By James Etheridge

BioWorld International Correspondent

LYON, France - The BioVision 2001 World Life Sciences Forum opened Thursday under the shadow of the imminent publication in Science and Nature of numerous papers discussing the sequencing of the human genome, to which several speakers alluded during the first day's proceedings.

They were also marked by a strong undercurrent of concern about so-called ELSI (ethical, legal, social implications) issues, highlighted by French President Jacques Chirac's declaration in his inaugural speech that, "I am not in favor of authorizing therapeutic cloning."

He was backed up by Peter Liese, a member of the European Parliament, who maintained that "Chirac was speaking for Europe."

Arguing that there were ethical borders that should not be transgressed, Liese said that the "Parliament is against intervention in the human germ cell line, and I also support Chirac in opposing therapeutic cloning." At the same time, he insisted that "a big majority in the European Parliament believes in biotechnology, sees big opportunities in it and has passed laws encouraging it."

Chirac, too, made clear his general support for the different applications of biotechnology, especially cell therapy, but said there was no question of relaxing the complete ban on creating embryos for scientific research purposes. Therapeutic cloning would "lead to the creation of embryos for research purposes and for producing cells, and although prohibited, would make reproductive cloning physically possible and create a danger of illegal trade in ovocytes." Alternative methods had to be found, Chirac said. "At both a national and European level, it is essential to launch and finance research programs in adult stem cells."

On a more cautionary note, the speed with which biotechnological advances were being implemented was causing concern and "the fears that are surfacing must be understood and respected," Chirac said. He referred to "a certain mode of secrecy that surrounded the development of genetically modified organisms," which did not create a climate of confidence. Many people had the feeling that these products were introduced before the necessary studies on their health and environmental effects had been carried out."

Chirac also repeated his opposition to the patenting of the human genome, describing it as a "mankind's common heritage." It was important not to jeopardize the protection of intellectual and industrial property, which was important for progress, he said. "The conditions on which patents are granted should not have the effect of limiting freedom to use a gene or a gene sequence for the sole reason that they have been used to develop a product that has already been patented for another application." That was why France had asked the European Commission to "take another look at the provisions of the European biotechnology directive covering the legal protection of biotechnological inventions."

Liese told BioWorld Today, however, that there was no prospect of the directive being amended, that the objections formulated by the French were not really justified, and that all EU countries were expected to transpose the directive into their national legislations as it stood.

The merits of keeping a maximum amount of knowledge in the public domain were also stressed by Francis Collins, director of the National Human Genome Research Institute, who argued that patents should be neither too restrictive nor too broad. Referring to the upcoming publication of papers assessing the lessons to be learned from the sequencing of the human genome, he said they would draw "some significant and surprising conclusions. There are not as many genes in the human genome as was thought, and we have found that some genes do a lot more than we thought."

Collins also raised ethical questions, such as: "Will effective legislative solutions to prevent genetic discrimination be found? Will we shepherd new genetic tests from research into clinical practice? Can people become genetically literate in time? Will access to the benefits of the advances in genetics only be available to a privileged few? Will we succumb to genetic determinism? And will we reach a consensus on the limits of using genetic technology for trait enhancement?" n