Search

Belgium and France are among the leading European countries regarding the development of biotechnologies in the sector of genetically modified organisms (GMO) as well as in the sector of assisted reproductive technologies (ART) including stem cells research and therapeutic cloning. For what GMO concerns, French and Belgian researchers are recognized as pioneers of the vegetal transgenesis techniques. While the European Union regulation is generally based on the precautionary principle and has been influenced by a de facto moratorium from 1999, Belgian and French decision-makers have encouraged research funding, implantation of national and multinational firms, contained use activities and field releases. Regarding biomedicine, the in vitro fecundation is 20 years old . The today well-known technique of intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) was implemented for the first time by a Belgian team which reported the first birth thanks to this technique in 1991. In front of the scientific developments, the Belgian and French public authorities have reacted in different ways in the field of ART. The Belgian Government has only adopted procedural decrees to list formal conditions (types of cares, competences of the practitioners, etc.) that the ART centres must fulfil to get a license. ART doctors benefit from a large autonomy: they mainly rest upon the rules established by the ART centre team, the local ethics committee of their hospital, the Code of Medical Deontology. Such a self-regulation does not apply in France. The French Bioethics Laws of 1994 strictly define the ART practises: who is entitled to a treatment (heterosexual, married or stable couples), which techniques are allowed, etc. In that regard, the Belgian regulation is more permissive than the French which is labelled intermediate. In comparison, countries like Germany or Switzerland have a restrictive regulation: many techniques (such egg donation, pre-implantation diagnosis, etc.) are forbidden, the access of patients to ART treatments is strictly regulated. In the GMO field, the French and the Belgian regulations are similar. Both countries broadly allow activities that range from the laboratory (researches on contained use) and the deliberate release (i.e. field trials mainly carried out by multinational companies) to the market (commercialisation of GMO products). These activities are limited by the UE regulations. Meanwhile the Member States benefit from a room of manoeuvre in implementing the decisions of the UE. The fact is that they have intervened in the GMO issue -defining procedures and conditions at the national level for authorising the activities- since it?s a vector of public mobilisation in a context of sanitary crises. The Belgian and French regulations are thus labelled intermediate in our case studies. Public Policies Analysis helps to explain the differences between these types of regulations. The framework is focused on the policy design characterized by five attributes: policy goals, policy instruments, implementers, target groups and final beneficiaries. Hypotheses highlight three levels of explanations: the policy networks, the national polities and the multi-level governance. The characteristics of each State partly help to explain the differences of regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]