International Legal Framework for the Application of Genetic Technologies: Main Features and Issues Open for Discussion
https://doi.org/10.17803/2313-5395.2022.1.19.039-072
Abstract
The objective of the present article is to determine the specific characteristics of the established international legal framework for the application of genetic technologies and to identify general guidelines that influence states’ policies in this area.
Genetic technologies evolve rapidly, raising a number of ethical and legal issues and directly affecting human rights. At the universal level, there is still no international treaty containing uniform rules in this field. At the regional level, the experience of the Council of Europe deserves further study. National approaches to the legal regulation of applying genetic technologies differ since States retain a great deal of discretion in regulating these issues.
Though the Council of Europe Member States enjoy a margin of appreciation in regulating the use of genetic technologies, a number of common distinctive features underlying the international legal framework in this area can still be singled out. These are informed consent, prohibition of reproductive human cloning, prohibition of germ line modification with certain exceptions. They arise primarily from the Oviedo Convention, the Protocols thereto and the ECtHR practice. Soft law documents adopted at the UN, UNESCO and the Council of Europe contribute to the process of their formation, too, but to a lesser extent. The efforts undertaken at the European and universal level shape modern international legal regulation in the field and set up the course of action for States to follow.
Keywords
genome,
genetic technologies,
bioethics,
biomedicine,
human rights,
informed consent,
genetic testing,
human cloning,
UN,
UNESCO,
Council of Europe,
ECtHR
Supporting agencies: The research was carried out within the framework of the strategic academic leadership program “Priority-2030”.
About the Authors
N. I. Gazina
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Nayana I. Gazina, Postgraduate student, International Law Department
9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya ulitsa, Moscow 125993
E. S. Teymurov
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Elvin S. Teymurov, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of International Law
9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya ulitsa, Moscow 125993
L. I. Zakharova
Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Larisa I. Zakharova, Cand. Sci. (Law), Associate Professor, Department of International Law
9 Sadovaya-Kudrinskaya ulitsa, Moscow 125993
References
1. Appleby, J.B. and Bredenoord, A.L., (2018). Should the 14-day rule for embryo research become the 28-day rule? EMBO Molecular Medicine. 10(9): e9437, doi: 10.15252/emmm.201809437. PMID: 30087137; PMCID: PMC6127884.
2. Araki, M. and Ishii, T., (2014). International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reproductive Biology and Endocrinology. 12:108, doi: 10.1186/1477-7827-12-108. PMID: 25420886; PMCID: PMC4251934.
3. Arsanjani, M.H., (2004). The Negotiations on a Treaty on Cloning: Some Reflections. In: Vöneky, S., Wolfrum, R., eds. Human Dignity and Human Cloning. Springer Science+ Business Media Dordrecht. Pp. 145–165.
4. Arsanjani, M.H., (2006). Negotiating the UN Declaration on Human Cloning. American Journal of International Law, 100(1), pp. 164–179, https://doi.org/10.2307/3518835.
5. Baylis, F., Darnovsky, M., Hasson, K., and Krahn, T.M., (2020). Human Germline and Heritable Genome Editing: The Global Policy Landscape. The CRISPR Journal, 3(5), pp. 365–377, doi: 10.1089/crispr.2020.0082.
6. Boggio, A., Romano, C., and Almqvist, J., (2020). The Regulation of Human Germline Genome Modification (HGGM) at the National Level: A Call for Comprehensive Legal Reform. Loyola of Los Angeles International and Comparative Law Review, 43(3), pp. 201–236.
7. Genetic Alliance; The New York-Mid-Atlantic Consortium for Genetic and Newborn Screening Services, (2009). Understanding Genetics: A New York, Mid-Atlantic Guide for Patients and Health Professionals. Washington (DC): Genetic Alliance; Appendix H, Prenatal Screening and testing. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK115544/ [Accessed 15.02.2022].
8. Isasi, R., Kleiderman, E., and Knoppers, B.M., (2016). Genetic Technology Regulation. Editing Policy to Fit the Genome? Science, 351(6271), pp. 337–339, doi: 10.1126/science.aad6778. PMID: 26797999.
9. Jónatansson, H., (2000). Iceland’s Health Sector Database: A Significant Head Start in the Search for the Biological Grail or an Irreversible Error? American Journal of Law & Medicine, 26(1), pp. 31–67. PMID: 10791116.
10. Kalinichenko, P.A., (2002). Prohibition of Human Cloning in European Law. Constitutional Law: Eastern European Review, 4, pp. 45–48 (In Russ.).
11. Knoppers, B.M. and Le Bris, S., (1991). Recent Advances in Medically Assisted Conception: Legal, Ethical and Social Issues. American Journal of Law & Medicine, 17(4), pp. 329–361.
12. Le Bris, S., Knoppers, B.M., and Luthera, L., (1997). International Bioethics, Human Genetics, and Normativity. Houston Law Review, 33(5), pp. 1363–1395.
13. Lo, B., Parham, L., Alvarez-Buylla, A. et al., (2010). Cloning mice and men: Prohibiting the use of iPS cells for human reproductive cloning. Cell Stem Cell, 6(1), pp. 16–20.
14. Lwoff, L., (2009). Council of Europe adopts protocol on genetic testing for health purposes, European Journal of Human Genetics, 17, pp. 1374–1377, doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2009.84.
15. Matthews, K., (2009). Stem Cell Research. A Science and Policy Overview. James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy Rice University.
16. McDaniel, M.J., (1998). Regulation of Human Cloning: Implications for Biotechnological Advancement. Valparaiso University Law Review, 32, pp. 543–581.
17. Parikh, F.R., Athalye, A., Naik, N.J., and Naik, D.J., (2018). Preimplantation Genetic Testing: Its Evolution, Where Are We Today? Journal of human reproductive sciences, 11(4), pp. 306–314, https://doi.org/10.4103/jhrs.JHRS_132_18.
18. Pennings, G., (2020). The Regulation of Human Germline Genome Modification in Belgium. In: Boggio, A., Romano, C., and Almqvist, J., eds. Human Germline Genome Modification and the Right to Science: A Comparative Study of National Laws and Policies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pp. 266–280, doi: 10.1017/9781108759083.010.
19. Ponomareva, D.V., Kosilkin, S.V., and Nekoteneva, M.V., (2019). Genomic Research in International, European, and Russian Jurisprudence. Journal of Computational and Theoretical Nanoscience, 16, pp. 5408–5415.
20. Shalev, C., (2002). Human Cloning and Human Rights: A Commentary. Health and Human Rights, 6(1), pp. 137–151, doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/4065317.
21. Sykora, P. and Caplan, A., (2017). The Council of Europe should not reaffirm the ban on germline genome editing in humans. EMBO Reports, pp. 1871–1872.
22. The National Academies of Sciences Engineering Medicine, (2018). Statement by the Organizing Committee of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing. Available at: https://www.nationalacademies.org/ [Accessed 15.02.2022].
23. Van Beers, B.C., (2020). Rewriting the human genome, rewriting human rights law? Human rights, human dignity, and human germline modification in the CRISPR era. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa006, doi: 10.1093/jlb/lsaa006. PMID: 34221419; PMCID: PMC8248990.
Review
For citations:
Gazina N.I., Teymurov E.S., Zakharova L.I. International Legal Framework for the Application of Genetic Technologies: Main Features and Issues Open for Discussion. Kutafin Law Review. 2022;9(1):39-72. https://doi.org/10.17803/2313-5395.2022.1.19.039-072
Views:
537
Email this article 
