APPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS

APPLICATION FORM FOR PROSPECTIVE WORKSHOP DIRECTORS To apply for running a workshop at the Joint Sessions in spring 2002 (location to be confirmed), send the form below as the cover sheet and a separate workshop proposal to the ECPR Central Services. You can do this by either emailing both documents as an attached file (in word format.doc or rich text format.rtf) to the ECPR Central Services at ecpr@essex.ac.uk. Alternatively, you can print up the information and send it as a fax to the Central Services, fax: +44 1206 872500. The deadline for applications is 15 October 2000. Title of proposed workshop: The Politics of Biomedicine: Explaining and Evaluating Policy Design Name of workshop director(s): Christine Rothmayr & Fréderic Varone Name and address of institution(s): Dr Christine Rothmayr Prof Fréderic Varone Département de science politique Département des sciences politique et sociale Université de Genève Université catholique de Louvain Bd du Pont d'arve 40 Place Montesquieu 1, bte 8 1211 Genève 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve Switzerland Belgium Telephone number/s: +41 22 705 88 56 + 32 10 47 42 74 Fax number/s: +41 22 705 83 64 + 32 10 47 46 03 e-mail address/s: Christine.Rothmayr@politic.unige.ch varone@spri.ucl.ac.be Please note that the information above is VERY important as it will be used in all future correspondence and printed in the academic programme. The proposal should be typed with 1.5 line spacing on three/four A4 pages using this sheet as the first page, and should cover the points outlined in the guidelines (http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/jointsessions/jsguidelines.htm). For further information, please contact either: ECPR Central Services University of Essex Wivenhoe Park COLCHESTER CO4 3SQ Essex, UK Tel: +44 1206 872501/2497 Fax: +44 1206 872500 E-mail: ecpr@essex.ac.uk Web: www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr Dr Vincent Hoffmann-Martinot (Workshop Committee Chair) Institut d Études Politiques de Bordeaux Domaine Universitaire, BP 101 F-33405 TALENCE CEDEX France Tel: +33 5 56 84 42 88 Fax: +33 5 56 84 43 29 Email: v.hoffmann-martinot@wanadoo.fr U:\JS 2002 Torino ID-47\Workshop Proposals\Rothmayr Varone.doc 01/07/2013

1 Outline of topic and relation to existing research Laboratory research and technical innovation in biomedicine have not only stirred a vivid ethical debate ( bioethics ), but have actually led to the design of public policies regulating or prohibiting the use of certain medical interventions as well as research in the field ( biopolitics ). A number of countries, including a significant number of European countries, have adopted public policies addressing research and medical practices. These policies vary considerably with respect to the goals they try to attain, the instruments they apply and the social groups towards which they are directly targeted. The first purpose of this workshop is an empirical and analytical one. It seeks to describe and to explain the convergence and divergence of policy design (e.g. Linder/Peters 1984; Bobrow/Dryzek 1987; Weimer 1992; Schneider/Ingram 1997) in this new, and highly symbolic policy field, and thereby to test and further develop existing concepts and theories on designing public policies. Secondly, this workshop intents, from a normative point of view, to contribute to evaluating the advantages and disadvantages of different policy designs in a comparative perspective. The last decade(s) have seen a rapid development in biomedicine, in particular in the fields of reproductive technologies, genetic screening, genetic engineering and organ transplantation. The invention of the technique of In-vitro Fertilization in the late seventies and its routinization in the mid eighties created the basis for different new practices in assisted reproductive technologies as well as a basis for research in reproductive technologies, such as stem cell therapy and cloning. The possibilities for genetical screening have grown and considerable amounts are invested into research into still experimental techniques, such as somatic gene therapy. To close this very short list of examples, research is also exploring the possibilities of xenotransplantation. As a reaction towards these developments, political scientists started to research public policy-making in the field of biomedicine by focusing on various research questions and theories (e.g. Blank, 1995, 1997, 1998, 1999; Blank/Mills 1989; Blank/Merrick 1996; Bonnicksen 1989, 1996; Mulkay 1997; Harris/Holm 1998; Rothmayr 1999). (1) The choice of policy instruments: Many biomedical techniques are still experimental. Public policies, therefore, have to address research as well as the medical applications of the new techniques. The policy instruments adopted for coping with this particular characteristics reach from simple prohibitions of certain types of research and medical practices (e.g. prohibition of embryo donation), over creating bodies to monitor and issue permissions for research and medical practices (e.g. bioethical committees), to letting the medical profession establish their own guidelines (e.g. number of embryos to be transplanted) or to not intervening at all on certain subject (e.g. IVF access to everybody, that is also to same gender couples). Accordingly, policy scholars ask how the choice of very

