25 January 2000

It’s a great pleasure to be your guest of honour this evening – and to be here in these wonderful surroundings.

Since taking on the job of Government Co-ordinator on biotechnology last October, I have met and talked with many different groups with an interest in biotech issues.

And heard many different views – from scientists, environmental and consumer groups, and from those working in the industry.

I have heard about the incredible potential that biotechnology offers – already being proven in some fields - and the promise of other benefits to come.

I have heard the contrary views of the perceived dangers and anxieties - especially for the environment.

And I have heard consumer’s views, confused about what they are being told, more anxious than ever - especially about food products. Looking for clarity and reassurance.

I have also heard the case that the government aren’t doing nearly enough to support biotechnology in the UK.

That we are in danger of falling behind competitors in Europe, the US and Japan.

And if we do fall behind, we’ll lose both the economic benefits of a major new sector of industry and, equally importantly, our influence over the way the technology develops and is regulated.

From my Northern Ireland days, I have plenty of experience in listening to and trying to find accommodation between widely differing views.

I am not saying this will take 70 years to resolve, but it’s a thorny issue just the same.

The government’s position is quite clear.

We recognise the immense potential that is there in biotechnology. The best example being in medicine where we are already seeing GM products used to produce, for example, insulin for diabetics, to help cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and to improve blood products for haemophiliacs.

These are areas I know some of you are involved in and which I feel should attract greater public attention.

With other products, especially crops and foodstuffs, the benefits are widely spoken of but more difficult, in the short-term at least, to prove.

As I will come onto, that is one of the main difficulties I think this technology now faces.

The government’s commitment is to protect public safety and the environment and to provide real choice for the consumer.

In doing so we aim to create a framework of regulation which allows industry to develop products that will deliver real benefits, but at the same time helps create confidence among people that their family and their environment are safe.

So how can that be done?

Well first of all we need a foundation of objective scientific standards.

As the Prime Minister said a year ago "On matters that emerge from advances in our understanding of the natural world, we need to be guided by good science, not scaremongering. It’s the only way in the end, to govern in the country’s interest."

But, as those of you who have been engaged in the public debate on these issues will know well, the scientific arguments are not always easily understood or communicated.

Quite understandably, people become confused over what scientists say.

Often there is no simple Yes or No answer; often the language used is hard to get to grips with.

Believe me I know.

But it’s more than just a question of getting the message across. As we know the choices people make are very complex. How they assess the risks to them or their family or their environment of any new scientific development is far from fully understood.

But it seems fairly clear that most consumers are pretty good at weighing up risks and costs, against benefits in what they choose.

Most things in life are less than 100% safe. So there are always choices to be made.

And people are less and less inclined to let government or scientists choose for them.

What we can do as government, is establish a solid regulatory framework that people can have confidence in and provide good quality information – like on better food labelling.

Then people can make informed, confident choices.

I think it is fair to say that a lot of that confidence has been lost in the way that we will regulate biotechnology.

Partly because the science is moving so quickly.

That’s why we undertook a major review last year of the regulatory and advisory framework to make sure that it was safeguarding our priorities, and ensuring that the technology could progress at the same time.

The conclusion of the review was that what we had in place already was working well, but didn’t go far enough.

It highlighted the need for wider public debate about the broader social and environmental issues, and recommended two new bodies to help take that forward.

A Human Genetics Commission - to look at how new genetic developments impact on human health (which has already been established).

An Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission – to advise on all other aspects of biotechnology, except food, (which will be established shortly).

And these will work alongside the new independent Foods Standards Agency – which will deal with all aspects of food safety.

People with consumer interests, environmental interests, industry interests, as well as people with scientific and academic backgrounds will staff these new commissions.

They will identify sensitive issues early on, consult widely and seek expert advice from both sides of the debate on how best to tackle the challenges ahead.

And, crucially, they will operate transparently. The decisions they take will be open to public scrutiny – I don’t want there to be any suggestion of deals done behind closed doors.

We know that, for Government, these are important steps towards restoring people’s trust and respect in the regulation of biotechnology.

But as I said before, that is not the whole answer for you in industry.

Saying that products will only reach market after they satisfied the most stringent regulatory requirements, both here and across Europe, is absolutely necessary but it doesn’t mean people will buy them.

We can also work, as we are now doing with SCIMAC - over the farmscale trials of GM crops – over and above the regulations. I think that’s a helpful way forward.

Working in partnership on a voluntary basis, I believe, shows a greater willingness to respond to public concern than being forced to act through government regulation.

I think the SCIMAC deal has been a very positive development and has helped put the issue on a much firmer footing.

Listening to and responding to public concern doesn’t mean that government is ignoring the potential benefits that biotechnology may bring.

More than half of the extra £1.4b the Government and the Welcome Foundation are investing in our science base will fund research in the biosciences.

We want this country to be the best in the world for bioscience research.

To allow you, the industries, to thrive and prosper and bring forward products that will deliver real benefits to the consumer.

I don’t see any contradiction between that and the Government making, first and foremost, its priorities to be pro-safety, pro-environment, pro-consumer choice and pro-objective scientific standards.

We are encouraging better informed public debate on the issues surrounding biotechnology.

And I would urge everyone here tonight to speak up more loudly in the debate.

If people are to make proper assessment of risk, then they have to understand the benefits better.

Rest assured this Government is ready to support and enhance the competitiveness of the biotechnology industry.

We believe you are a real success story for the UK, which is why we are committed to maintaining and building on our competitive edge.

We want the UK to remain a leader in this field, as the reports launched last year by David Sainsbury on biotechnology clusters, and Alan Johnson’s on the Genome Valley showed.

At a time when we face growing competition from overseas, we want the UK to be the first choice to do bioscience research and, crucially, to turn ideas into products.

The Genome Valley Report identifies the key areas, which will be crucial, if we are going to make this a reality. Getting the regulatory framework right and working to restore public confidence is crucial.

So is:

• Maintaining long-term investment

• Getting the environment right to reward investors and entrepreneurs

• Ensuring we have the right training and skills

• And making sure we make better use of the intellectual property we generate.

Government will continue to work in partnership with industry.

And to encourage greater dialogue between industry and interested groups on issues like GMOs.

If we can work together with you in industry, with the science base, with consumers – and yes, with the pressure groups too – we can help ensure the sector fulfils its potential to improve the quality of life here in the UK.

Clearly, there is a lot of hard work to do.

But we’re committed to it – and know all of you are too.

Thank you.

Back to speeches homepage