Question: The precautionary principle (PP) is increasingly invoked in public debate and policy discussions in relation to scientific and technology issues - GM food and mobile phones are two recent examples. Does the growing influence of the PP reflect a reasonable response to uncertainties surrounding modern technology or are we in danger of institutionalising fear of human innovation and manipulation of nature?

Philippe Busquin: I think that the PP is essentially a common-sense approach to the management of situations where there is a risk of adverse effects, and where scientific evaluation alone is not sufficient to determine this risk with sufficient certainty. The commission published last year a carefully drafted communication (COM[2000]1, "Communication form the commission on the precautionary principle") outlining its approach to using the principle, and establishing guidelines for its use. I am well aware that this principle might be invoked without there being sufficient justification. I personally believe that the PP should only be used under certain conditions, for instance when it is proportional to the level of protection chosen when it is non-discriminatory, consistent with similar existing actions and when the benefits and costs of that action have been assessed. I also think that the PP has to prove its value over and over again in the light of new scientific data.

There are usually uncertainties associated with the introduction of new technologies such as genetic modification of food; but our experience and research to date generally confirm that these technologies are progressively improving our level of safety.

Question: The EU has placed a great deal of emphasis on the PP. It is often argued that if governments and officials demonstrate how cautiously they are responding to an issue this will help to reassure an anxious public that dangers to human health or the environment are being minimised - is there any evidence for this?

Philippe Busquin: There is massive evidence, for example in our daily use of technologies such as cars and aeroplanes - we know that these sometimes fail or crash. We still continue to use them because we have a high level of confidence in the systems of safety inspection and regulation governing these. That is generally also true for pharmaceuticals

Newspapers tend for obvious reasons to focus on the exceptions where there is uncertainty and concern. Confidence in the safety of food, for example, has been shaken by the outbreak of mad cow disease, and by some widely reported food contamination incidents. The response of the authorities at EU and national levels has to be science-based, but has to acknowledge that when faced with a new phenomenon, we don't initially know all the answers. Hence the need for the PP.

Question: It often seems that the PP reinforces public fears, which have already been heightened by unbalanced media coverage? Is there a danger that too often the PP is deployed in an attempt to placate fear thus forgoing the opportunity to confront misplaced or exaggerated concerns - the present controversy over DU and the screening of soldiers is an example?

Philippe Busquin: The danger of misuse of the PP is real, but we have made clear that in the EU context, we shall not support exaggerated and unscientific action. Along with the precautionary principle, we emphasise also the principle of proportionality of response as I have already said. The precautionary principle may sometimes call for over-cautious response, and this may be important for public reassurance; but it is a starting point. For example, the first moratorium on genetic engineering work, in 1974 to 1976, was for certain specific types of experiment. Once we had clear rules in place, and had undertaken some more research, it became possible progressively to relax those regulations.

Question: Does the increasing influence of the PP reflect a reticence on the part of governments and officials to make decisions based on the best scientific evidence and to then deal effectively with the criticisms of campaigns groups and the media?

Philippe Busquin: I cannot speak for all governments, but as far as the commission is concerned, I would disagree: the use of available scientific evidence is central to our management of risks, and the limitations of scientific evidence also oblige us to use the precautionary principle. The same is true of international agreements such as those under the World Trade Organization. The criticisms of campaign groups and the media can sometimes be valuable in drawing attention to a problem, but in recent years we have had to recognise that these bodies may have their own agenda, and they do not have the responsibilities which are fundamental to the actions of public authorities. The use of the PP is rather a compensation for uncertainty, or, in other words we just recognize the fact that we do not know everything especially in emerging technologies.

Question: Along with PP comes the demand for a more "transparent" decision making process. More openness and debate can only be a good thing but on what terms?

Philippe Busquin: The commission over recent years has fully acknowledged the need to improve our openness and the quality of our communication. For example, all the minutes of our scientific committees, and their reports or opinions, are published in full on the website of our Directorate-General for Health and Consumer Protection. I have recently established a High-Level Group of experts on the Life Sciences, to advise on how we can further improve the communication between the scientific communities and the general public. In addition to our official programme committees advising on the execution of the research programmes, each programme has an External Advisory Group reflecting a wide range of expertise and opinion. We conduct innumerable workshops and conferences, publishing their reports and advice, in order to ensure that we remain in touch with advice and opinion, and to ensure that the results of our research are widely made known.

