§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
2.10 pm§ Dr. Ian Gibson (Norwich, North)We have just concluded a debate on information technology, and another important area of technology is biotechnology. Many people are beginning to recognise that the techniques of molecular biology will open up a plethora of opportunities that will influence society and a wide range of our activities. We should not then underestimate the importance of sound investment in people and technology.
I would be prepared to stick my neck out and say that biotechnology in particular will be the most important science for the next millennium. The United Kingdom is fortunate in having several world-class pharmaceutical companies which are already exploiting biotechnology in their research programmes. We must not jeopardise the investment in research and development or the flow of trained staff into those companies. Efficient technology transfer and R and D grants for such industries need to be augmented to ensure that United Kingdom products capture their fair share of intellectual property and its development into products.
Small start-up companies definitely have a place in that scenario. At the moment, the United Kingdom has a better attitude to those matters than most other European countries, but it is way behind the United States where existing patents and R and D investment dominate agricultural biotechnology. In the food and agricultural sector, current regulations and consumer groups have inhibited product development and that has allowed the United States to dominate now, as it will for the foreseeable future.
Much of the work is carried out at universities and research institutes. If we are to apply discoveries to biotechnological applications, we need a strong patent position. We must ensure that short-term views and decision making do not undermine the inevitable long-term and sensible conclusion that new genetics and molecular biology will have great value for our society.
We must not mortgage our future by failing to establish patents and strong R and D to underpin the agricultural and food industries, which are one of Europe's biggest industries. Effective patent legislation, harmonised at the European level, will be a major element in ensuring the continued growth of the biotechnology industry.
The current revised directive on patenting of biotechnological inventions takes account of previous concerns expressed by the European Parliament and it must be supported. I am well aware, however, of the depth of feeling about companies being able to patent natural DNA sequences, which would give them the potential to hold people to ransom through diagnostic testing. That potential will always be there as the human genome project unfolds. What should be patentable is the particular scientific methodology.
Nevertheless, the fresh directive should be welcomed because it clarifies the difference between discoveries, which are not patentable, and inventions, which are patentable, with reference to the human body. It reaffirms the principle that patent rights are without prejudice to 1246 any national and Community legislation governing the use and commercialisation of the results of research. It clearly states that the germ cell therapy of humans is unpatentable. It introduces privileges for farmers to breed new plants or animals to replenish their stocks. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the future prosperity of an industrial nation is intimately bound up with the ability to innovate technologically—that is, to commercialise our scientific discoveries.
Biotechnology operates in an arena of international competitiveness where knowledge and skills can move quickly across national boundaries. The challenge of biotechnology is that it does and will pervade many areas of our lives and sections of our society. We need to resolve the problems now, not when the technology is upon us, as we may find that the public retreat from science, are hostile to technological products and are suspicious of the technology.
At the same time, there are signs in some industries that the potential of biotechnology innovation is not being exploited. There are some 1,800 biotechnological companies world wide, two thirds of which, including the 10 largest, are in the United States. There are 500 in Europe. The stock market valuation of biotechnology companies is in excess of £70,000 million, despite aggregate reserves being less than £15,000 million. That suggests investment for growth and growth potential.
In 1992, following the launch of the alternative investment market project, money came into biotechnology from non-specialists, and companies were quoted on the stock exchange. The number of companies in Britain at this stage is small, but is increasing at a dramatic rate. It is estimated that currently there are 27,000 jobs in European biotechnology companies with direct applications of techniques, and some 200,000 in biotechnology and related activities. In the United States, however, £5,000 billion has been invested in biotechnology. Forty new drug products and vaccines are in use because of that and 300 more are currently in clinical trials to treat Alzheimer's, heart disease, multiple sclerosis, AIDS and obesity.
Enough of this business project discussion—let us look at the science. After all, that is the well from which all this springs. I am sure that hon. Members will have read the March-April edition of "Science in Parliament", which describes how researchers using oilseed rape in their quest for new industrial oils hit upon new treatments for tuberculosis and, possibly, cancer. It is a perfect example of how modern molecular and biological studies can show amazing and unexpected potential.
I could go on in great detail about other discoveries and describe how plants as well as bacteria, surprisingly, are being used to produce new human antibiotics and vaccines to treat the AIDS viruses. This week has been European plant biotechnology week. Some 130 of Europe's best biotechnology laboratories got together and formed 15 multi-disciplinary teams which are looking at major issues facing European agriculture. I am rather pleased that one of them, which has been looking at the environmentally compatible agricultural project, is based in the city of Norwich at the John Innes centre.
The production of pure chiral drugs by biotechnological methods is impressive. It is clearly a part of the future pharmaceutical industry. We no longer want the sort of tragedy that surrounded Thalidomide, where chemical impurities were associated with the drug.
1247 Basic biotechnological research is also leading to real potential in producing agricultural products—corn, soya beans and cotton—in aquaculture and in the natural environment. It will play a role in the creation of renewable energy products, in recycling and in the greening of the industrial process. All that stems from a knowledge of DNA sequences and the splicing of DNA segments into new recombinant molecules.
