Abstract
The law is an essential parameter of the regulation of biomedicine. The patterns of law have to be reassessed in the light of new developments like CRISPR-Cas9. This is not about legal technicalities, rather at stake are fundamental evaluations of the pros and cons of CRISPR-Cas9. This is where morality and ethical judgment come into play. The task of the law is not to decide which moral view or ethical assessment is the true one. On the contrary, the law has to make moral plurality and ethical diversity operable within the constitutional framework of democracy. Looking at the legal situation in the UK may help to define an appropriate approach to regulate CRISPR-Cas9 in Germany.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Academy of Sciences Leopoldina, et al. 2015. Chancen und Grenzen des genome editing – The Opportunities and Limits of Genome Editing. https://www.leopoldina.org/en/publications/detailview/publication/chancen-und-grenzen-des-genome-editing-2015/. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Act for Protection of Embryos (The Embryo Protection Act). 1991. http://www.rki.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzestexte/Embryonenschutzgesetz_englisch.pdf?__blob=publication-File. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany. 2018. Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Benston, Shawna. 2016. CRISPR, a Crossroads in Genetic Intervention: Pitting the Right to Health against the Right to Disability. Laws 5: 1–15.
Braun, Kathrin. 2016. From Ethical Exceptionalism to Ethical Exceptions: The Rule and exception Model and the Changing Meaning of Ethics in German Bioregulation. Bioethics 17: 146–156.
Buchholz, Frank. 2017. Genom-Chirurgie. Zukünftige Medizin an der genetischen Wurzel des Ubels. Forschung & Lehre 24: 26–27.
Cabinet Office. 2007. Public Bodies 2007. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/266224/PublicBodies2007.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Cabinet Office. 2016. Public Bodies 2016. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-bodies-2016. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Callaway, Ewen. 2016. Embryo Editing Gets Green Light. UK Decision Sets Precedent for Research on Editing Genomes of Human Embryos. Nature 530: 18.
Carroll, Dana, and R. Alta Charo. 2015. The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biology 16: 242.
Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine. 1997. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine. https://rm.coe.int/168007cf98. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Dederer, Hans-Georg. 2017. Mehr Fragen als Antworten – CRISPR-Cas9 aus rechtlicher Perspektive. Forschung & Lehre 24: 24–25.
Department of Health & Social Security. 1984. Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock Report). http://hfeaarchive.uksouth.cloudapp.azure.com/www.hfea.gov.uk/docs/Warnock_Report_of_the_Committee_of_Inquiry_into_Human_Fertilisation_and_Embryology_1984.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Fateh-Moghadam, Bijan. 2017. Genome Editing als strafrechtliches Grundlagenproblem. Zeitschrift für Medizinstrafrecht 3: 146–156.
German Ethics Council. 2017. Germline Intervention in the Human Embryo: German Ethics Council Calls for Global Political Debate and International Regulation. http://www.ethikrat.org/publications/ad-hoc-recommendations/files/recommendation-germline-intervention-in-the-human-embryo.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2018.
German Federal Constitutional Court. 1958. Order of the First Senate of 15 January 1958. http://www.bverfg.de/e/rs19580115_1bvr040051.html. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Günther, Hans-Ludwig, et al. 2014. Embryonenschutzgesetz. Kommentar. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.
HFEA Homepage. 2018. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). https://www.hfea.gov.uk/. Accessed 27 April 2018.
House of Commons (Public Administration Select Committee). 2014. Who’s accountable? Relationships between Government and Arm’s-length Bodies. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmpubadm/110/110.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2018.
House of Lords Library. 2007. Library Note: Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) [HL Bill 6, 2007–08]. https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/LLN-2007-007#fullreport. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Kersten, Jens. 2004. Das Klonen von Menschen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Kersten, Jens. 2013. Technische und ethische Fragen der Medizin. In: Besonderes Verwaltungsrecht, Vol. 2, Ehlers, Dirk, et al. (eds.), § 54, Heidelberg: C.F. Müller.
Luhmann, Niklas. 1993. Das Recht der Gesellschaft. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.
NHS Homepage. 2018. National Health Service (NHS). https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/infertility/treatment/. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2016. Genome Editing: An Ethical Review. http://nuffieldbioethics.org/wp-content/uploads/Genome-editing-an-ethical-review.pdf. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Porteus, Matthew H. 2015. Towards a New Era in Medicine: Therapeutic Genome Editing. Genome Biology 16: 286.
Rawls, John. 2005. Political Liberalism. Expanded Edition. New York: Columbia University Press.
Reich, Jens, et. al. 2015. Genomchirurgie beim Menschen – Zur verantwortlichen Bewertung einer neuen Technologie. Eine Analyse der interdisziplinären Arbeitsgruppe Gentechnologebericht bei der Berlin-Brandenburgischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. http://www.gentechnologiebericht.de/gen/publikationen/genomchirurgie-beim-menschen-2015. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Robertson, John A. 2004. Reproductive Technology in Germany and the United States: An Essay in Comparative Law and Bioethics. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law 43: 189–227.
Rolf, Sibylle. 2012. Human Embryos and Human Dignity: Differing Presuppositions in Human Embryo Research in Germany and Great Britain. The Heythrop Journal 53: 742–754.
Rosenau, Henning, et al. 2013. Fortpflanzungsmedizingesetz Augsburg-Münchner-Entwurf (AME-FMedG). Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Science. 2015. And Science’s 2015 Breakthrough of the Year Is… http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/12/and-science-s-2015-breakthrough-year. Accessed 19 February 2018.
Shakespeare, William. 1993a. Measure for Measure, Hylton, Jeremy (ed.), http://shakespeare.mit.edu/measure/index.html. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Shakespeare, William. 1993b. King Henry VI, Part 2, Hylton, Jeremy (ed.), http://shakespeare.mit.edu/2henryvi/index.html. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Shepperd, Sahar. 2016. The Revolutionary Gene Editing Technology: CRISPR-Cas9. eHealth Law & Policy 3: 11–13.
UK Donor Received Register Homepage. 2018. Donor Received Register. https://donorconceivedregister.org.uk/. Accessed 27 April 2018.
Wu, Jun, et al. 2017. Interspecies Chimerism with Mammalian Pluripotent Stem Cells. Cell 168: 473–486.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Rixen, S. (2018). Genome Editing and the Law. In: Braun, M., Schickl, H., Dabrock, P. (eds) Between Moral Hazard and Legal Uncertainty. Technikzukünfte, Wissenschaft und Gesellschaft / Futures of Technology, Science and Society. Springer VS, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22660-2_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-22660-2_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer VS, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-658-22659-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-658-22660-2
eBook Packages: Religion and PhilosophyPhilosophy and Religion (R0)