At the beginning of August, various research institutions received mail from the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The discussion paper, which is also available to “Research & Teaching”, is intended to initiate a discussion about more technological openness: While Germany’s ability to innovate is still high, the regulatory framework urgently needs to be adjusted in order to get back to the top internationally.
The paper contains some concrete proposals for changing the legal framework at federal and EU level, but these are only intended as a first impulse for discussion. Basically, it is about “reducing existing hurdles and bureaucracy”.
Anchor the innovation principle in legislation
First of all, the BMBF suggests anchoring the innovation principle in legislation and procurement law. The current impact assessment focuses primarily on “risks and concerns”. In order to be able to test innovative technologies before a regulatory process begins, a real-world laboratory law is being discussed. The BMBF also calls for a streamlining of German procurement law and proposes “a ‘technology openness requirement’ as a principle for public funding measures” that should be “more closely aligned with the goals to be achieved or social missions”.
The paper sees modernization impulses at the federal level in the areas of fusion energy and artificial intelligence (AI), among others: a legal framework for fusion must first be developed in Germany “in order to remove obstacles to private investment in fusion”. When implementing the EU AI law into German law, “experimental spaces open to research must be created”.
There is also a need for adjustments in the German Embryo Protection Act (ESchG) and Stem Cell Act (StZG): Due to an outdated legal framework, research in Germany is being restricted too narrowly – meaning it cannot keep up internationally.
Proposals for changes to the EU framework
The proposals with regard to EU framework conditions are aimed, among other things, at AI technologies and “new breeding techniques” for crops: For the further development of the AI law, the introduction of a “presumption of harmlessness” is proposed, “according to which AI technologies can be developed and marketed as long as the competent authority does not put forward objective and compelling reasons against it”. The current EU legal framework on new breeding techniques is “completely out of date”. The EU Commission has already submitted a proposal for an amendment to this.
The “offensive for more technological openness” that has been launched is intended to maintain and improve Germany’s competitiveness and to strengthen its strategic independence. Last but not least, more technological openness also goes hand in hand with a strengthening of academic freedom.
