Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia

Q3 Social Sciences Federal Law Review Pub Date : 2024-02-28 DOI:10.1177/0067205x241236212
Olga C. Pandos
{"title":"Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia","authors":"Olga C. Pandos","doi":"10.1177/0067205x241236212","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 2018, the birth of the world’s first ‘CRISPR Babies’ rendered the global community in disbelief. This was the catalyst for an international moratorium on Heritable Human Genome Editing (‘HHGE’). For the first time, the international community was prompted to consider a pathway forward to regulate HHGE. In light of the evolving maturity of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (‘CRISPR’) as a biotechnology, it is timely to evaluate Australian federal legal and regulatory frameworks governing human genome editing. The response to HHGE must carefully balance the need to prevent unethical applications, against the progress of research to improve and refine the technology. This article argues Australia’s federal legislative regime must be reviewed to ensure it has the necessary capabilities to effectively regulate HHGE. It applies three schools of thought which offer an instructive theoretical lens to understand how Australian law has responded to advancements in technology. In addition, an analysis of the governing federal legislation reveals three regulatory gaps — complexity, operational ambiguity and inconsistent legislative objectives. Together, these gaps may be indicative of a legislative and regulatory landscape that is no longer fit for purpose.","PeriodicalId":37273,"journal":{"name":"Federal Law Review","volume":"57 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Federal Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0067205x241236212","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2018, the birth of the world’s first ‘CRISPR Babies’ rendered the global community in disbelief. This was the catalyst for an international moratorium on Heritable Human Genome Editing (‘HHGE’). For the first time, the international community was prompted to consider a pathway forward to regulate HHGE. In light of the evolving maturity of Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (‘CRISPR’) as a biotechnology, it is timely to evaluate Australian federal legal and regulatory frameworks governing human genome editing. The response to HHGE must carefully balance the need to prevent unethical applications, against the progress of research to improve and refine the technology. This article argues Australia’s federal legislative regime must be reviewed to ensure it has the necessary capabilities to effectively regulate HHGE. It applies three schools of thought which offer an instructive theoretical lens to understand how Australian law has responded to advancements in technology. In addition, an analysis of the governing federal legislation reveals three regulatory gaps — complexity, operational ambiguity and inconsistent legislative objectives. Together, these gaps may be indicative of a legislative and regulatory landscape that is no longer fit for purpose.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
穿越未知领域?澳大利亚可遗传的人类基因组编辑的立法和监管情况
2018 年,世界首例 "CRISPR 婴儿 "的诞生令全球社会难以置信。这也是国际社会暂停可遗传人类基因组编辑('HHGE')的催化剂。这第一次促使国际社会考虑如何规范 HHGE。鉴于聚类正则间隔短码回文(CRISPR)这一生物技术日趋成熟,现在正是评估澳大利亚联邦人类基因组编辑法律和监管框架的好时机。应对 HHGE 的措施必须在防止不道德应用的需要与改进和完善该技术的研究进展之间保持谨慎的平衡。本文认为,必须对澳大利亚的联邦立法制度进行审查,以确保其具备有效监管 HHGE 的必要能力。文章运用了三个学派的观点,从理论角度来理解澳大利亚法律是如何应对技术进步的。此外,对相关联邦立法的分析揭示了三个监管漏洞--复杂性、操作模糊性和立法目标不一致。这些差距共同表明,立法和监管环境已不再适合目的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Federal Law Review
Federal Law Review Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
No Place Like Home? Alienage, Popular Sovereignty and an Implied Freedom of Entry into Australia Under the Constitution Traversing Uncharted Territory? The Legislative and Regulatory Landscape of Heritable Human Genome Editing in Australia Foreign Interference and the Incremental Chilling of Free Speech Reviewing Review: Administrative Justice and the Immigration Assessment Authority Managing Ownership of Copyright in Research Publications to Increase the Public Benefits from Research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1