The Essential Features of 21st Century Biolaw

  • Carlo CasonatoEmail author
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 78)


The rapid pace in the progression of life sciences pushes law in one of its most significant intrinsic features: the principle of certainty. While uncertainty and the modifiability of its results are of normal currency in life sciences, they are especially problematic in law, jeopardizing the very essence of equality and non-discrimination. It is also worth mentioning that life sciences work on a very diverse set of materials and cases that usually differ from each other. Any even minimum specific traits of bio-objects must be considered so as to avoid an undifferentiated and therefore unreasonable legal regulation. Law as a codified set of general principles also suffers from this perspective. Taking the above into consideration, this chapter proposes a number of coordinates, which can give biolaw the necessary features to cope with a difficult, ever-changing and very specific dimension of human knowledge—building, in this way, an open, updated and attentive biolaw for 21st Century life sciences.


  1. Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School. (1968). A definition of irreversible coma—Report of the Ad Hoc Committee of the Harvard Medical School to examine the definition of brain death. JAMA, 205(6), 337–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baron, J. (2006). Against bioethics. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  3. Binet, J. R. (2012). La réforme de la loi bioéthique: commentaire et analyse de la loi n. 2011-814 du 7 juillet 2011 relative à la bioèthique. Paris: Lexis Nexis.Google Scholar
  4. Craven, L., et al. (2016). Research into policy: A brief history of mitochondrial donation. Stem Cells, 34(2), 265–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cyranoski, D. (2016). Chinese scientists to pioneer first human CRISPR trial. Gene-editing technique to treat lung cancer is due to be tested in people in August, Nature News. Online Accessed July 21, 2016.
  6. Cyranoski, D., & Reardon, S. (2015). Chinese scientists genetically modify human embryos. Protein and Cell. Nature News. Online Accessed July 12, 2016.
  7. Dworkin, R. B. (1996). Limits. The role of the law in bioethical decision making. Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 1(2), 180–181.Google Scholar
  8. ECHR (2011) refers to the European Court of Human Rights Case of S.H. and Others v. Austria (app. No. No. 57813/00; 3 November 2011).Google Scholar
  9. Fineschi, V., Neri, M., & Turrillazzi, E. (2005). The new Italian law on assisted reproduction technology (Law 40/2004). Journal of Medical Ethics, 31, 536–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garattini, S., Bertelé, V., & Bertolini, G. (2013). A failed attempt at collaboration. BMJ, 347, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Goold, I., & Herring, J. (2014). Great debated in medical law and ethics. Palgrave: Basingstoke.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Italian National Bioethics Committee. Neuroscience and pharmacological cognitive enhancement: Bioethical aspects. Accessed July 25, 2016.
  13. Jasanoff, S. (2016). The ethics of invention: Technology and the human future. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.Google Scholar
  14. Katz, J. (1985). Can principles survive in situations of critical care? In J. C. Moskop & L. Kopelman (Eds.), Ethics and critical care medicine (pp. 41–67). Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publishing Company.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ledford, H. (2015). CRISPR, the disruptor. Nature, 522, 20–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lewis, S. L., & Maslin, M. A. (2015). Geological evidence for the Anthropocene. Science, 17(349), 246–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McLean, S. A. M. (2015). Mitochondrial DNA transfer. Some reflections from the United Kingdom. BioLaw Journal, 2, 81–88.Google Scholar
  18. Minister R. Bachelot inaugural speech is quoted in A. Graf (Rapporteur général) Rapport final. Etats généraux de la bioéthique, July 01 2009.
  19. Monastersky, R. (2015). Anthropocene: The human age. Nature, 519, 144–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. National Institute on Aging of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Accessed July 25, 2016.
  21. Nuffield Council on Bioethics. (2014). The culture of scientific research in the UK. Accessed July 22, 2016.
  22. Olver, I. (2015). Why we should consider whether it’s time to allow sex selection in IVF. The Conversation, 24.Google Scholar
  23. Penasa, S. (2015). La legge della scienza: nuovi paradigmi di disciplina dell’attività medico-scientifica. Uno studio comparato in materia di procreazione medicalmente assistita. Napoli: Editoriale Scientifica.Google Scholar
  24. Pinker, S. (2015, Aug 01). The moral imperative for bioethics. The Boston Globe.Google Scholar
  25. Pound, R. (1923). Interpretations of legal history. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Ranchordás, S. (2014). Sunset clauses and experimental regulations: Blessing or curse for legal certainty? Statute Law Review, 36(1), 28–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Reber, B. (2009). Introduction. Analyses des États Généraux de la Bioéthique, Le droit pénal. Archives de philosophie du droit, 53, 275.Google Scholar
  28. Veronesi, P. (2007). Il corpo e la Costituzione. Concretezza dei casi e astrattezza della norma. Milano: Giuffrè.Google Scholar
  29. Worm, B. (2015). A most unusual (super) predator. Science, 349(6250), 784–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Zagrebelsky, G. (1992). Il diritto mite. Legge, diritti, giustizia. Torino: Einaudi Contemporanea.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of TrentoTrentoItaly

Personalised recommendations