Genetic diagnosis and counselling have gone through a process of institutionalization and normalization, but ethical debates about the benefits and dangers of human genetics continue. This article adopts a sociology of science approach and asks how the professional authority of a science like human genetics, which is still a controversial field, is maintained. Using qualitative expert interviews, the article first identifies boundary-work strategies which provide information about specific ways in which claims to scientific competence and validity are succesfully asserted. At a second level, the boundary-drawing discourse of human genetics makes it possible to reach conclusions about the structuring of professional orientations to action. In order to dissociate human genetics from eugenic practices, the individual and the individual’s moral concepts are treated as the decisive point of reference for professional actions. In conclusion, the article criticizes the mistaken belief that this kind of denationalization (Entstaatlichung) and individualization of biopolitics (“life-politics”) is the same thing as a reflexive practice.

The chapter traces the entangled history of biotechnology debate and policy-making during the last quarter of a century, identifying four phases with a similar framing of the issue and the problems attached. keeping in mind the four general issues: the transgression of the boundaries of technical risk issues in the debates, which indicate that biotechnology acquired the role of a sounding board for the articulation of deeper concerns; the challenging of the technocratic paradigm of an autonomous chain of innovation; the prevalence of regulatory responses intended to make biotechnology happen in the context of a two-sided policy of regulation and support; and, finally, the difficulties for the EU common market presented by the existence of profound differences among the nations of the EU in their attitudes towards biotechnology.

In contrast to shifts in other European countries in the late 1990s, the Austrian position on agricultural biotechnology has remained constant over the past decade. Although Austria’s position was initially considered restrictive in comparison, developments elsewhere narrowed the gap, and the European Commission adopted measures that Austria had endorsed for a long time. Taking Austria as an example, this article considers some frequent explanations for the transatlantic divide in agricultural biotechnology that emphasize the link between public opinion and policy. Such explanations stress nongovernmental organizations and media campaigns triggering technophobia among an uninformed public, governments giving in to public pressure and abandoning sound science, and protectionism in agricultural policy that prevents free trade. While not entirely to be dismissed, there also are arguments against a cause-effect relationship between public pressure and policy. Differences in the perceived roles of agriculture seem more important, however.