Topically, Dolly the sheep and safe human blood products are also the results of that technological advance. I have been sitting here this morning thinking about what I could do with some of those techniques. There would be great potential for using them to spot, at a very early age, aspiring Conservative Members. That would allow us to take some remedial action. My hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has subtly identified the gene concerned as the Herod gene. I say "subtly" because my hon. Friend sees a radical approach to the problems of that particular sequence of DNA.
The United Kingdom university system provides an excellent research base in many of the sciences that underpin biotechnology. The key role of the medical charities in maintaining the UK science base is also of great importance. Interdisciplinary collaboration has to be encouraged—
§ Mr. Gerald Howarth (Aldershot)On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) for interrupting his Adjournment debate. I understand that he is in a great hurry. However, something has just occurred that I want to raise.
On Monday, the Government will hold a summit on smoking, and not one representative of the tobacco industry has been asked to attend that most important debate. There are 15 million people who smoke in the United Kingdom. Although I am only a very occasional cigar smoker, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I wonder whether you have heard from Ministers whether they will invite representatives from an industry that may be very seriously affected by Monday's summit, but from which, to date, it seems to have been totally excluded?
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst)The hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience of the House to know that that is not a matter for the Chair. No representations have been made to the Chair; nor should they have been. I call Dr. Gibson.
§ Dr. GibsonThank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Collaboration between universities and industries will ensure progress in products and processes and foster a partnership of equals, in which both sides have something to offer and to gain from collaboration. Universities must continue to do high-quality basic research with equipment funds that enable them to use state of the art facilities.
There is an old myth that countries and companies that have the odd scientist on their boards or organising bodies seem to do rather well. I should like to think that that has something to do with the ability of scientists to analyse and to think critically. Successful biotechnology companies also seem to draw on the support of scientists, physicians, information scientists, lawyers and accountants from a 1248 network that extends across the United Kingdom and across Europe. British introspection will not be the order of the day in that exciting new world.
Successful companies also look ahead to new techniques that will open a second wave in biotechnology development. Two such techniques are combinatorial chemistry and genomics. The former highlights the joint activity of chemicals to improve treatments, and the latter takes us into the world of risk analysis, in which we can identify individuals who are genetically predisposed to certain diseases. A possible consequence is that, based on that knowledge, those individuals will receive different medical advice and treatment. Hon. Members will realise how, in the long term, that could alter the role of GPs and the economics of health care.
In food biotechnology, new techniques will undoubtedly make it easier to detect biological contamination of meat and of other foods. As time passes, other industries—water, paper, fishing and forensic science—will undoubtedly benefit from that technology.
In environmental biology, with its potential for creating clean production processes, and in the less satisfactory so-called end-pipe cleaning process that occurs after the production of toxic waste, biotechnology provides vast potential for our efforts to green industry and to eliminate hazards. I think of our efforts in Norwich to rebuild a city which has suffered many job losses. We shall clean up an area where factories once stood by adding bacteria to the soil to remove hydrocarbons. It is estimated that that procedure will save approximately 10,000 lorry journeys, and their associated pollution and costs.
Despite that progress, there are the voices of those mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment—those who are perpetually against everything and always keen to undermine the enthusiasm of others. Some people, however, have offered proper criticisms, and they should be answered.
The United Nations, the Council of Europe and groups in the United States have been pushing through a code of ethics to tackle problems in genetic engineering in the light of knowledge and biotechnological advance. We shall have to answer questions on access to genetic information and the role of insurance companies and we shall have to deal with the reaction of people to their health prospects and of consumers to the safety of food products.
The spectre of eugenics is never far away in our society. The United States clearly does not endorse human breeding experiments or genetic manipulation that would have harmful effects on human health or the environment, and it also does not endorse military uses of biotechnology.
The public remain sceptical of companies, and they are suspicious of interference with nature and of misuse of technology. They are also still sceptical of our successes, such as a hepatitis vaccine and stay-fresh tomatoes. Science has yet to be drilled into the nation's consciousness.
Biotechnology is raising issues of profound sociological, religious and cultural values. Only with an impetus provided by the Government, however, will universities and industry make progress on those fronts and deal with those issues. A new Labour Government must promote an environment that is conducive to technological change. Science needs to be at the heart not only of decision making in government but of the political process.
§ The Minister for Science, Energy and Industry (Mr. John Battle)I welcome this debate on the future of biotechnology, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on having chosen this subject at such an opportune moment. It is a key subject on which we should be directing public and political attention. I am only saddened that there are absolutely no Opposition Members present, not even the shadow science Minister. It is sad that one Conservative Member rushed in, made a plea on behalf of the tobacco industry, and then rushed out.
The subject of this debate should be taken seriously because there have recently been key developments. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North and I share the view that ethics are crucial to ensuring that biotechnological developments are life enhancing and liberating, not dehumanising. We ought to regard science in that light, and welcome it. I hope that my hon. Friend's distinguished academic record will be as warmly welcomed in the House as it is widely respected in the scientific and wider community.