2 different instruments might be explained through referring to existing explanations and assumptions in order to test and further develop the theory of instrument choice (e.g. Linder/Peters 1989; Schneider/Ingram 1997; Howlett/Ramesh 1993, 1995; Varone 1998, 2001). At the same time, political scientist are also interested in the question which instruments are the most adequate and effective ones, given the challenge of fast technical changes and their ethical implications, and the difficulty of regulating experimental research and medical practices at the same time. (2) Experts, citizens and policy networks: In order to explain the resulting designs (as outputs), but also to discuss from a more normative perspective the advantages and disadvantages of certain designs (as processes), researchers turn to neoinstitutional explanations (e.g. March/Olson 1989, Scharpf 1997, Atkinson/Nigol 1989, Ostrom 1999, Bleikli/Timmermann 1998) as well as policy network approaches (Knoke et. al. 1996, Rhodes/March 1992, Marin/Mayntz 1991). Of particular interest from an empirical-analytical as well as normative perspective is the role of experts and citizens in the designing process. Ethical questions related to biomedicine are difficult to resolve in a multicultural environment. How should and could policies been designed that don t impose the perspective of a certain religion or ethnicity on to everybody? The field is highly technical and demands special expertise, at the same time we are confronted with highly symbolic questions of life and death. How can the task of integrating expert knowledge, on the one hand, and participation as well as transparent information of the citizens, on the other hand, be realized at the same time (e.g. consensus conference)? Furthermore policy networks help us to explain differences or convergence in policy design. Political scientists are interested in the question how the networks are formed in a new policy field that might be influenced by existing networks and conflicts in health politics (Immergut 1992) or in even more specific fields like abortion and euthanasia. Accordingly, an interesting question is, to what degree the design of policies in this field do depend on other existing policies in policy-fields also dealing with life and death questions. Do we find in all these policy-fields the same advocacy coalitions and the same policy arguments during the design process? (3) Multi-level governance: Finally, it is of interest how the inter- /supranational and the national levels interact. While about 40 countries have signed the Convention of the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine and a few have ratified the convention, there is no common policy within the EU, where the parliament as well as the "European Group on Ethics in Science and New Technologies" have discussed the issue of biomedicine at several occasions. Through addressing these research questions, the workshop will contribute to enhancing and coordinating research in a newly established policy field of growing importance. It

3 contributes to testing and further developing existing assumptions on policy-design, also through comparison with existing, more traditional policy fields. It helps to answer the question to what extent the existing explanations and assumptions apply to fields involving advanced, fast changing technologies and highly specialized expertise, while raising basic ethical questions about the engineering of human life. In addition, the workshop would also contribute to provide more substantive knowledge on how countries differ in coping with the new challenge of biotechnology. By doing so, the political science perspective might be strengthened overall in the current public discussions. Prospective participants: The workshop intends to attract different scholars who are specialized in the field of biopolitics, as for example Robert Blank (Brunell University, UK), Janna Merrick (University of South Florida, USA) or Andrea Bonnicksen (Northern Illinois University, USA), or who are working comparatively on public policy-making and design, who have recently added biomedicine to their domain of research, such as for example Ivar Bleikli (Norwegian Research Center in Organization and Management), Arco Timmermans (University of Twente), Éric Montpetit (École nationale d'administration publique, Canada). Papers to attract: The workshop wants to attract two different types of papers: empirical studies comparing policy-design in different countries or applying existing theories in a country case study in the field of biomedicine, or studies discussing policy design in biomedicine from a normative perspective or evaluating different designs in a comparative perspective in order to formulate recommendations for public policy making. Funding: Both applicants have received funding by research foundations for projects in the field of biomedicine (assisted reproduction). It might be possible to find funding for some participants in connection with the already ongoing research projects. Biographical note Dr Christine Rothmayr is lecturer and researcher at the University of Geneva, Switzerland. She is currently co-responsible for a comparative research project studying the design of public policies for assisted reproductive technologies in five European countries, funded by the Swiss National Science Foundation. She is not only familiar with the issue of policy design (Rothmayr et. al. 1997, Timmermanns et al. 1998) through her own research, but has also conducted research on the field of assisted reproductive technology with a special emphasis on the impact of court rulings on the design of public policies (Rothmayr 1999; Rothmayr et al. 2000). Professor Frederic Varone is teaching comparative policy analysis, program evaluation and public management at the Catholic University of Louvain, Belgium. He is currently

