[en] The biopharmaceutical sector occupies an important place in the Belgian economy. During the health crisis, the country was a central player in the production and export of vaccines against COVID-19. Several international pharmaceutical groups (Pfizer, GSK, etc.) are established in both the north and south of the country. They work alongside the historical Belgian players in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries as well as a large network of smaller, more recent structures active in biotechnology. Based on this observation, the Belgian government and the main players in the sector have set up a strategic plan to support this "ecosystem" in order to strengthen its position as European leader in biopharmacy. Through this plan, Belgium sees itself as the "Health & Biotech Valley" of the future. The country intends to maintain a stable legislative environment for investment and research, as well as support for innovation, training and skills acquisition in the field of biotechnology. This "pharmaceutization" of the Belgian state impacts the practices of the medical world, "drives the behavior" and locks the authorities into a need to maintain this comparative advantage that Belgium has. In this context, what room for independence do health professionals have to protect themselves from the influence of this omnipresent industry? How can this influence be characterized in the Belgian "pharmaceutical state"? This "pharmaceutization" brings about a whole imaginary of representations that frame the capacities of action of medical and political actors. How can we mobilize other imaginaries and perceptions to consider other ways of doing?
Disciplines :
Political science, public administration & international relations