Biotechnology itself is a relatively recent science, but some of its applications, such as the use of yeast and enzymes to make bread, wine and cheese, have been familiar for generations. They are now taken for granted. There are many applications of modern biotechnology—from steroids to treat asthma and rheumatoid arthritis, an improved form of insulin for diabetes, a vaccine for hepatitis B and monoclonal antibodies for the treatment of cancer, through to biological washing powders, diagnostic test kits for use in blood and food hygiene testing, and DNA fingerprinting in police forensic work. In the chemical industry, enzymes are already being used to enhance process efficiency, reduce costs and improve the quality of the final product.
Moreover, as my hon. Friend spelt out, the potential is incalculable. In health care, biotechnology offers the promise of new methods of diagnosis and treatment for many conditions that we currently regard as incurable. In agriculture, biotechnology will impact on animal health, animal feed, seeds, plants and crops. For example, it will pave the way for crops to be grown in drought-hit parts of the world, and will reduce the use of chemical pesticides and herbicides. It will also contribute to tackling the problems of world poverty and providing international food security.
One of the foresight panels within the Department of Trade and Industry cited biotechnology as a key technological driver for the future, along with health and life sciences. It is also an economic driver. It is linked to chemicals, food and drink and even, dare I say, to financial services where DNA is used in fraud detection. It now has a fundamental impact on a range of disciplines. Just as there is no such thing as pollution, only molecules in the wrong place, we must remember that they are practically everywhere around us.
I underline my hon. Friend's point that Britain takes the lead in industrial biotechnology. We have well over 200 specialist biotechnology companies, and more than 400 are involved in bioscience-related activities. More than a quarter of all Europe's small biotechnology enterprises are located in the United Kingdom. They employ some 10,000 people, a figure which is forecast to grow. In other words, biotechnology is a major industry of the future which is with us now. It is an economic driver.
1250 The United States of America has more biotechnology companies than Europe, those companies are mature and have more products on the market, and they employ four times as many people, but if Britain and Europe want to get ahead, we have to work hard and take this aspect of technology seriously. We should not forget that Britain can lay claim to more than 20 Nobel prize winners in this area of science. They represent a history of achievement from the discovery of the structure of DNA, the construction of monoclonal antibodies and the invention of DNA fingerprinting through to recent advances in antibody engineering. In other words, we have a strong record of science innovation and world-class companies of great potential.
The Department of Trade and Industry's biotechnology means business initiative ought to increase awareness and encourage the take-up of biotechnology in other industrial sectors. We shall push such programmes forward. An initiative was announced today, stimulated by the fact that my hon. Friend decided to raise the issue in the House. I thank him for that. One of our challenges will offer support to stimulate the provision of specialist incubators and the development of business incubators to take ideas through to market.
My hon. Friend made helpful comments about the European Parliament's biotechnology patents directive. It is important for the future of the UK and European biotech industry and is critical for growth, competitiveness, investment and employment. Failure to agree an effective directive will mean a loss of benefits to this country in an area in which adequate protection is available in other countries, such as the United States.
§ It being half past Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]
§ Mr. BattleWe support the harmonisation of patent laws in the European Union. The problems have existed for a long time and it is important that we resolve them now. We need to ensure that the directive is put forward and openly discussed with full consultation. As it stands, it will not reduce the patent protection that is already available under UK legislation. The fears that have been raised about the directive are not as substantial as some have tried to suggest.
Central to the success of biotechnology is a comprehensive regulatory regime that secures the safety of human health and the environment. We have well-established controls in Britain which we want extended throughout Europe. Bearing in mind the increasing trade in biotechnology products, we need to promote the development of a wider international framework.
Transparency and clear information are vital to consumer choice and we are determined that all food containing genetically modified material should be clearly labelled, to ensure that consumers know what they are buying. Regulation safeguarding human health and the environment plays a key role in maintaining public confidence. The UK has a widely respected system based on advice from the advisory committees on genetic modification, releases to the environment and the novel foods and processes regulations. The setting up of a food standards agency will further underline our commitment to the highest standards of consumer protection. 1251 Our advisory committees on gene therapy and genetic testing and the Human Genetics Advisory Commission will also provide appropriate checks and balances.
In the 17th century, the English physician William Harvey attracted vehement attacks and criticism for his theory on the circulation of blood. Edward Jenner had to publish his research on the use of cowpox to vaccinate against smallpox privately because it was rejected for public publication. There is a long history of condemning discoveries that are later proved to be beneficial. We should bear that in mind. We know how wrong those attitudes were and they seem absurd today.
1252 History teaches us that we ought to remain open-minded to new ideas and developments in science, engineering and technology. I am determined that we in Britain should reap the fullest benefit from such technology. That is not a task for the Government alone. It calls for partnership between industry, the science base and the Government. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for opening up space for the debate with his contribution. I am sorry that there are not more hon. Members here to join in, but I hope that this will be the first of many debates on this vital topic.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Three o'clock.