Proceedings of the EU preparatory meeting of the Third world congress for freedom of scientific research – “From the body to the body politic” (2013)

Proceedings of the EU preparatory meeting of the Third World Congress for Freedom of Scientific Research – From the body to the body politic (European Parliament, Brussels, November 14-15, 2013)

© 2014 Associazione Luca Coscioni per la libertà di ricerca scientifica

goWare for the ebook edition

ISBN 978-88-6797-160-2

Edited by Carmen Sorrentino

Transcriptions by Mirella La Rosa and Orietta Vitale at Synchronos srl

Revised by Angiolo Bandinelli and Carmen Sorrentino

Translated by Matthew Docherty and Stefano Musilli

A special thank you to Gabriele Di Battista, Elena Paola Rampello and Mihai Romanciuc

Remark: these are transcripts of oral presentations and every author has tried to preserve the informality and spontaneity of his/her speech. Not every speaker has revised his/her transcript. For publishing reasons, also revised texts were modified by the editor sometimes.

The original video-broadcast version of every speech is available at www.freedomofresearch.org thanks to RadioRadicale.it

WITH THE SUPPORT OF:

Description

For nearly ten years now Luca Coscioni Association through and together with the World Congress has been fighting for freedom of scientific research. The World Congress is not a place of mere convention and intellectual debate: it is also the seat of political initiative where scientists, researchers, politicians, sick and disabled people and citizens can work together to address complex issues such as patentability, Open Access and clinical trials, as well as the relationship between science and religion or between science and politics. Marco Pannella, leader of the Nonviolent Radical Party, is to thank for providing the idea for this scheme. It was put together in the weeks when we were beginning to organise a referendum in Italy to abolish the law banning scientific research on embryos. This was not just an Italian issue, but a global one. At that moment in history, we spoke of the danger and threat of all types of fundamentalism – whether religious or ideological – which were opposed to science and to freedom of research. The aim of the meeting that was held in November 14-15, 2013 in Brussels is to identify the urgent need for freedom of research and freedom in the broader, more general sense. This is not to insist so much on the importance of science, research, human well-being, but also to respond – or to find another possible answer – to the problem of the crisis of democracy and the rule of law.

Marco Cappato, World Congress Coordinator

Opening session

Initiatives for freedom of scientific research and treatment

by Marco Cappato

World Congress Coordinator

For ten years now we have been challenging all types of fundamentalism opposed to science and to freedom of research. The aim of the meeting in Brussels is to identify the urgent need for freedom in the more general sense.

Some of you have been following the World Congress for Freedom of Scientific Research for almost ten years, while for others this is the first time. Marco Pannella, leader of the Nonviolent Radical Party, is to thank for providing the idea for this scheme. It was put together in the weeks when we were beginning to organise a referendum in Italy to abolish the law banning scientific research on embryos. This was not just an Italian issue, but a global one. In Europe, there was much debate over the possibility of being able to gain access to European funding for research on embryonic stem cells. At the UN, Costa Rica, Italy and other countries, attempted to rally support for a worldwide ban on the so-called therapeutic cloning. The idea, put forward by Marco Pannella at the time, referred to the historic precedent of the post-war Congress for Cultural Freedom, which had gathered together some of the greatest and best-known intellectuals, artists and scientists, united against the dangers of totalitarianism.

At that moment in history, we spoke of the danger and threat of all types of fundamentalism – whether religious or ideological – which were opposed to science and to freedom of research. The aim of the meeting in Brussels is to identify the urgent need for the freedom of research and for freedom in the broader, more general sense. As noted by Guy Verhofstadt, freedoms are not to be divided or cut into pieces. It is not merely a matter of repeating what you all know well, that is to say, the importance of science, research, and human well-being. It is also a matter of addressing, or finding another possible solution for the crisis of democracy and of the rule of law. Perhaps this is the difference compared to ten years ago. Then, we wanted to use politics and the law to defend the freedom of research and science.

