What goes around comes around!

The second item is very important. It's about trying to make publicly-funded European research more democratically accountable and more engaged with issues of sustainability and social justice.

This follows on from the Pharma-Planta GM project - using GM plants to grow large quantities of drugs - obtaining a grant of 12 million euros from the EU's Sixth Framework Programme (FP6). FP7 is now being finalised and it is expected that the Commission will not radically alter the priorities of FP6. If so, it will involve further promotion of biotech at the detriment of technologies that serve environmental and societal needs, both in Europe and the developing world. (see details of the petition - item 2)

The lack of democratic accountability to the wider community is also keenly felt at a national level. Recently the Blair government, which has GM enthusiast and investor Lord Sainsbury as its Science Minister and a major financial donor to party coffers, has been hyping how much of its spending is going into subsidising biotech (about 10% of the budget!), in what is seen as a pre-election bid for the votes of the self-interested research community. The government has also been giving money to a controversial lobby group as part of an effort "to promote public understanding of genetics".
http://www.lobbywatch.org/archive2.asp?arcid=4960

In New Zealand ahead of the last General Election publicly funded institutes, like AgReseach which is mentioned below (item 1) as having "scarce resources", put money into the biotech lobby group, Life Sciences Network, so that it could run an ad campaign during the election campaign expressing, in effect, support for the Clark government's GM policies. The leader of the main opposition party (National Party) commented that, "to have Government organisations taking paid advertising is a gross interference in the democratic process." The New Zealand First leader Winston Peters said, "The use of taxpayers' money in that way would not be acceptable in any other democracy."
(Taxpayer cash in pro-GE adverts)
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=77

Below (item 1) are details of how much the Clark government is ploughing into biotech at such institutes. Public opposition to GM in New Zealand has been massive but the public are not part of the equation when it comes to decison making about the goals of publicly funded research.

1.Public subsidy of biotech in New Zealand
2.URGENT PETITION AGAINST EUROPEAN BIOTECH RESEARCH
------

1.Public subsidy of biotech in New Zealand

www.clerk.parliament.govt.nz; choose publications, and then oral questions.
16/03/2005

2. Mrs YATES (Labour-Hamilton East) to the Minister of Research, Science and Technology: How is the research, science and technology portfolio contributing to the development of New Zealand’s biotechnology industry?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY (Minister of Research, Science and Technology): On Monday a $100 million life sciences fund, the largest ever promoted in New Zealand, was announced-the BioPacificVentures fund. The Government will be contributing between $15 million and $20 million towards the fund through the Venture Investment Fund and AgResearch®. It will focus on agricultural, biotech, and food sectors in New Zealand and Australia, with a secondary emphasis on health. The establishment of this fund is a vote of confidence in New Zealand's burgeoning® biotech* industry, and is evidence that there are major opportunities for growth in the biotechnology sector. The main New Zealand investment partner is Wrightson, and the main international partner is Nestle.

Mrs Yates: What else is the Government doing to support the biotechnology sector?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: Let me cite five key points. Around $175 million of our research investment in 2003-04 was put into research in biotechnology, and that is the highest proportion invested of any OECD country. More than half the projects funded through our Pre-seed Accelerator Fund so far have been biotech projects. The Research Consortia Fund has funded $10.4 million to biotech-based consortia over the past 2 years, and the Venture Investment Fund has supported investment in Proacta Therapeutics. The Australia - New Zealand Biopartnering Fund is funding nearly $6.8 million for commercialisation of four biotech projects.

Rod Donald [Green list-MP]: How is it consistent with AgResearch®'s statement of intent for it to use its scarce resources to become an investor in a venture capital enterprise?

Hon STEVE MAHAREY: The quantum of money coming from AgResearch® is around $5 million of the current $100 million. It seems to me that that level of investment is cautious, as it should be. It is appropriate for it to put funding into biotechnology.
------

2.PLEASE SIGN URGENT PETITION AGAINST EUROPEAN BIOTECH RESEARCH

The European Commission will publish its draft Euros 40 billion plans for scientific research in the Community from 2007 - 2012. It will be heavily biased towards biotechnology and related sciences.

Please sign the petition at http://www.essfnetwork.org to reverse these priorities and make publicly-funded European research more democratically accountable and more engaged with issues of sustainability and social justice.

The Petition has been developed by the EUROPEAN SCIENCE - SOCIAL FORUM NETWORK, a new European network of socially concerned scientists working alongside environmental and other NGOs concerned with issues of science, corporate power and democracy. It will increase Europe's negative impacts on the Global South by exporting profit-oriented research models and dumping the products of our own research on emerging economies.

Attached is a Briefing on the European Commission's current 6th and soon-to-be-released draft 7th framework programme (FP7) for research across the community. It is expected that the draft FP7, to be released in April, will propose more than doubling the budget "for the enlarged Community of 25 nations, " to Euros 40 billion, and will increase the subservience of science to the profit motive.

In FP7, we do not believe that the Commission will radically alter the priorities of FP6 but will increase support for profit-focused scientific research on developing the technologies of control rather than technologies that serve environmental and societal needs, both in Europe and the Global South. For example, there will be a focus on the new convergence of nano- bio- and info- technologies and cognitive neurosciences, that will be controlled by corporations and the governments that serve them. The outcome of FP7 will increase threats to human health, the environment and society rather than providing us with the tools to protect lives, livelihoods and the biosphere.

We believe that now is the opportunity for us to promote a better vision for European citizens and those of the wider world who will be impacted by FP7. There is no bigger practical statement of our hopes and aspirations for the future than where Europe places its research money.

In the briefing we conclude that the Commission, with the support of national Governments, should:

*Recast the themes of FP7 towards social, environmental and public health goals
*Open research money to civil society control
*Minimise the direct and indirect control of the allocation of research money by industry.

If you or your organisation would wish to support the principles of this Briefing, could you sign the petition http://www.essfnetwork.org. You could also indicate those issues that are of particular concern to you, and why, in the forum on that website.

It is our intention to send a letter to the Commissioner of DG Research, just after E