BioWorld International Correspondent

BRUSSELS, Belgium - The explosion of Internet-based advertising for genetic tests has provoked a sharp reaction from the European Union's top advisers on ethics. They issued a call for caution Monday, and promised to investigate the matter closely.

The group is concerned with the proliferation of "increasingly aggressive and pervasive" offers of genetic tests aimed at establishing fatherhood or predisposition to heart disease, diabetes and other conditions. Even in Europe, it said, such advertising "can even be found in popular chain stores, service stations, highway restaurants and on television."

The EU group on ethics in science and new technologies - the handpicked counselors on biotechnology to European Commission President Romano Prodi - took the unusual step of putting out a strongly worded statement "to alert civil society and decision makers on the problems raised by advertising of genetic tests via the Internet."

It criticized mass marketing of genetic tests as often being "misleading and incomplete, particularly in view of the limited level of predictability of diseases linked to test results in the case of multigenic characters. Often, there are not sufficient guarantees that genetic data sent for such tests have been collected in compliance with the regulations applying to data subjects' consent - with particular regard to paternity tests," it said.

This raises "serious problems in ethical, social and legal terms," which, it said, "require urgent attention." The group's contention is that genetic tests can be harmful without proper advice and counseling, and that the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine makes the legality of genetic tests "conditional upon appropriate genetic counseling.'"

As far back as 1996 the group already remarked - in relation to prenatal diagnosis - that "careful genetic counseling, both before and after the test, is an integral part of the test and should not be separated from sampling and testing." And it now has backed up that observation with the warning that "databases of genetic test results could be used to discriminate against some groups of persons."

"Consequences of genetic testing for both individuals and society should be assessed carefully," the group said this week. "Given the peculiar features of genetic data, fundamental rights may be violated, in particular equality rights. Both individuals' health and confidentiality of health data may be jeopardized. Advertising of genetic tests tends to convert them into commodities and to give rise to a demand for genetic testing, which may result in disruption of social and personal conflicts."

The group is already working on the ethical aspects of genetic testing in the work place, but its statement makes clear that it also now intends to work more broadly on the full range of issues raised by genetic testing.

Few Signs Of Cracks In EU GMO Ban

Hopes of an early end to the European Union's moratorium on authorizations for genetically modified products received a setback Thursday when most of the European Union's farm ministers - particularly from Italy, France, Denmark, Greece, Luxembourg, Belgium, Germany and Austria - made clear they had no intention of any early relaxation.

David Byrne, European commissioner for health and consumer protection, pleaded with ministers at the monthly meeting of the EU's agriculture council to start letting new products onto the EU market on a case-by-case basis for products where manufacturers voluntarily agreed to tighten their controls. But Germany's agriculture minister, Renate Künast, said she would not support authorizations until all the EU legislative proposals in the pipeline (including on traceability and labeling) came into effect. The slow-moving EU lawmaking machinery means there is no prospect therefore of any new authorizations until 2004 at the earliest.

The split remains wide between the EU's top officials - in the European Commission - and ministers from the 15 EU member states. While the Commission is sensitive to the heavy recent pressure from the United States to lift the ban because it blocks trade, ministers from the EU member states, who unilaterally put the ban in place in 1998, refuse to be rushed.

Italy again professed deep disquiet over the potential problems of co-existence between conventional and GM crops, particularly since the EU still has no rules to protect conventional and organic farming from the risk of progressive contamination from genetically modified crops. The Italians want the Commission to promise not to add new GM seeds to the EU's catalog of seeds authorized for cultivation until rules on co-existence have been set into EU law. Byrne's colleague, European Agriculture Commissioner Franz Fischler, also urged member states to relax their ban, and in a bid to win them over, he promised to submit a paper next week to throw more light on the sensitive subject.

Commission Plans More Boosts For Innovation

On March 5 the European Union's top officials, the European Commission, are likely to agree on further plans to help European biotechnology and innovation. They will review progress in the field of life sciences and biotechnology, following the broad statement of support they formally adopted last year.

Since then, the Commission has been monitoring developments in the biotechnology sector and its context, and senior officials are privately expressing disappointment that so little has been achieved so far to help the European industry's competitiveness. The challenge has received the highest level of backing in the EU - from successive summits of EU leaders, and from European Commission President Romano Prodi himself. The subject also is on the agenda of the next EU summit, on March 21. And on March 11 the Commission is planning to adopt yet another position that will support European innovation - including biotechnology.

The paper in preparation calls for an examination of all the factors influencing innovation performance in the European context, and aims at developing a new basis for innovation policy, covering research-based innovation and innovation where the link to research is weak or nonexistent.