health, calls for attention to a number of aspects, but I will not mention them because the text is available.

I will briefly give a few key words. The resolution calls on the federal government to: stimulate multidisciplinary research; monitor better coordination of research; strive for greater cooperation; develop new approaches to education and training that are not only research-oriented but also industry-oriented, that is to say, introduce knowledge of nanoscience and nanotechnology in education and training; mobilise sufficient resources; advocate for a European regulatory framework; draw up an inventory of the current state of research in nanoscience and nanotechnology; contribute to the focus of research and development in nanotechnology on a number of priorities – which I have already mentioned; mobilise sufficient resources; advocate for a European regulatory framework; draw up an inventory of the current state of research in nanoscience and nanotechnology and federal report on an annual financing by the Parliament and the private sector.

Until then, the report of the Committee on Public Health on the proposal for a resolution on nanoscience and nanotechnology.

In addition, I would like to point out that the amended text was adopted in the committee with 11 votes in favour and 1 abstinence.

Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, you are also registered in the general discussion. I will immediately give you the word back.

Mr. Speaker, my speech for the sp.a. group will be very short.

This resolution has been worked very hard across party boundaries. I am also a member of the Advisory Committee on Scientific and Technological Issues

I can only say that not only I, as a member of the Advisory Committee, stand behind this resolution and behind the amended text which was improved after discussion and interaction with the members of the committee. I can also say that the sp.a. group will approve this resolution.

I will not take much time. Whatever we turn it or turn it, our prosperity must ultimately come to a large portion of innovative business. This will ⁇ be the case in the coming years. Therefore, the government must also create a good environmental climate and the right marginal conditions.

Whether it is the engineers, physicists, chemists, bioscientists of the IMEC research center and the University of Leuven with their nanoparticles for the purification of tumors, whether it is the University of Ghent where, among other things, research on nanoparticles for flame-free clothing is carried out, whether it is the researchers at the VITO in Mol and their ceramic filters with nanopores to purify the environment very fine - a kind of extrafiltration - or the advocates at the University of Antwerp who with their electron microscopes trace the atomic structure of new materials, they all argue that nanotechnology involves a radical reversal of the future industrial production process.

Therefore, I have not for a moment hesitated in the Advisory Committee on Scientific and Technological Issues to also make a proposal, like other colleagues, to further deepen nanoscience and nanotechnology and thus stimulating work for a responsible, sensible and sustainable development of this new cutting-edge technology, for the benefit and service of society.

In the Advisory Committee we became increasingly aware that nano – derived from the Latin word nanus which means dwarf – is one of the most important technological developments of the coming decades. Thanks to nanotechnology, boundary developments are undoubtedly possible in many disciplines, with 1001 applications. Colleague Van Broeckhoven has already pointed out this.

As with most new technologies, here we also have the feeling that unknown makes untouched. Therefore, we must also be eager to connect with our society, with education.

The draft resolution also takes into account the potential health risks. The precautionary principle and concern for the health of employees and of all people, by the way, is of crucial importance for us and for all members of the Commission. This should not be an alibi to do nothing.

A dogmatic approach “nano is bad, because maybe it is dangerous” puts a solid mortgage on the future of many people. In other words, we must separate ourselves from a kind of obscurantism in which the irrational prevails and whose opposition to the rational science forms an element. That scientific knowledge is constantly evolving, that technologies are changing and improving, does not play a role in some critics.

No, we should go for a scientifically-founded discussion, for a discussion without prejudice, but with a sound balance of the advantages and disadvantages, of the risks and of the potential benefits. That there are disadvantages is clear, because of course every medal has its reverse side. However, a dogmatic approach puts a mortgage on the future.

It is of course important that the concerns and fears of the public are weighed up in the many decisions still to be made about nanotechnology. We must prevent the benefit of the doubt that nanotechnology still enjoys today from turning into mistrust. We want to take our people seriously and give confidence that nanotechnology is in good hands with the government and industry and that measures are taken to minimize the unintended consequences.

From a scientific field where huge investments will be made in the coming years, both from private and public funds, and where applications are being developed that will and can have a huge impact on the lives of many citizens, one cannot expect society to only look in admiration from the sideline. The draft resolution clearly opens the matter to the whole population.

In addition, at an interparliamentary conference I attended this month, it was very clear that technology is being brought closer to people, including in the European research and development programmes. Through the Eurekap projects it has been shown very clearly that there is a return, more and more, for man and society from this scientific research.

The European Commission believes that without a serious effort to engage in a social debate, nanotechnology innovations are at greater risk of a negative reception. She also believes that an open dialogue, which takes into account the opinions of the public, is essential in order to make an honest analysis and balance of the advantages and disadvantages and the impact of nanotechnology on our society. That is why the adoption of the resolution proposal is so important.

