Везде
Heritable Human Genome Editing: A Comparative Analysis of Russian and Foreign Legal Regulation
Table of contents
Abstract Estimate Publication content
References Comments
Share
QR
Metrics
Heritable Human Genome Editing: A Comparative Analysis of Russian and Foreign Legal Regulation
Abstract
PII
S1991-32220000622-3-1
DOI
10.12737/jzsp.2023.008
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Alexandra A. Troitskaya 
ORCID: 0000-0002-5025-9905
Occupation: Professor at the Department of Constitutional and Municipal Law, Faculty of Law
Affiliation: Lomonosov Moscow State University
Address: Moscow, Russia
Edition
Volume 19 No. 1
Pages
69-81
Abstract

Controlled development of technologies for introducing heritable changes in the human genome (primarily CRISPR/Cas9 technologies) requires adequate legal proactive regulation in the area.

A comparison is used as the main method of the research, in the variant of a small-N case-study of several countries (USA, China, Great Britain), which allow editing the human germline at the level of fundamental research. The author returns back to Russia from an exciting trip to abroad and formulates rational and realistic conclusions for the domestic legal order. The legal approach is complemented by knowledge from the field of molecular biology to the extent necessary to explain the proposed solutions.

Based on the results of the study, the following dimensions of legal regulation of genetic editing at the level of fundamental research in Russia are formulated: the choice of the intended purpose of the technology (editing for medical purposes, with specific nosological forms for the use of technology); introduction of a transparently organized licensing procedure for conducting research (including the definition of a body authorized to issue a permit, the establishment of procedures for scientific groups and the imposition of sanctions in case of violation of these procedures); expanding the practice of interdisciplinary ethics commissions (and addressing the issue of training personnel for work in commissions); long-term monitoring of research results; creation of a legal framework with a predominance of professional positions; attention to the rules of editing the human genome in foreign countries.

Keywords
germline editing; CRISPR/Cas9, fundamental research, clinical trials, ethical commissions, United States of America, People’s Republic of China, the United Kingdom
Date of publication
10.03.2023
Number of purchasers
12
Views
191
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf
1

References



Additional sources and materials

1.	Andorno R. et al. Geneva Statement on Heritable Human Genome Editing: The Need for Course Correction. Trends in Biotechnology, 2020, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 351—354.
2.	Andorno R. The Oviedo Convention: A European Legal Framework at the Intersection of Human Rights and Health Law. Journal of International Biotechnology Law, 2015, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 133—143.
3.	Araki M., Ishii T. International Regulatory Landscape and Integration of Corrective Genome Editing into In Vitro Fertilization. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology, 2014. Available at: https://rbej.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1477-7827-12-108 (accessed: 01.01.2023).
4.	Baumann M. CRISPR/Cas9 Genome Editing — New and Old Ethical Issues Arising from Revolutionary Technology. NanoEthics, 2016, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 139—159.
5.	Cyranoski D. CRISPR-Baby Scientist Fails to Satisfy Critics. Nature, 2018, November 28.
6.	Darnovsky M., Hasson K. CRISPR’s Twisted Tales: Clarifying Misconceptions About Heritable Genome Editing. Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 2020, vol. 63, no. 1, pp. 155—176.
7.	Doudna J. A., Charpentier E. The New Frontier of Genome Engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science, 2014, vol. 346, no. 6213.
8.	Lapaeva V. V. Ethical Committee as an Element of the Management System in the Scientific and Technological Sphere: Problems and Prospects. Management of Science: Theory and Practice, 2021, no. 4, pp. 112—122. (In Russ.)
9.	Lawford Davis J. The Regulation of Human Germline Genome Modification in the United Kingdom. In Boggio A., Romano C. P. R., Almqvist J. (eds). Human Germline Genome Modification and the Right to Science. A Comparative Study of National Laws and Policies. Cambridge University Press, 2020.
10.	Ledford H. CRISPR fixes disease gene in viable human embryos. Nature, 2017, vol. 548, pp. 13—14.
11.	Ledford H. CRISPR, the Disruptor. Nature, 2015, vol. 522, no. 7554, pp. 20—24.
12.	Liang P., Xu Y., Zhang X. et al. CRISPR/Cas9-Mediated Gene Editing in Human Tripronuclear Zygotes. Protein Cell, 2015, vol. 5, no. 6, pp. 363—372.
13.	Liu S. Legal reflections on the Case of Genome-edited Babies. Global Health Research and Policy, 2020, no. 5.
14.	Ma H. et al. Correction of a Pathogenic Gene Mutation in Human Embryos. Nature, 2017, August 2.
15.	McCully S. The Time has Come to Extend the 14-Day Limit. Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021, no. 7.
16.	Mokhov A. A. Biolaw and Strategy of its Development in the Russian Federation. Actual problems of Russian law, 2022, no. 2, pp. 201—210. (In Russ.)
17.	Schandera J., Mackey T. Mitochondrial Replacement Techniques: Divergence in Global Policy. Trends in Genetics, 2016, vol. 32, no. 7, pp. 385—390.
18.	Song L., Joly Y. After He Jianku: China’s Biotechnology Regulation Reforms. Medical Law International, 2021, no. 2.
19.	Troitskaya A. Legal Answers to Questions about Editing the Human Genome (Considering CRISPR-Cas9 Technology). Comparative Constitutional Review, 2022, no. 5, pp. 11—41. (In Russ.)

Comments

No posts found

Write a review
Translate