1044

EC Framework Research

Programme

EC governments are unanimously pushingfor more Community funds to go to medi-cal research. They believe money should bediverted from information technology andenergy research to finance medical workunder the EC’s fourth FrameworkResearch Programme (1994-98). Under theEC Commission’s proposals forFramework Programme budget allo-

cations, the life sciences heading-which :covers biotechnology, medical research,and agriculture-food applications of lifesciences-would get 10.1 % of the total 13-1billion ecus. The governments claim thatthis amount is not enough and life-sciencesshould get at least 11-1%, many want evenmore. Member states say that the 30% fortelecommunications is far too much.

France, Germany, and the UK are alsounhappy about the overall cost of the

programme, although the Commissionclaims it would not mean an increase onexisting funding in real terms since thefourth programme contains headings thatpreviously came out of other EC budgets. :There is also controversy over the EC’s :

nine Joint Research Centres, which theUK, Denmark, and the Netherlands in .particular claim should compete for ECresearch contracts alongside private insti-tutions and be more market oriented. Theyclaim that the centres should not be fundedunder the framework programme since thatis the equivalent of giving contracts withoutthe centres having to bid. Italy, whichhouses many of the centres at its Ispra site, :backed by Portugal and the Commission,rejects this view and emphasises that thecentres are Community institutions andshould be managed as such. :The Commission wants medical research

funding priorities to be AIDS, tuberculosisand other infectious diseases, cancer, phar-maceuticals, and neuroscience and brainresearch. The Commission proposes thatthe EC help should link researchers in-volved in prevention and treatment ofworkplace accidents and occupationaldisease, the epidemiology of illnesses with amajor socioeconomic impact, human

genome analysis, health services research,biomedical technology, and engineeringand biomedical ethics. :EC research ministers will now meet to

discuss the proposals in December and theCommission hopes that the programmewill be finally approved before the June,1994, European Parliament elections.

However, the deep rift over Joint ResearchCentre funding looks set to dash this hope.After all, the Commission only released theframework programme proposals in July,and it took 18 months of hard negotiation toapprove the third programme.

Sara Lewis

Not quite a sciencesummit

The final ratification of the Maastricht

treaty, by Germany, became possible whena qualified endorsement was granted by theGerman federal constitutional court on Oct v12, clearing the way for the treaty to comeinto effect on Nov 1. For the EuropeanParliament, the treaty will introduce newpowers of co-decision, which members ofthe assembly plan to exploit in securing agreater say on research issues and spending.To underline this commitment, theassembly’s Committee on Energy, Re-

search, and Technology organised aEuropean science summit in Brussels onOct 14 and 15. :

Scientific it may have been but in no waydid this gathering conform to the usualcriterion of a summit-that is, a gatheringof principals to take important decisions onthe basis of consensus hammered out byunderlings. Instead, the conference tookthe form of rambling seminar sessions onsubjects such as "science, industry and thequality of life" and "science, culture, ethicsand society". Energy committee chairman,

Belgian Socialist MEP Prof Claude

Desama, commented that it was not too

arly to begin looking ahead to the Com-munity’s next five-year research supportprogramme which will begin in 1998.Perhaps unimpressed by the EC

commitment to research, given that theCommunity budget amounts to less thanthe outlay on sugar subsidies, the scientistsspent much of their time discussing un-sympathetic press coverage, the quality ofscience teaching, the declining interestshown by youngsters in science studies, andthe time-honoured ritual pronouncementson the social sciences. Chemistry Nobellaureate Sir John Kendrew commented:"Young people have turned againstscience. If you ask them why, some saybecause it is boring but more common is thefeeling about the nasty things which sciencehas brought to the world: nuclear weapons,pollution, the ozone hole, and geneticengineering". There were even suggestionsthat scientists are perhaps the very last

people who should be brought together todiscuss science, let alone the ethics ofscience.

Arthur Rogers

HUGO’s uncertain future?

Dr Francis Collins, director of the humangenome project (HUGO), claims that lackof funding may prevent sequencing of thehuman genome by the target date of 2005.He made his comments at last week’sannual meeting of the American Society ofHuman Genetics in New Orleans after adecision by Congress to allocate US$108 :million to university research (Collins hadsought$132 million) and$21 million for agenetics research centre at the NationalInstitutes of Health. However, aspokesperson for the National Centre forHuman Genetic Research noted that the1994 budget for the project had not yet beenfinalised. :

: Collins recently set out a new five-yearplan1 for the US human genome project in

which he reported that "in some instances,[it was] ahead of schedule". New techno-logies, such as new types of genetic mark-ers, improved systems for cloning, andautomated DNA sequencing, have allowedthe programme to become even more ambi-

tious, he commented. However, Collinswarned that these plans depended onannual funding of at least$200 million. For1994, he estimated that the combined re-sources of NIH and the Department ofEnergy would need to produce a budget ofnearly$250 million. If the latest decision byCongress is confirmed, it will be a bitterblow for Collins, who took up his positionas director only in April.

Richard Horton

1 Collins F, Galas D. A new five-year plan forthe US human genome project. Science 1993;262: 43-46.

Updated goals for HUGO: Ot Genetic map: to complete a 2-5 centimorgan map by 1995.

< Physical map: to complete a sequence-tagged site map of the human genome at a: resolution of 100 kilobases.: 8 DNA sequencing: to achieve a sequencing rate of 50 megabases per year.: . Gene identification: to improve methods for locating genes on physical maps or: sequenced DNA.: . Technology development: to take place in all areas, especially sequencing.

. Model organisms: expanding sequence data for the genomes of mice, Escherichia: coli, Drosophila, and Caenorhabdities elegans.: < Informatics: to expand, distribute, and improve access to all genome databases.: . Ethical issues: to refine and disseminate policy options on genome research and

genetic testing; improve public education ; and foster greater acceptance of human: genetic variation.

. Technology transfer: to take place in all areas of genome research.: . Outreach: to encourage the sharing of data within six months of their acquisition.