In a few years, our world will evolve from a flat world to a smart world with intelligent products and systems. We will live in a more responsible world with more attention to care, sustainability and ecology. This new environment already offers new opportunities. In this, we must be very ambitious. We must choose the shortest possible path in order to be among the leaders in the shortest possible time. Therefore, a proposal for a resolution such as this proposal enjoys our full support.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, this may be the first time that the topic of nanotechnology is addressed at this forum, in any case the first time that an in-depth discussion on this subject takes place in our Parliament. This was the aim of the proposal I had submitted on this subject more than a year ago in the Committee of Opinion on Scientific and Technological Issues.

It must be acknowledged that this is a considerable field of research and applications still extremely unknown to the population and political circles.

The auditions we conducted allowed in the first place to measure the scope of the subject, the potential of its applications, the revolution that this field represents but also the multiple questions it poses and to which it is impossible to give simple answers. I also encourage colleagues who would not have had the opportunity to do so to read in detail the introductory exposition of the proposal for a resolution, which consists essentially in the collection of the various contributions provided during the hearings and which makes it possible to have an idea of the nature and extent of what is being discussed.

Starting from these explanations, one can realize the considerable number of implications, some of which can be qualified as very promising social advances, including new techniques and materials and their effects in everyday life, on the objects we use for handling, sport, clothing, the design of new materials called "intelligent" to ⁇ progress in the efficient management of our energy for example, in food, in the field of health, including the types of applications in interaction with the living.

In short, these are innovations in virtually unlimited numbers and with very varied social impact, which we can only anticipate in an incomplete way to this day.

We need to understand what we are talking about. The speaker explained this to you recently. The term nanotechnologies gathers all possible applications involving particles or mechanisms of the order of the nano, that is, of the same order of size as the constitutive molecular scale of the matter, which is revolutionary compared to the classical technologies we know. This means that this designation is a generic designation that covers types of application sometimes without any relationship with each other, ranging from nanomechanics to nanobiotechnology and many more.

Therefore, it would be stupid to be for or against nanotechnologies or nanoparticles. It’s a bit like saying you’re for or against chemistry, biology or physics. This would make no sense and that is why it is difficult to hold a comprehensive discourse on this topic.

For environmentalists, it is necessary to give themselves labels, fundamental principles to be respected to ensure the health and protection of consumers who are now being offered goods containing nanoparticles whose definition they often do not even know, without objective information about these products and without serious study prior to placing on the market. For example, we can find cosmetics that carry the designation "with nanoparticles" as if it was a commercial argument.

It is even worse when it is not mentioned. This is the first principle concerning consumer protection.

The second principle concerns the health of the worker. Some raise their eyes to the sky when the issue of asbestos is addressed, while this is a very serious precedent. However, it is precisely this type of risk that can be exposed in some sectors of nanotechnology or nanomaterials. Without in-depth knowledge of nanoparticles, their spread, and their impact on human health, some people are at risk of being confronted permanently, especially at their workplace, with serious consequences in the coming decades.

The third principle is to be able to control the impacts on the environment, in terms of pollution or spread in particular.

For these reasons, in order to be reassured about the new developments and especially the new products put on the market, we would have wished that the principles guiding the REACH system for the placing on the European market of chemicals were also applicable in this case. This is a reasonable application of the precautionary principle. This is the main point of which we regret the absence in the final text of the resolution. This was the main reason for our abstention.

In addition to this desire to respect the precautionary principle as best as possible, we believe that it is also necessary to question the purpose of the research carried out, since not all applications of nanomaterials are necessarily of a crucial interest for the progress of our society, so that the risks must be examined with the greater acuity as they are applications not indispensable or inutil on the social level.

For example, a recent article describes various nanoproducts that can be found in commerce: some are used in sunscreen to hide their whiteness, others to waterproof clothes or facilitate their removal, others to fight microbial substances, or to make windows self-cleaning; another product not yet marketed, the "nanonase", will be a mayonnaise in which the heart of the fat will be replaced with water in order to lighten it.

Thus, in many areas of everyday life, in food or in common goods, these nanoparticles are used: there is "to drink and to eat", because their applications can be more or less useful, beyond the economic questions raised.

That said, I would like to point out the considerable advancement of the text compared to its original version. Madam the Chairperson of the Opinion Committee, I had promised to report this to this tribune and I respect my word, because it is a reality, even though we do not fully find ourselves in the final text. Nevertheless, the text has evolved and incorporated many aspects, which is positive.

