The Times published a letter from Michael Jennings, spokesman for the European Commission on Research, Innovation and Science entitled Stem Cell Research (June 9). In his letter, Mr Jennings declares the following:,

(a)The European Commission has no plans to fund research that destroys human embryos;,

(b)The Seventh Framework Programme (FP7), the EU research programme, uses a “triple lock” system, that is, (i) EU research projects must conform to the laws of the country in which research is to be undertaken, (ii) projects are subject to scientific and rigorous ethical review, and (iii) EU funds may not be used for derivation of new stem lines or for research that destroys human embryos – including the procurement of stem cells; and

(c)In 2006, the European Commission tabled a declaration on the above approach upon the adoption of FP7. This approach was fully supported by the European Parliament and the member states. The European Commission intends to do the same for the next Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (the Horizon 2020).

In both instances, namely for FP7 in 2006, and during the ongoing discussions on the Horizon 2020, Malta was compelled to oppose the said proposals. Malta cannot agree to any provisions that allow research activities that would lead to the destruction of human embryos.

Malta welcomes the fact that research activities requiring the destruction of human embryos are not funded under the current Framework Programme and will not be funded under the proposed Horizon 2020 Framework Programme.

However, by simply excluding work packages that carry out harvesting of cells from fresh human embryos and then funding the rest of the research that uses old embryonic stem cell lines, the EU is still furthering the development of human embryonic stem cell (hESC) therapeutic applications. While this is likely to be considered as a very positive development by many, when this occurs at the cost of the development of other stem cell applications and comes at the earlier cost of human embryonic or foetal life, this results in unnecessary commodification of hESCs. Commodification implies that, while the research programme is not explicitly funding the harvesting of hESCs, once the technology achieves commercial viability, there would be an increased demand from the therapeutic industry for fresh harvesting of hESCs from human embryos and non-naturally aborted foetuses. There is also the grave matter of participation in ethically illicit activity.

Malta argues that the approach envisaged by the proposed Horizon 2020 Framework Programme does not take sufficiently into account the therapeutic potential of other stem cells. Malta asks for a commitment by the EU to positively discriminate in favour of alternative sources of human stem cells that do not present ethical difficulties such as adult stem cells, umbilical cord stem cells and induced pluripotent stem cells.

Subsequently, Malta will continue to vote against attempts that would dilute sound ethical and moral principles, as well as endanger human life at stages of development. Malta contends that human life should be respected and accorded full legal protection.