Theoretical Background

The last quarter of the twentieth century was a period of remarkable scientific advances. Information technology, nanotechnology, and biotechnology were three particular areas of scientific endeavors that generated intense public interest in the transformative power of science on the course of future human existence.1 Advances in biotechnology were led by the drive to enhance human life, a concept with immense implications that demonstrated a simultaneous capacity to thrill and to frighten. The moral implications alone are staggering. However, the application of diverse channels for replicating biological substances has sparked global interest based on its systematic and moral inferences.

Advancements in science and technology across the world greatly affect people’s lives, in addition to providing alternatives essential to human survival. One of the major developments in science and technology in the last decade is in the area of human genetic engineering. Human...


  1. Annas G, Andrews L, Isasi R (2002) Protecting the endangered human: toward an international treaty prohibiting cloning and inheritable alterations. Am J Law Med 28:151–178Google Scholar
  2. Basas CG (2014) What’s bad about wellness? What the disability rights perspective offers about the limitations of wellness. J Health Polit Policy Law 39:1035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. BBC News (21 January 2019) China Turns on “Gene Editing” Scientist.
  4. Beauchamp T, Childress J (2011) Principles of biomedical ethics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  5. Botkin J (1998) Ethical issues and practical problems in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. J Law Med Ethics 26:17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brock DW (2009) Is selection of children wrong? In: Human enhancement. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. Brookings (30 November 2001) Event summary: a debate on the ethics of genetic engineering. Brookings.
  8. Center for Reproductive Rights (20 February 2014) Malaysia. Center for Reproductive Rights.
  9. Chatham House (2015) The elusive consensus in international affairs. Chatham House.
  10. Cohen IG (2014) What (if anything) is wrong with human enhancement? What (if anything) is right with it? Tulsa Law Rev 49:645Google Scholar
  11. Cook A (17 July 2002) Our post-human future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution by Francis Fukuyama. PopMatters.
  12. Deeney MS (2013) Bioethical considerations of preimplantation genetic diagnosis for sex selection. Wash Univ Jurisprud Rev 5:333Google Scholar
  13. Doherty P, Sutton A (1997) Man-made man: ethical and legal issues in Genetics. Four Courts PressGoogle Scholar
  14. Everton K (2014) Walking the edge with controversial use of Pre-Implantation Genetic Diagnosis (PGD): opinions and attitudes of genetic counsellors. University of South Carolina Scholar CommonsGoogle Scholar
  15. Fox D (2010) Retracing liberalism and remaking nature: designer children, research embryos, and featherless chickens. Bioethics 24:170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Francioni F (2007) Biotechnologies and international human rights. Hart PublishingGoogle Scholar
  17. Fukuyama F (2003) Our posthuman future: consequences of the biotechnology revolution. Farrar, Straus and GirouxGoogle Scholar
  18. Glenn LM (2003) Crossing species boundaries. Am J Bioethics 3:27–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gross M (2003) Dawn of the saviour sibling. Curr Biol 13:R541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Harris J (2010) Enhancing evolution: the ethical case for making better people. Princeton University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Heinemann T, Honnefelder L (2003) Principles of ethical decision making regarding embryonic stem cell research in Germany. Bioethics 16:530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hsu P, Lander E, Zhang F (2014) Development and applications of CRISPR-Cas9 for genome engineering. Cell 157:1262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Inhorn M (2007a) Reproductive disruptions and assisted reproductive technologies in the Muslim world. In: Reproductive disruptions: gender, technology and biopolitics in the new millenniumGoogle Scholar
  24. Inhorn M (2007b) Reproductive disruptions: gender, technology and biopolitics in the new millennium, vol 11. Berghan BooksGoogle Scholar
  25. Kass L (1997) The wisdom of repugnance. New Republic:17Google Scholar
  26. Kendler K, Greenspan R (2006) The nature of genetic influences on behaviour: lessons from simpler organisms. Am J Psychiatry 163:1683–1694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lewis R (2017) Human genetics: concepts and applications, 12th edn. McGraw-Hill Publishing CompanyGoogle Scholar
  28. Lincoln R (16 May 2018) CRISPR pioneer Jennifer Doudna explains gene-editing technology in Prather lectures. Harvard Gazette.
  29. Miko I (2008) Gregor Mendel and the principles of inheritance. Nat Educ:134Google Scholar
