The Formation of Ethical and Legal Methods of Control over Scientific Research in the Field of Development and Use of Genetic Technologies

The paper is devoted to the problems of the formation of ethical and legal methods of regulation and control over scientific developments and discoveries in the field of genetic engineering and biomedical cell technologies. The author highlights the main stages of the development of science in this area and the implementation of the results in global practice and civil circulation. The paper raises a question about the delimitation of the ways of public discussion of scientific discoveries and achievements in the global aspect for the legal methods of regulation and control to be formed. The paper considers some aspects of commercialization of scientific discoveries, their use in the framework of international competition and stimulation of the economies of countries participating in scientific progress in the field of genetic engineering. It is concluded that it is necessary to form a unified global approach to scientific developments in order to avoid bypassing the law and using "weak" legal order to legalize the results of scientific research that are currently unacceptable. It is important to differentiate between technical safety criteria and ethical, social, religious, legal aspects, and in addition, to include the political and economic context, which is becoming increasingly inherent in scientific research as new products and services are introduced to the market.

1. Araki M, Ishii T (2014) International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 12(1):108-120 // URL: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0319-5.

2. Baltimore D, Berg P, Botchan M, Carroll D, Charo RA, Church G et al. (2015) A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 348(6230):36.

3. Baylis F (2013) The ethics of creating children with three genetic parents. Reprod BioMedicine Online 26(6):531-534.

4. Begley S (2019) Fertility clinics around the world asked 'CRISPR babies' scientist for how-to help. STAT. URL: https://www.statnews.com/2019/05/28/fertility-clinics-asked-crispr-babies-scientist-for-how-to-help/ (data obrashcheniya: 28.05.2019).

5. Cohen, J (2019) The untold story of the 'circle of trust' behind the world's first gene-edited babies. Science https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay9400.

6. Davies G (2006) The scared and the profane: biotechnology, rationality and public debate. Environ Plan A 38(3):423-443.

7. Doudna JA, Charpentier E (2014) The new frontier of genome engineering with CRISPR-Cas9. Science 346(6213):1258096.

8. Douglas M (1966) Purity and danger. Routledge, London.

9. Dyer C (2008) Bill allowing creation of «admixed» embryos for research passes first hurdle. Br Med J 336(7653):1089-1089.

10. Elsevier (2017) Gene Editing Research. URL: https://www.elsevier.com/research-intelligence/campaigns/crispr.

11. Feeney O, Cockbain J, Morrison M, Diependaele L, Van Assche K, Sterckx S (2018) Patenting foundational technologies: Lessons from CRISPR and other core biotechnologies. Am J Bioeth 18(12):36-48.

12. Garden H, Winickoff D (2018) Gene editing for advanced therapies: Governance, policy and society. OECD Science, Technology and Industry Working Papers, 2018/12. OECD Publishing, Paris.

13. Hendriks S, Giesbertz NAA, Bredenoord AL, Repping S (2018) Reasons for being in favour of or against genome miodification: A survey of the Dutch general public. Human Reproduct Open 2018(3). URL: https://doi.org/10.1093/hropen/hoy008.

14. Hessels LK, Van Lente H, Smits R (2009) In search of relevance: the changing contract between science and society. Sci Public Policy 36(5):387-401.

15. Jasanoff S (2011) Constitutional moments in governing science and technology. Sci Eng Ethics 17(4):621— 638. Mole B (2016, November 20) Florida officials move forward with GM mosquitos, despite bitter foes. Ars Technica. URL: https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/11/swatting-away-angry-locals-florida-officials-approve-gm-mosquito-trial/ (data obrashcheniya: 26.07.2019).

16. Kannegiesser H (1988) Conception in the test tube: the IVF story, How Australia Leads the World. Macmillan, South Melbourne.

17. Lander E, Baylis F, Zhang F, Charpentier E, Berg P (2019) Adopt a moratorium on heritable genome editing. Nature 567:165-168.

18. Lawton G (2018) Hope for the future. New Scientist 239(3196):6-7.

19. Michie M, Allyse M (2019) Gene modification therapies: views of parents of people with Down syndrome. Genet Med 21:487-492.

20. Nerlich B (2017) Designer babies? Not again!Making Science Public. URL: http://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2017/08/02/designer-babies-not/ (data obrashcheniya: 25.04.2019).

21. Nicol D, Eckstein L, Morrison M, Sherkow JS, Otlowski M, Whitton T et al. (2017) Key challenges in bringing CRISPR-mediated somatic cell therapy into the clinic. Genome Med 9(85). URL: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13073-017-0475-4.

22. Parthasarathy S (2017) Patent Politics: Life forms, markets, and the public interest in the United States and Europe. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

23. Petersen A, Munsie M, Tanner C, MacGregor C, Brophy J (2017) Stem cell tourism and the political economy of hope. Palgrave Macmillan, London.

24. Regalado A (2018b) Exclusive: Chinese scientists are creating CRISPR babies. MIT Technology Abstract. URL: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612458/exclusive-chinese-scientists-are-creating-crispr-babies/ (data obrashcheniya: 25.11.2019).

25. Rosemann A, Balen A, Nerlich B, Hauskeller C, Sleeboom-Faulkner M, Hartley S et al. (2019) Heritable genome editing in a global context: national and international policy challenges. Hastings Cent Rep 49(3):30—42.

26. Simis MJ, Madden H, Cacciatore MA, Yeo SK (2016) The lure of rationality: why does the deficit model persist in science communication? Public Underst Sci 25(4):400—414.

27. Warnock M (1985) A question of life: the Warnock report on human fertilisation and embryology. Basil Blackwell, New York.

28. Whittaker A (2011) Cross-border assisted reproduction care in Asia: implications for access, equity and regulations. Reprod Health Matters 19(37):107—116.