" Entepreneurs of standards ".

Cass Sunstein (Sunstein, on 1997) identifies a category of people, whom he calls the entrepreneurs of standards, who are interested, them, in the evolution of social standards. If their efforts make a success, it can cause a chain reaction, Which, little by little, lead to substantial changes in the social standards of a whole society. The entrepreneurs of standards can exploit a dissatisfaction spread with the existing standards and thus to take forward the society towards a new standard of several manners:

A) By indicating their own commitment to want to change the standards,

B) By creating coalitions,

C) By challenging the standards which seem the least expensive,

D) By making so that the respect for the new standards seems more advantageous.


These entrepreneurs of standards investigate the problem in all its dimensions, giving  it so a cognitive frame, mobilizing (Keck and Sikkink, on 1998). The society can so know a fast revision of its existing standards. In it work on the standards, the symbolic dimension seems then determining. Both authors take the example of the mobilization of organizations of defense of the human rights which, in the years 1970-80, brought out the excision problem in Africa of its anthropologico-medical confidentiality, to educate it in stake in human rights.

Epistémiques communities.

Finally, the standards can be also poduced by professionals' networks endowed with one sientific expertise in particular sectors of international public policy, otherwise from transnational epistemic communities (Haas, on 1992).

 

For Haas, an epistemic community indicates " professionals' network having one expertise and a skill recognized in a particular domain and a claiming of authority as regards the relevant knowledge for the politics " (Haas, on 1992).
According to Haas epistemic communities have:

 

- Common group normative faiths and principles which supply a justification based on the value for the social action of the members of the community.
 

- Faiths shared on the causalities, which arise from their analysis of practices which bring or contribute to central group problems in their domain, and which serve then as base(basis) to clarify the multiple links between political possible actions and desired results.

- Common notions of validity - that is, intersubjective criteria, defined in house, for the level-headedness and the validation of the knowledge in their field of expertise.

- And a company common policy - that is, a set of common practices associated in a set of problems towards which their professional skill is managed.

Epistemic communities distinguish themselves from other groups of transnational interests by the specificity of their activity directed to the production of knowledge scientifically validated and  refutable.

A lot of examples of epistemic transnational's communities can be found in  a variety of expertise sectors (climatologists of the GIEC, the epidemiologists to the WHO, the experts of nuclear power to the IAEA, etc.).

 

The basic idea of Haas is that a epistemic community is at the same time a community of knowledge and a community of power.
Dedicated to reduce the uncertainty in the decision-making on an international scale, these communities would indeed have acquired a own power:

" The members of epistemics communities transnational can influence the interests of States, either by identifying them directly for the decision-makers, or by enlightening the striking dimensions of a problem which brings these to deduce their interests from it " (Haas, on 1992).

Even if the notion knew a big success which widely extended beyond constructivist paradigm, Haas referred at the origin of a limited " constructivism " emphasizing the cognitive dimension of the international policy independently of the logics of power and interests.
An approach of our ground of research in a épistémè of type " constructivism ingenieric ", seems to us to be able to agree with this field of the institutional entrepreneurship, or more exactly neo-institutional.

Our entrepreunarial experience " Intelligence in Life, for a sustainable clinical development " takes under this theoretical lighting the aspect of a epistemic community.

The pragmatic acceptance of this Gordian knot between right and economy, in the pursuit(continuation) of an objective of safety of the HRO, should probably lead them to a polycentrism in the decision-making and thus of responsibility. This to install(settle) a reasonable solution according to a majority authority or otherwise(differently), the advice(council) of all the stakeholders which are involved in the quarrel. This having for virtuous consequence the strengthening of the cooperation and the confidence (shareholders, insurers of the main thing, promoter).
Finally, this coevolution of institutions and the economy interacts with the technology (which that of the information and the communication) and the social and ethical changes.

Finally, we cannot wonder about the specificity which characterizes the medicine in the broad sense? (generic medicine, worked, consumer)
Does not this specificity find itself at the level of the regulation of the field to which it is up? In other words, there is no specificity of the pharmaceutical regulation?