Thus, the fact that the European Code of Good Conduct for Responsible Research in Nanoscience and Nanotechnology, proposed by the European Commission, is mentioned in the resolution constitutes a positive contribution, but it concerns only the field of research and not commercialization.

The request for an annual report to our parliament on the development of nanotechnologies in the country or the willingness to increase in the future our public nanotechnology research into areas offering real social and/or ecological added value are also very significant advances.

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, I would say that it is positive that our Parliament has taken up a topic like this, with multiple and very important issues. The text submitted to our vote is a first step and has, by definition, only the limited force of a resolution. I therefore propose that our debate today is not the outcome but rather the beginning of a reflection that leads us to follow closely the debates at the European level on this subject, to engage – in fact, many legislations come to us from the European level – through Belgian mandators through the Council of Ministers or through the European Parliamentary representations but also to legislate ourselves in the future with regard to federal competences.

First of all, I would like to thank the rapporteur, Mrs Van Broeckhoven, who, in my opinion, explained and explained the proposal very well. I also thank the co-insiders, Mr. Verhaegen, Mrs. Van Broeckhoven, Mr. Clarinval, Mr. Cornil and Mrs. Wiaux, who unfortunately are not present. I also thank Mr. Henry for submitting the topic together with Mr. Verhaegen and other colleagues to address it in the Advisory Committee.

To my regret, I must say that although the resolution was first referred to the Joint Committee for Business and Public Health – on the proposal of Ecolo/Green! – we had to conclude that the interest of the members of the committee for business was quite low. I would like to thank the Chairman of the Committee on Public Health for her willingness to prioritize this proposal.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, I think that the launch of the Sojoez in Bajkoner is a beautiful illustration of what nanotechnology can ⁇ . If one follows the press, it is exceptional that scientific achievements or projects get the first page. If one then sees that one can find further text and explanation on the pages on scientific policy, it is very clear that nanotechnology is important. Ms. Van Broeckhoven has rightly spoken about the new nano revolution. After all, the scope of application is so wide – ranging from environment and health through material knowledge to ICT technology, and mention it – that we will clearly end up in a completely new world between now and a few years.

Ms. Van Broeckhoven has cited examples that are possible for cellular level research, with applications to effectively enable this for, among others, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and dementia in the future. This may be just one of the applications that Mr. Henry is quite eagerly facing. He says that the prevention policy that first all must be properly mastered. Well, I do not accept that opinion. I am convinced that the additions we have made in the text, in particular on the ethical applications and even going to military applications, with the risk analyses and with the training of toxicologists, should be equally parallel to what we call for in the available part of the resolution, in particular the bundling and strengthening of the resources for nanotechnology. This concerns both public resources and, above all, the incentives for cooperation in the private sector. After all, it has been shown very clearly that the shoe is wringing there.

Mr. Speaker, we have had hearings, we have visited IMEC and we have received an international overview of the countries where we already have a coordinated plan. These countries are sometimes not far to be sought. One has nano-Netherlands, one has an effective nanoplan in Switzerland and also South Korea is not to be forgotten, to take the other side of the world for a moment. I could continue like this. But what is the essence now? Why has it evolved so far in the United States? This is precisely because, as Ms. Van Broeckhoven said, clear choices and priorities have been defined there. In Europe, this track has not yet been clearly developed. Let us be honest, this has not happened in our country either. The Marshall Plan for Wallonia focuses on nanotechnology.

In the Flemish territory, there was not only the committee attached to the Flemish Parliament, with Mr. Berloznik coming to give an explanation. Also, a recent initiative by the Flemish government, on the proposal of Ms. Ceysens, to establish a new research center for translational research and innovative medicine, offers opportunities for translational research and to close the gap between business, university and research world.

Mr. Speaker, I will not repeat all the applications that Ms. Van Broeckhoven has very correctly included in her report. I would like to refer only to one of the obligations that our country has, namely the achievement of the Lisbon Standard. As you know, we are still far from the 3 percent norm. According to the latest data, our country only achieves 0.7 out of 3 percent. Thanks to this resolution, one will get a step closer to the norm.

Finally, I will come to the risk analysis and the ethical aspects, which we have not circumvented and which we have equally well mentioned in our resolution. I hope that the report we have requested will be submitted to the President of the Parliament if this resolution comes to the government table and a plan of action is developed for that purpose.

If we make progress in this report on all points, I would like to thank the colleagues of the Advisory Committee, the members of the Public Health Committee and the members of the Chamber for effectively raising this research to a higher level. There is a saying: with smaller technology, make more possible. I think this is effectively written for the topic of nanotechnology and for the opportunities that our country gets from it.

Mr. Minister, you represent the government. I hope that you have heard our plea and that you will defend the resolution at the government table. Thanks in advance.