Question: In particular, whilst it is recognised that governments have to make the final decision, it is argued that the network of advisors to government should be broadened so that governments do not just rely on the advice of scientific experts but on the "expertise" of unelected consumer advocates and environmentalists. Is there a danger that society has become so focused on "worst case scenarios" and "unforeseeable consequences" that we undervalue and undermine scientific expertise simply because it is impossible to guarantee zero risk or placate concerns over "scares"?

Philippe Busquin: I agree that this danger exists. I have referred to my creation last year of a High-Level Group of experts on the Life Sciences; and I have also mentioned the broader External Advisory Groups which follow each specific research programme. Those advisors are scientists and their advice has a real impact. Throughout the Articles of the Treaty, throughout the daily practice of our committees and advisory bodies, there is continual emphasis on the use of scientific advice and expertise and objective data. There remain of course political judgements to be made, including balancing risks against the continuing needs for innovation, to improve practices (for example, towards greater sustainability), and to maintain our economic competitiveness. Our research programmes are not just designed and managed by bureaucrats and scientific experts: they are proposed by the commission, then discussed, often extensively amended, and finally adopted by the elected politicians of the European parliament, and by the elected ministers from the member states, meeting in council.

I advocate unelected consumer groups and environmentalists to make known their opinions, to lobby the politicians, and many companies and industrial groups do the same. I have presented my concept of creating a European Research Area on the internet for comments by all interested parties. I have had a very interesting internet chat with citizens on biotechnologies and genetics recently, and I shall most certainly repeat that such exercises.

Question: For the future, is there a danger that the PP's effect on institutions, regulations, the judicial process (particularly in the areas of negligence and liability litigation) will have an impact on innovation - scientists in the biotech industry have moved to the US, companies have delayed products, GM especially, new sectors like mobile telephony become viewed not as an opportunity but as problem, public health vaccination programmes can fail due to health scares? Will research become bogged down in the attempt to prove zero risk rather than developing new processes, products or ideas?

Philippe Busquin: There are dangers such as you describe. We are conscious of them, and addressing them. But remember that most of the big decisions are finally made by the European parliament and council, often reflecting political factors in the member states. Also, I would like to stress that zero risk does not and will not exist and I do not believe that anyone is seriously expecting this.

In the use of genetic modification techniques, certainly the research community may have been frustrated by some of our regulations, and we have been revising these regulations - seeking to simplify and lighten them where possible. But we have not only to retain public confidence but to recognise continuing scientific uncertainties, for example about long term environmental effects.

The new technologies should not be seen in a negative Frankenstein monster way. They are also are not only opportunities, they are sometimes necessities. The GM technologies are offering us remedies for previously incurable diseases, safer vaccines, better foods, and products and processes more friendly to the environment. The arguments are mainly about the speed of introduction.

However, we like to have some understanding of the risks we are taking, and I particularly distrust people coming along with unrealistic or incredible promises. Even if the risks going along with such promises are indeed trivial or very small we'd still like to be in charge of assessing those risks before saying, "Go ahead".

Question: Is there potential for conflict between, say, EU regulations on consumer health and future innovative research?

Philippe Busquin: There is always potential for misunderstanding or conflict, which is why transparency and dialogue are important. But it is one of the roles of politics to mediate between conflicting interests.Some consumers may be suspicious of certain innovations, especially if they have had reason to be suspicious of those advocating the innovations. But overwhelmingly, the consumers welcome innovations, expressing their preferences through their choices in the market place. You have only to look around you, in you home, your workplace, your car or your city, to recognise that acceptance.

Question: The future often seems bleak for science and technological development compared to past more optimistic visions, how do you see the future for European science, and what is your role?

Philippe Busquin: I would not agree with your prognosis of a "bleak" future though I also feel that the image of science has suffered in the past years. Obviously some visionary forecasters exaggerate, simplify and misjudge. But over the post-war decades, we have seen in the open market societies of the world a huge increase in material well-being. The problems we face are in reconciling our material success with the environmental sustainability of a comfortable life style, and with addressing the huge and continuing needs of the less developed countries. Both these challenges will absolutely demand scientific progress and technological innovations. The richest societies in the world are those which maintain a high, even increasing level of expenditure on research - in excess of 2.5% of their Gross National Products.

My role as commissioner responsible for research is largely catalytic, to enable the great scientific strengths of Europe to be more effectively brought to bear on these continuing needs for innovation and progress. I have to communicate, to member states, the European parliament, to the scientific and industrial communities and to the wider public; and hence to mobilise the necessary political will, the political support, to adopt research programmes relevant to Europe's needs. We have to take advantage of the new scientific opportunities that are offered; and then ensure the effective management of these programmes, including the transfer of their fruits and insights into support for other areas of community policy.