Today, ten years later, we must also ask ourselves the opposite question: how science can be used to defend democracy and the rule of law. The need to defend democracy and the rule of law has been confirmed by many indicators. A study by the European Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) reveals that only four out of ten citizens trust national authorities in OECD countries. There is also the question of the legitimacy and authority of political powers over citizens. Needless to mention the economic and social crisis we are currently experiencing. One of the premises of this meeting is that science can be used to strengthen democracy, to prevent democracy from sinking even deeper into its current crisis.

How could science be able to help democracy? Firstly, because it is based on facts, trial and error. One of the things of which democracy is accused today is being no longer connected with the citizens’ basic needs. Another aspect of the crisis of this democratic method is the inadequacy on a national level, that is to say, Nation-states proving incapable of addressing the crisis. There is nothing more transnational than science, the results of which are to be spread throughout the world.

Moreover, there is another significant historical connection between democracy and science: one of the documents giving rise to the rule of law was the Magna Charta in the thirteenth century. It was this that brought about the objection to the absolute power of the British monarchy. Its key element was the so-called habeas corpus, according to which no one shall be deprived of liberty in the absence of law. The motto of our World Congress is from the body to the body politic, that is to say, from the needs of the body – health, well-being, etc. – to the heart of politics. This motto must be followed by institutions, starting with citizens’ most basic needs. And it must be done in accordance with the rule of pragmatism, trial and error, taking care not to manipulate the evidence and facts, and striving to improve human well-being.

The Luca Coscioni Association is promoting this meeting, along with the Radical Party, a non-violent party, following the example of Gandhi – of those who questioned their own body to gain freedom. It is a transnational party, so it does not consider national borders to be useful for addressing certain types of problems. It is a transparty: we do not wish to work with one political family or one political leaning, but rather with all those in institutions that share secular goals.

Ten years ago, we were working very hard to see how political power could help effective science. Today, on top of this, we have an additional objective: to see how effective and free scientific research can help political power. Indeed, scientific and technological developments are making very rapid headway. The challenge is to provide a democratic political power, which interacts with the scientific community and which is accountable to citizens, while respecting the rules to avoid abuses of power and oppression. Alternatively, if democratic States and federations, such as the European Union, do not intervene, research will move increasingly into geographical areas of the world where it is being done by undemocratic powers. The risk is that the liberal and democratic model of the rule of law will be defeated.

This is not a mere convention and intellectual debate: it is home to political initiatives and is able to gather together scientists, researchers, politicians, the sick, disabled people and citizens. This can be done using democratic and legal instruments.

For the Luca Coscioni Association and the Radical Party, Filomena Gallo has been following the case made before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights against Costa Rica, in that it is a country that prohibits artificial insemination. One must stress, however, the limitations that Nation-states and supranational entities have when intervening to ensure freedom of research and access to treatment, where Nation-states do not. For instance, the European Court of Human Rights has intervened many times against the laws in Italy that prevented access to certain techniques used for assisted fertilisation. That is why it is important that action be taken at the level of the European Union to do what many researchers and scientists have begun to call for: the creation of a real European Research Area, where researchers and academics can move freely, making Europe a single homeland for scientific research. Siina, an Iranian researcher working in Italy, explains the difficulties he experiences with renewing residence permits and the unbelievable waiting times to move within Europe. The goal of freedom of research is also a European goal, to have a Europe of research that is as united as possible, a Europe with access to medicine and treatments with shared rules. We know, for example, how difficult it is to enforce these rules in clinical trials. Perhaps our network, as a community of scientists, could help to call on Nation-states to be less resistant to simplifying clinical trials.

With regard to open access to science, I ask whether it is necessary to intervene by using legislation and regulation to promote the free movement of results and scientific knowledge, or indeed if open science may be established without the need for regulatory intervention. Some suggest that when research is conducted with public money, there must also be some sort of legal obligation to keep the results of that research available in the public domain. For me, this is a reasonable suggestion, which is worthy of discussion.

On the subject of patents, we must clearly consider not only the interest of the researcher or the institution where he or she works, but also the interest of citizens’ health and well-being. One concern is the duration of the patent. With an increased pace of scientific research, an extended patent period may be a significant obstacle. Public administration should be left with the option to intervene, should there be a predominant collective interest, which is greater than the commercial interests of those holding the patent for that invention. There should be a way to compensate inventors and put their research into the public domain. One of the questions to be asked is: to what extent is an overly rigid system likely to overly bureaucratise scientific research?

These topics and others will be discussed at the next meeting of the World Congress, taking place in Rome from 4 to 6 April.

The battle for research on human embryos

by Marisa Jaconi

Department of Pathology, University of Geneva

[text not revised by the author]

It is important for researchers to have direct contacts with politicians but sometimes they don’t want to expose themselves and some of them are let alone in their battle for freedom of research.

It is truly an honour for me to be here. Taking stock of what has happened in recent years, I must point out that it has been ten years since we started this battle with stem cells in 2004, when we launched the first World Congress. This is what made me realise, in 2002-2003, how important it is for researchers to have direct contacts with politicians. I had to engage extensively with politicians, having been the only researcher in Switzerland asking to work with embryonic stem cells. I also realised that, at times, we are alone in this battle, especially when we have colleagues who do not want to expose themselves and are afraid of the media or the reactions of the community or even of other colleagues. This motivated me to support the Luca Coscioni Association which, for all these years, has fought to create an open forum to launch all kinds of initiatives tied to the freedom of research, and not only of research, as well as to address issues and concerns that affect all groups in our society: healthy people, sick people, families of sick people, physicians, researchers, scientists. This has also allowed us to understand how all of these influential groups can interact with politicians who must serve as our spokespersons. Given its direct democracy, in Switzerland, it is very important for politicians to anticipate the reactions of the population in relation to the laws passed. Being of Italian origin, it was also important for me to act as a bridge and share examples and situations to bring the debate forward in collaboration with my colleagues.

As for the issue of patents, they facilitate academic careers regardless of whether a patent is in some way exploited. Researchers who would like to continue their fundamental basic research activities are being increasingly urged to justify what is being done in view of a potential future application. This is a dangerous attack on basic research as it forces us to justify and anticipate the possible applications of our fundamental research, whose primary purpose is to reveal knowledge. Instead, it urges us to defend, almost aberrantly, the possible applications of what could be discovered, the results of which cannot be anticipated. This paradox should be borne in mind.

Opening remarks

by Guy Verhofstadt

Leader, Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe

There are many forms of freedom, intensely interrelated with one another. Freedom of science ensures that people can take their life into their own hands.

Moi je vais faire plutôt une introduction et non une intervention. First of all I am very honoured to be invited here today. Although I must admit that the topic is not exactly my cup of tea. To be completely honest, as a student I was not very often with my nose in the books. I was more with my nose in politics. Political debates and political conferences? Yes. But academic debates and academic conferences, not so much. So I am not a big loss to science. That is for sure.

You gathered here today in order to discuss the freedom of science. An important issue, because I might not know a lot about science but what I do know – as a politician – is that you cannot compartmentalize freedom. You cannot put in separate boxes. The different forms of freedom are intensely linked with one another. It is impossible to say: Let us give people the freedom of organization, or the freedom of education and religion, but not the freedom of expression or the freedom to start up a small business. That would not work in today’s world. Ultimately it would lead to frictions and frustrations in your society.

We all know that some countries, or better, some regimes think it is possible to separate economic and political freedom. To have free markets, but no free politics. I strongly believe they will ultimately fail.

There is a very good book that has been published about that, about this notion of freedom. I think this book is going to be of some importance in the next decades. It is called Why nations fail and is written by Acemoglu and Robinson. It was published more or less one year ago. It is important for politicians because the baseline of the book says: It is not about economics, stupid. It is about politics. It explains why sound political institutions are a key condition for wealth and success. In that book, Acemoglu and Robinson indicate that a system in which you separate economic and political freedom is, in the long run, not sustainable. You see appearing the first cracks in the Chinese system for example, where the rising middle class rightly demands its political rights. They want their voices to be heard when it comes to critical decisions in their lives. The ones on food safety, on education, on social minimum standards and on rules for starting their own businesses. Because nowadays it is feasible for a foreigner to start up a business in China, but for a Chinese citizen this is much