4 responsible for a comparative research project studying the design of public policies for assisted reproductive technologies in Belgium and France, funded by the Belgian National Bank. He is very familiar with the theories and the empirical analysis of instrument choice (e.g. Varone 1998; Varone 2000; Varone 2001). Since 1997 he is also involved in an international project on the comparative analysis of assisted reproductive technology in North America and Europe (e.g. Varone & Landry 1997; Timmermans et al. 1998). Literature cited: Atkinson, Michael M., and Robert A. Nigol. 1989. Selecting Policy Instruments. Neo- Institutional and Rational Choice Interpretations of Automobile Insurance in Ontario. Canadian Journal of Politicial Science 22 (1): 108-135. / Blank, Robert H. 1995. Biomedical Policy. Chicago: Nelson-Hall Inc. / Blank, Robert H. 1997. The Price of Life. New York: Columbia University Press. / Blank, Robert H. 1998. Regulation of donor insemination. In Donor Insemination. International Social Science Perspectives, edited by K. Daniels and E. Haimes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. / Blank, Robert H. 1999. Brain Policy. How the New Neuroscience Will Change Our Lives and Our Politics. Washington: Georgetwons University Press. / Blank, Robert H. and Miriam K. Mills (eds.). 1989. Biomedical Technology and Public Policy. Westport: Greenwood Press. / Blank, Robert H., and Janna C. Merrick. 1995. Human Reproduction, Emerging Technologies, and Conflicting Rights. Washington: CQ. / Bleikli, Ivar, and Arco Timmermann. 1998. A Comparative Institutional Approach to Policy Design on Life and Death Issues. Paper Presented at the ECPR research Sessions, Aarhus 1998. / Bobrow, Davis B., and John S. Dryzek. 1987. Policy Analysis by Design. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. / Bonnicksen, Andrea L. 1989. In Vitro Fertilization. Building Policy From Labaratories to Legislatures. New York: Columbia University Press. / Bonnicksen, Andrea L. 1996. Private and Public Policy Alternatives in Oocyte Donation. In New Ways of Making Babies. The Case of Egg Donation, edited by C. B. Cohen. Bloomington: Indiana University Press. / Harris, John, and Soren Holm, eds. 1998. The Future of Human Reproduction. Ethics, Choice, and Regulation. Oxford: Clarendion Press. / Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 1993. Patterns of Policy Instrument Choice. Policy Style, Policy Learning and the Privatization Experience. Policy Studies Review 12 (1/2): 3-24. / Howlett, Michael, and M. Ramesh. 1995. Studying Public Policy: Policy Cycle and Policy Subsystems. Toronto: Oxford University Press. / Immergut, Ellen M. 1992. Health Politics. Interests and Institutions in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. / Knoke, D., F.U. Pappi, J. Broadbent, and Y. Tsujinaka. 1996. Comparing Policy Networks: Labor Politics in the U.S., Germany and Japan, Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. / Linder, Stephen, and B. Guy B. Peters. 1984. From Social Theory to Policy Design. Journal of Public Policy 4 (3): 237-259. / Linder, Stephen H., and Guy B. Peters. 1989. Instruments of Government. Perceptions and Contexts. Journal of Public Policy 9 (1):35-58. / March, James M., and Hohan P. Olson. 1989. Discovering Institutions. New York: Free Press. / Marin, Bernd, and Renate Mayntz (eds). 1991. Policy Networks: Empirical Evidence and Theoretical Considerations. Frankfurt: Campus. / Mulkay, Michael. 1997. The Embryo Research Debate. Science and the Politics of Reproduction. Cambridge: University Press. / Ostrom, Elinor. 1999. Institutional Rational Choice: an Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Development Framework. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. by Paul Sabatier. Boulder: Westview Press. / Rhodes, R.A.W., and D. Marsh. 1992. New Directions in the Study of Policy Networks. European Journal of Political Research 21:181-205. / Rothmayr, Christine, Uwe Serdült, and Elisabeth Maurer. 1997. Policy Instruments: An Analytical Category Revised. Paper Prepared for Delivery at the ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops, Bern. / Rothmayr, Christine. 1999. Politik vor Gericht. Implementation und Wirkungen von Entscheiden des Schweizerischen Bundesgerichts in den Bereichen Fortpflanzungsmedizin, Lohngleichheit von Frau und Mann und Sonntagsarbeit. Bern: Haupt. / Rothmayr, Christine, Serdült Uwe and Fréderic Varone. 2000. Regulating Assisted Reproductive Technology in Switzerland: A Policy Design Perspective. Paper prepared for presentation at the 58th Annual National Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago April 27-30, 2000. / Scharpf, Fritz W. 1997. Games Real Actors Play. Actor- Centered Institutionalism in Policy Research. Boulder: Westview. / Schneider Larason, Ann L., and Helen Ingram. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy. Lawrence: University of Kansas Press. / Timmermans, Arco, Christine Rothmayr, Uwe Sedült, and Frédéric Varone. 1998. The Design of Policy Instruments: Perspectives and Concepts. Paper read at Paper presented at the 56th Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago April 23-25 1998. / Varone, Frédéric, and Réjean Landry. 1997. The Choice of Policy Tools: In Search of Deductive Theory. Paper Prepared for Delivery at the ECPR Joint Sessions Workshops, Bern, 1997. / Varone, Frédéric. 1998. Le choix des instruments des politiques publiques. Une analyse comparée des politiques d'efficience énergétique du Canada, du Danemark, des Etats-Unis, de la Suède et de la Suisse. Vol. 6, Berner Studien zur Politikwissenschaft. Bern: Paul Haupt. / Varone, Frédéric. 2000. Le choix des instruments de l action publique : analyse comparée des politiques énergétiques en Europe et en Amérique du Nord, Revue internationale de politique comparée, 7(1) :167-201 / Varone, Frédéric. 2001. Les instruments de la politique énergétique: analyse comparée du Canda et des Etats-Unis, Canadian Journal of Political Science (à paraître en mars) / Weimer, David L. 1992. The Craft of Policy Design: Can It Be More Than Art. Policy Studies Review 11: 370-388.