The Regulation of Genetic Technology in the United Kingdom: Hard or Soft Options?

Abstract

Since the 1980s the United Kingdom has experienced a move away from traditional “hard” forms of statutory legal regulation towards “soft”regulation in the form of non-statutory supervisory bodies, committees, guidelines and Codes of Practice. As governments react to events in the field of genetic technology, rather than pursue a coherent proactive political agenda, the evolution of modern regulation in the field of genetic technology tends to follow a similar four stage pattern.1 Stage one usually involves public controversy over a particular issue. The question is heavily debated in the media and followed by demands that something be done. In stage two the government reacts to these demands by setting up a committee to examine the issue. Stage three sees the writing of the government report and its subsequent publication some considerable time after the initial controversy. The report will often recommend that action be taken to address the original concerns. Therefore stage four tends to see the government presented with a variety of options. It can choose to ignore the report and take no action, an attractive option if the level of public interest has diminished. Alternately, the government can choose to respond with either “hard”or “soft” legal regulation. If it chooses “hard” regulation then a statute will be introduced into Parliament. If the “soft” form of legal regulation is chosen then the government may decide either to set up a quango to administer the field in question, to appoint a parliamentary select committee to supervise the area or to draw up a set of non-statutory guidelines to be followed by those working in the field.