Advertisement

Lessons: Unlearned and Learned

I believe that there are lessons that can be learnt from the points made in my work. In doing so, however, there is a need to first ‘unlearn’ some misconceptions and judgments. I argue that the regulation of prospective pre-implantation genetic interventions is a near-distant one that will prove to be extremely challenging and divisive. Such is the length and breadth of ethical, legal and social implications (ELSIs) provoked by the possibilities of future developments, that it is hard to see the forest from the trees. Since biotechnologies have made their mark on humanity generally, these challenges will continue to mount. It is, however, possible to temper these fires by unlearning and learning notions of what we may be used to. Ultimately, the outcomes that are hoped for include the following: firstly, a reinterpretation of the meaning of eugenics in contemporary settings; secondly, strong governance, stable legal and/or regulatory frameworks and...

References

  1. Adolphs R (2013) The biology of fear. Curr Biol 23:R79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Agamben G (2005) State of exception (Kevin Attell tr). The University of Chicago PressGoogle Scholar
  3. American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, ‘The Gavel Gap’ (The Gavel Gap). http://gavelgap.org
  4. Badham V (2017) We can beat the robots - with Democracy|Opinion|The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/03/we-can-beat-the-robots-with-democracy
  5. Barnes M, Wallace N (2017) Laws and ethics affecting clinical trials in Africa. J Health Care Law Policy 19:25Google Scholar
  6. Bartlett J (4 March 2018) Will 2018 be the year of the Neo-Luddite? The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/mar/04/will-2018-be-the-year-of-the-neo-luddite
  7. BBC News (21 July 2017) First woman appointed as UK’s top judge. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40679293
  8. Bello W (21 July 1998) “Asian Values” Democracy. Focus on the Global South. https://focusweb.org/node/365
  9. Belluck P (4 August 2017) Gene editing for “Designer Babies”? Highly Unlikely, Scientists Say. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/04/science/gene-editing-embryos-designer-babies.html
  10. Carleton N (2016) Fear of the unknown: one fear to rule them all? J Anxiety Disord 41:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Center for Reproductive Rights (20 February 2014) ‘Center for Reproductive Rights’ (Center for Reproductive Rights). https://www.reproductiverights.org/
  12. Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical, and Ethical Considerations and others (2017) Human genome editing: science, ethics, and governance. National Academies Press. https://www.nap.edu/catalog/24623
  13. Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, Policy and Global Affairs and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016) In: Olson S (ed) International summit on human gene editing: a global discussion. National Academies Press. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/21913
  14. Cyranoski D, Reardon S (2015) Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Nature News. http://www.nature.com/news/chinese-scientists-genetically-modify-human-embryos-1.17378
  15. Department of Health (England) and others, UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care ResearchGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickenson D (2007) Property in the body: feminist perspectives. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Diuana V et al (2016) Women’s reproductive rights in the penitentiary system: tensions and challenges in the transformation of reality. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 21:2041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Donnelly J (1984) Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Hum Rights Q 6:400CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drahos P (ed) (2017) Regulatory theory foundations and applications. ANU PressGoogle Scholar
  20. Falck EJ (2014) Technology and the memetic self. In: Global issues and ethical considerations in human enhancement technologies. IGI GlobalGoogle Scholar
  21. Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. PitmanGoogle Scholar
  22. George TE, Yoon AH (2014) The gavel gap- who sits in judgment on state courts. American Constitution Society for Law and Policy. http://gavelgap.org/pdf/gavel-gap-report.pdf
  23. Glendinning C (1991) Notes toward a Neo-Luddite ManifestoGoogle Scholar
  24. Global Fund for Women, ‘Global Fund for Women’ (Global Fund for Women). https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/
  25. Greenfield R (1 August 2012) Technology doesn’t ruin our lives, we do. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/08/technology-doesnt-ruin-our-lives-we-do/325180/
  26. Haraway DJ (2000) A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Badmington N (ed) Posthumanism. Macmillan Education UKGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris J (2015) Why human gene editing must not be stopped|Science|The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/dec/02/why-human-gene-editing-must-not-be-stopped
  28. Hennette-Vauchez S (2015) More women - but which women? The rule and the politics of gender balance at the European Court of Human Rights. Eur J Int Law 26:195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. History, Unabomber: Ted Kaczynski: facts and summary (HISTORY.com). http://www.history.com/topics/unabomber-ted-kaczynski
  30. Inhorn M (2009) Right to assisted reproductive technology: overcoming infertility in low-resource countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 106:172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Jasanoff S (2016) The ethics of invention: technology and the human future. WW Norton & CompanyGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaczynski T (1991) Industrial society and its futureGoogle Scholar
  33. Krattiger A (September 2013) Promoting access to medical innovation. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)|Magazine. http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2013/05/article_0002.html
  34. Laurie G, Harmon SHE, Arzuaga F (2012) Foresighting futures: law, new technologies, and the challenges of regulating for uncertainty. Law Innov Technol 4:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mahalatchimy A et al (2012) The legal landscape for advanced therapies: material and institutional implementation of European Union rules in France and the United Kingdom. J Law Soc 39:131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2016) Genome editing: an ethical review. Nuffield Council on BioethicsGoogle Scholar
  37. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. Nuffield Council on BioethicsGoogle Scholar
  38. Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and Of the Council 2016Google Scholar
  39. Roth R (2017) She doesn’t deserve to be treated like this: prisons as sites of reproductive injustice. In: Ross LJ et al (eds) Radical reproductive justice: foundations, theory, practice, critique. The Feminist PressGoogle Scholar
  40. RT Question More (2017) Pentagon revealed as top funder of controversial gene editing tech — RT US News. https://www.rt.com/usa/412019-pentagon-darpa-gene-drive/
  41. 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
  42. Schmeer K (1999) Stakeholder analysis guidelines. Policy toolkit for strengthening health sector reform 1Google Scholar
  43. Sen A (1997) Human rights and Asian values. New Republic:33Google Scholar
  44. Sunstein C (1993) After the rights revolution, reconceiving the regulatory state. Harvard University PressGoogle Scholar
  45. Supreme Court of the United States, Current Members. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
  46. The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/humanrights/lessonplans/
  47. United Nations Population Fund (2014) Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights. https://www.unfpa.org/publications/reproductive-rights-are-human-rights
  48. World Health Organization, WHO|Maternal and Reproductive Health (WHO). http://www.who.int/gho/maternal_health/en/
  49. World Health Organization, GHO|Global Strategy for Women’s, Children’s and Adolescents’ Health (2016–2030) (WHO). http://apps.who.int/gho/data/node.gswcah
  50. World Health Organization, WHO|World Health Organization. http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/mdg5_mm/atlas.html
  51. World Trade Organization, World Health Organization and World Intellectual Property Organization (2013) Promoting access to medical technologies and innovation: intersections between public health, intellectual property and trade. WTOGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations