Ein äußerst motivierter Biotechnologe, Andreas Lindinger, hat auf seinem lesenswerten Blog, der neben aktuellen Diskussionen auch wichtige links zu dem Thema anbietet, die österreichischen Parteien zu Stellungnahme in Biotechnologie-Frage aufgefordert.
Ich habe namens des LIF dazu ausführlich Stellung genommen; da die Seite eine international zugängliche Seite ist, habe ich, dem Wunsch des Anfragers folgend, meine Antworten auf englisch verfaßt.
Der Blog bietet die Übersicht über die verschiedenen Stellungnahmen der politischen Parteien, die unterschiedlicher nicht hätten sein können. Ich lade Sie herzlich ein, meine Stellungnahme hier zu lesen; noch besser wäre es allerdings, auf den Blog von Herrn Lindinger zu schauen. Dort sind alle Positionen zu sehen. Der Vergleich macht Sie sicher…
Dear colleague,
as the Austrian Liberal Party’s Speaker for Science and Research I would first thank you for offering me the opportunity to elaborate our positions with respect to bio-technology.
I’d like to underline that, besides my political function, as research director for a private and independent not-for-profit institute responsible for a European project on converging technologies I can answer you both in my political function and as scientist. The latter was my major reason for joining the Liberal Party: it is the only party which -without restriction, but with responsibility – supports the freedom of science and research.
You might be aware of the growing importance of the so-called ELSA ex-ante assessment. ELSA stands for Ethical, Legal and Social Aspects that have to be taken into consideration. The Liberals are here in line with international organisations like the UNESCO and the European Union.
Now let me turn specifically to your questions:
(1) What is your party’s attitude towards biotechnology in Austria and its three main areas (red/green/white biotechnology)?
Liberals appreciate the progress of science and research that the latter is contributing to the welfare of societies at large, even when concrete research might not be directly applicable.
Biotechology is one of the key areas of science and research and its importance will increase, not the least because of the recent emergence of Converging Technologies. In Austria, the debate on Converging Technologies has yet to start in a serious manner, even within the scientific communities.
Austria should not fall behind in the globalised knowledge society; looking at the international rankings of universities and the low rate of students there is a serious danger that this might occur. The science policies of the ruling parties in Austria as well as the conservative attitudes of Austrian Universities Conference will not help to improve the situation.
(2) How do you want to support fundamental research at the universities as well as applied research at the various young domestic biotech companies, particularly with regards to public subsidies as well as financing conditions (venture capital)?
The Liberals are concerned about Austria’s research policies that, whilst ignoring the importance of basic and generic research, tend to emphasise the importance of Applied Research.
There is indeed a need to facilitate public-private partnerships. In Austria, there has been some progress, but bureaucratic hurdles remain.
Private investment in research tends, however, to undermine the traditional academic values of openness of research methods and results for verification. Hence the importance of public funding that allows for independent research. Private investment can by no means replace public funding. Politicians tend to think that private investment might help to even decrease the much too low public funding in Austria.
(3) In face of the omnipresent brain drain, how would you make Austria a more attractive research location for domestic researchers as well as for excellent foreign researches in order to strengthen Austria as an international biotechnology research location?
In Austria there are two major problems that directly affect the science communities and one that indirectly influences the decision of excellent foreign researchers and research students to work in Austria.
The direct reasons are funding and infrastructure. Research funding in Austria has to increase – public funding as much as private one. Without funding, the lack of adequate staff and infrastructures will even increase. Universities claim for good reasons that there is not enough research and teaching personnel, the lack of space and of modern laboratories, etc. The discussion about ISTA proves how little attention the Austrian government is interested in science and research: for mere political reasons it is located in the middle of nowhere; and already now, it lacks funding in serious manner.
It should be underlined that studies show that research infrastructures are the main reason for excellent researchers to choose specific work places, the wages not being the major issue. Furthermore, excellent researchers look for a critical mass of peers in their field for fruitful discussions. In Austria a spiral downwards is observable.
With respect to students, teaching conditions are miserable. Furthermore, instead of increasing the attractivity of the universities, the Austrian Ministry of Science and Research as well as the rectors’ conference and the universities’ conference call for the limitation of the number of students, in Austria anyway much too low, and for quota limiting the number of foreign students, and this against European regulations.
With respect to the indirect cause, Austria is a country that is increasingly characterised by chauvinism and xenophobia. Foreign students and researchers are not welcome – why should they come and work in this country given the other circumstances?
(4) How would you increase the publicity and attractiveness of as well as knowledge on biotechnology in the society as well as foster a broad, constructive public debate?
Liberals call for an early beginning of teaching science at school. There are enough syllabus about how to teach science to youngsters. Research is related to curiosity and creativity, and both characterise the youth. The actual school system disciplines kids rather than supporting creativity and curiosity, and science education starts much too late.
There is clearly a need for advocacy to counter-act populism. This is quite important as populists tend to use anxieties in their campaigns. Unfortunately, some media are much too quick to capitalise on anxieties based on ignorance.
Rest assured that in the Parliament, Liberals will act as lobby for science.
(5) What’s your party’s position regarding research with (embryonic as well as reprogrammed adult) stem cells? Are there any areas such as stem cell research where you would limit the freedom of research, and if so which ones?
In principle, Liberals encourage the freedom of research. Stem cell research has enabled major advances in biomedicine. Restrictions must be carefully argued as patient rights are human rights.
There are of course some problems, and these must be seriously discussed. have to be taken into consideration. With respect to nano-technologies, UNESCO defines basic principles to follow. The baseline is, however clear: according to UNESCO, the question is not, whether research is safe or not; it is rather how to make it safer. This is true for the biosciences as well.
Three major problems are raised from UNESCO:
First, there is the equity problem: who benefits, when? Second, there is the environmental and health risk associated with the possible toxicity of both naturally-occurring and engineered nano particles: Third, there is the whole range of science ethic questions, including the extent to which there exists adequate mechanisms for public scrutiny and for ensuring that the data and knowledge gathered is not abused.
This problems have to be addressed, and it is essential that scientific communities excersize self-regulation: Bioethics Commissions can raise the confidence in research among the public at large.
