The Impact of Scientific and Technological Progress in Biotechnology on Human Rights and Principles of Law

The paper raises ethical and social problems of biolaw, consideration of which is necessary to improve its principles and norms. The authors are convinced that biolaw is designed to take into account both the advantages and problematic aspects associated with the impact of new technologies on the human body that can change a person as a physical individual and, accordingly, transform society and humanity as a whole. The paper touches upon two key aspects of biolaw: the development of biorights or rights related to the human body in the system of rights of a new generation and the definition of principles of biolaw that ensure the unity of legal and ethical-social regulators in biotechnology. One of the important conclusions is that, although human biorights and the principles of biolaw are interrelated institutions, in the system of legal regulation they have features of content and action. Having identified the need to develop a new approach to understanding the principles of biolaw, the authors emphasize the need to create a theory of biolaw taxonomy or biotaxonomy, within which special importance should be given to the principles of biolaw as a dogmatic and sustainable means of legal regulation that form a systemic relationship with the principles of bioethics, constituting a single, dialectically interrelated homological series. Thus, the paper gives an opportunity to think about the development of the theory of biopraw and the prospects for its development in the paradigm of interaction with ethical and other social regulators.

1. Altynnik N. A., Komarova V. V., Borodina M. A. Mezhotraslevye zadachi v soderzhanii kontseptsii pravovogo regulirovaniya predymplantatsionnogo geneticheskogo testirovaniya (PGT) v Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Problemy prava. — Chelyabinsk, 2022. — № 1 (84). — S. 152–162.

2. Altynnik N. A., Borodina M. A., Komarova V. V. Normativnoe pravovoe regulirovanie pokazaniy k predymplantatsionnomu geneticheskomu testirovaniyu embrionov na monogennye zabolevaniya (PGT-m) i khromosomnye strukturnye perestroyki (PGT-SP): kontseptualnyy podkhod s uchetom zarubezhnogo opyta // Problemy prava. — 2022. — № 1 (84). — S. 20–28.

3. Komarova V. V., Altynnik N. A., Borodina M. A. Otraslevye zadachi v soderzhanii kontseptsii pravovogo regulirovaniya predymplantatsionnogo geneticheskogo testirovaniya (PGT) v Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Problemy prava. — 2022. — № 2 (85). — S. 7–16.

4. Kravets I. A. Konstitutsionnaya bioyurisprudentsiya i dostizhenie bioeticheskogo blagopoluchiya (ch. 2) // Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. — 2022. — № 3. — S. 16–32.

5. Mokhov A. A. Biopravo i strategiya ego razvitiya v Rossiyskoy Federatsii // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2022. — № 2. — S. 201–210.

6. Sadovnikova G. D. Sistemoobrazuyushchie instituty konstitutsionnogo prava // Aktual’nye problemy rossijskogo prava. — 2018. — № 10 (95). — S. 84–91.

7. Transformatsiya prav cheloveka v sovremennom mire / otv. red. A. N. Savenkov. — M., 2020. — P. 256.

8. Ashcroft R. E. Could Human Rights Supersede Bioethics? // Human Rights Law Review. — 2010. — Vol. 10(4). — P. 639–660.

9. Bantekas I., University B., Oette L. School of Oriental and African Studies. — University of London Publisher, 2016.

10. Beauchamp T. L., Childress J. F. Principles of biomedical ethics. — 4th ed. — Oxford, 1994. — 546 p.

11. Beers B. van and Bosch L. A Revolution by Stealth: A Legal-Ethical Analysis of the Rise of Pre-Conception Authorization of Surrogacy Agreements // The New Bioethics. — 2020. — Vol. 26(4). — P. 351–371.

12. Casonato C. The Essential Features of 21st Century Biolaw // Biolaw and Policy in the Twenty-First Century. International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine / E. Valdés, J. Lecaros (eds). — 2019. — Vol. 78.

13. Cassagne J. C. Los nuevos derechos y garantías // Revista de Investigações Constitucionais. — 2016. — Vol. 3 (1). — P. 59–108.

14. Dunoff J. L. & Pollack M. A. Experimenting with International Law // European Journal of International Law. — 2017. — Vol. 28(4). — P. 1317–1340.

15. Kola A. Abductive reasoning in law: taxonomy and inference to the best explanation/ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265848473_Abductive_Reasoning_in_Law_Taxonomy_and_Inference_to_the_Best_Explanation.

16. Lawrence A. Constitutional Theories: A Taxonomy and (Implicit) Critique (June 11, 2013). San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 13-120 // URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2277790.

17. Nordberg A., Minssen T., Holm S., Horst M., Mortensen K. and Møller B. L. Cutting edges and weaving threads in the gene editing (Ya)evolution: reconciling scientific progress with legal, ethical, and social concerns // Journal of Law and the Biosciences. — 2018. — Vol. 5(1). — P. 35–83.

18. Orts E. W., Anton D. K. and Shelton D. Human Rights, the Environment, and Corporate Accountability // Environmental Protection and Human Rights. — 2017. — P. 863–976.

19. Ostermeyer B., Shoaib A. N. and Deshpande S. Legal and Ethical Challenges. Part 1: General Population // Psychiatric Clinics of North America. — 2017. — Vol. 40(3). — P. 541–553.

20. Potter R. van. Bioethics: Bridge to the future. — Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971. — 196 p.

21. Reframing Rights: Bioconstitutionalism in the Genetic Age / Sh. Jasanoff (ed). — Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. — 320 p.

22. Toomey J. Constitutionalizing nature’s law: dignity and the regulation of biotechnology in Switzerland // Journal of Law and the Biosciences. — 2020. — Vol. 7. — Iss. 1. — P. 1–33.

23. Vasak K. Human Rights: A Thirty-Year Struggle: the Sustained Efforts to Give Force of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. — 1977.