While, in the 1970’s, the United States was distinguishable for stricter risk regulation and for more open and adversarial procedures, in comparison France’s risk/regulatory culture appeared deeply “technocratic”. At the end of the 1990’s the European and American positions as to risk regulation seemed to have reversed. This swing in positions, very clear throughout the history of the GMO controversy, obliges us to drop too “culturalist” explanations for some finer comparative analysis of the trajectory of public problems (Joly and Marris, 2003). It is at this crossroad between science studies and social problem sociology that we shall contextualise the question of the role played by science in this transatlantic swing. Some refer to “sound science” and others to the “precautionary principle” but to maintain the comparison at that level would mean to drop the various ways in which GM crops’ risks can be framed by scientists into a black box. Let us therefore reformulate the question: we shall not ask if Americans and Europeans have drawn upon “the science” in different ways, but instead if they have developed the same science, the same research on the effects and risks of GMOs. This approach allows us to put the question of ‘research governance’ at the very heart of the thinking on the precautionary principle (Stirling, 1999).