  30. Morrison M (2017) “A good collaboration is based on unique contributions from each side”: assessing the dynamics of collaboration in stem cell science. Life Sci Soc Policy 13Google Scholar
  31. Morrison M, Dickenson D, Lee SS-J (2016) Introduction to the article collection “Translation in healthcare: ethical, legal, and social implications”. BMC Med Ethics 17Google Scholar
  32. Nalbandian E (2011) Sociological jurisprudence: Roscoe Pound’s discussion on legal interests and jural postulates. Mizan Law Rev 5:9Google Scholar
  33. National Human Genome Research Institute. (National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI))
  34. Nayal MB (2013) Preimplantation genetic diagnosis.
  35. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical Issues. Nuffield Council on BioethicsGoogle Scholar
  36. Polya R (2008) Chronology of Genetic Engineering Regulation in Australia: 1953–2008.
  37. Pronto AN (2008) Some thoughts on the making of international law. Eur J Int Law 19:601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Reaney P (25 September 2004) In search of baby perfect. Center for Genetics and Society.
  39. Resnik DB, Vorhaus DB (2006) Genetic modification and genetic determinism. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 1Google Scholar
  40. Robertson JA (2003) Extending preimplantation genetic diagnosis: medical and non-medical uses. J Med Ethics 29:213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Law)
  42. Sandel M (2004) The case against perfection. Atl Mon 293:51Google Scholar
  43. Sándor J (2012) Bioethics and basic rights: persons, humans and boundaries of life. In: Rosenfeld M, Sajos A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, pp 1142–1161Google Scholar
  44. Sándor J (2015) The ethical and legal analysis of embryo preimplantation testing policies in Europe. In: Sills ES (ed) Screening the single euploid embryo. Springer International PublishingGoogle Scholar
  45. Sands MT (2013) Saviour siblings: a relational approach to the welfare of the child in selective reproduction. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  46. Savulescu J (2001) Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics 15:413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Savulescu J (2007a) Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. In: The Oxford handbook of bioethics. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  48. Savulescu J (2007b) In defence of procreative beneficence. J Med Ethics 33:284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Savulescu J (2009) Genetic interventions and the ethics of enhancement of human beings. Read Philos Technol:417Google Scholar
  50. Scott R (2006) Choosing between possible lives: legal and ethical issues in preimplantation genetic diagnosis. Oxf J Leg Stud 26:153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Serour GI (2005) Religious perspectives of ethical issues in ART: Islamic perspectives of ethical issues in ART. Middle East Fertil Soc J 10:185–190Google Scholar
  52. Shanks P (2005) Human genetic engineering: a guide for activists, skeptics, and the very perplexed. Nation BooksGoogle Scholar
  53. Sholley JB (1951) Constitution of the United States of America. In: Cases on constitutional law. Bobbs-MerrillGoogle Scholar
  54. Silver L (1997) Remaking Eden: how genetic engineering and cloning will transform the American family. Avon Books IncGoogle Scholar
  55. Smiley S (2005) Genetic modification: study guide (exploring the issues). Independence Educational PublishersGoogle Scholar
  56. Solomon JM (2010) New governance, preemptive self-regulation and the blurring of boundaries in regulatory theory and practice. Wis Law Rev:591Google Scholar
  57. Stankovic B (2005) “It’s a Designer Baby!”: Opinions on regulation of preimplantation genetic diagnosis. UCLA J Law Technol:3Google Scholar
  58. Stasi A (2015) Maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism in Thailand: a call for legal enforcement. Ubonratchathani University 17Google Scholar
  59. Stock G (2003) Redesigning humans: choosing our genes, changing our future. Mariner BooksGoogle Scholar
  60. Stone G et al (2013) (Chapter 7) Constitutional law, 7th edn. Wolters KluwerGoogle Scholar
  61. Sunstein C (1993) After the rights revolution, reconceiving the regulatory state. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  62. Szoke H, Neame L, Johnson L (2006) Old technologies and new challenges: assisted reproduction and its regulation. In: Freckelton I, Petersen K (eds) Disputes & dilemmas in health law. Federation PressGoogle Scholar
  63. Turriziani J (2014) Designer babies: the need for regulation on the quest for perfection. Law School Student Scholarship 595
  64. Umeda S (6 April 2015) Thailand: new surrogacy law | global legal monitor. Library of Congress.
  65. Whittaker A, Speier A (2010) “Cycling Overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol 29:363CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pin Lean Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations