p. 443-472

This article seeks to highlight persistent differences in regulatory science on an international scale. Scientific knowledge is generally considered to be universal, and thanks to international trade liberalization, considerable efforts have been made to harmonize technical regulations, so why do such differences persist ? Drawing on a comparative and cross-national case study on the assessment of the risks linked to animal cloning for food, the author examines coproduction of the context of regulatory science, and its substantive content. Two different ways of producing regulatory science are identified, each which combines different ways of knowing (ways of reasoning, cognitive schemes, categories and concepts) and different ways of regulating (institutional architectures, regulatory resources, sources of authority). The analysis shows that the performance of regulatory science is strongly embedded in institutions which bear the hallmark of their national histories. This is a source of persistent divergence in the assessment of biotechnology.

REGULATORY SCIENCE – OBJECTIVITY – UNCERTAINTY – PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE – BIOTECHNOLOGY – ANIMAL CLONING