This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Sándor (2015), p. 355.
- 2.
Carleton (2016), p. 5.
- 3.
The idea of the meme was first introduced by Richard Dawkins in his book The Selfish Gene. In essence, the meme is a replicator of information, as crucial to our being human as is our DNA. More particularly, as Elizabeth Falck states in her work ‘Technology and the Memetic Self’, memes are “ideas that can be expressed and replicated. Memes are instruction, behaviors, inventions, cultural traditions and stories.” Please see (n 4).
- 4.
Falck (2014), p. 232.
- 5.
Adolphs (2013), p. R79.
- 6.
Greenfield (2012).
- 7.
The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, ‘The Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/humanrights/lessonplans/.
- 8.
Cyranoski and Reardon (2015).
- 9.
Belluck (2017).
- 10.
Bello (1998).
- 11.
Sen (1997), p. 33.
- 12.
Donnelly (1984), p. 400.
- 13.
Schmeer (1999), p. 1.
- 14.
Freeman (1984).
- 15.
Ibid 275.
- 16.
Sunstein (1993).
- 17.
Drahos (2017).
- 18.
Center for Reproductive Rights (2014).
- 19.
Global Fund for Women, ‘Global Fund for Women’ (Global Fund for Women) https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/.
- 20.
United Nations Population Fund (2014).
- 21.
World Health Organization, ‘WHO|Maternal and Reproductive Health’ (WHO) http://www.who.int/gho/maternal_health/en/.
- 22.
World Health Organization, ‘WHO|World Health Organization’ http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/mdg5_mm/atlas.html.
- 23.
Inhorn (2009), p. 172.
- 24.
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.
- 25.
Diuana et al. (2016), p. 2041.
- 26.
Roth (2017).
- 27.
BBC (2017).
- 28.
- 29.
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, ‘The Gavel Gap’ (The Gavel Gap) http://gavelgap.org.
- 30.
George and Yoon (2014) http://gavelgap.org/pdf/gavel-gap-report.pdf.
- 31.
Hennette-Vauchez (2015), p. 195.
- 32.
Haraway (2000).
- 33.
Dickenson (2007).
- 34.
RT Question More (2017).
- 35.
Committee on Science, Technology, and Law, Policy and Global Affairs and National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2016).
- 36.
Harris (2015).
- 37.
Department of Health (England) and others, ‘UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research’.
- 38.
Ibid 4.
- 39.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2016).
- 40.
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018).
- 41.
Committee on Human Gene Editing: Scientific, Medical, and Ethical Considerations and others (2017).
- 42.
Barnes and Wallace (2017), p. 25.
- 43.
Ibid 248.
- 44.
World Trade Organization, World Health Organization and World Intellectual Property Organization (2013) https://www.wto-ilibrary.org/intellectual-property/promoting-access-to-medical-technologies-and-innovation_63a4aa65-en.
- 45.
Krattiger (2013).
- 46.
Jasanoff (2016).
- 47.
Ibid 86.
- 48.
Jasanoff (2016).
- 49.
Ibid 19.
- 50.
Ibid 5.
- 51.
Agamben (2005), p. 86.
- 52.
History, ‘Unabomber: Ted Kaczynski: Facts and Summary’ (history.com) http://www.history.com/topics/unabomber-ted-kaczynski.
- 53.
Kaczynski (1991), p. 34.
- 54.
Glendinning (1991), p. 6.
- 55.
Bartlett (2018).
- 56.
Badham (2017).
- 57.
Mahalatchimy et al. (2012), pp. 131, 134.
- 58.
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and Of the Council 2016.
- 59.
Laurie et al. (2012), p. 1.
References
Adolphs R (2013) The biology of fear. Curr Biol 23:R79
Agamben G (2005) State of exception (Kevin Attell tr). The University of Chicago Press
American Constitution Society for Law and Policy, ‘The Gavel Gap’ (The Gavel Gap). http://gavelgap.org
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
Barnes M, Wallace N (2017) Laws and ethics affecting clinical trials in Africa. J Health Care Law Policy 19:25
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
BBC News (21 July 2017) First woman appointed as UK’s top judge. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-40679293
Bello W (21 July 1998) “Asian Values” Democracy. Focus on the Global South. https://focusweb.org/node/365
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
Carleton N (2016) Fear of the unknown: one fear to rule them all? J Anxiety Disord 41:5
Center for Reproductive Rights (20 February 2014) ‘Center for Reproductive Rights’ (Center for Reproductive Rights). https://www.reproductiverights.org/
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
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
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
Department of Health (England) and others, UK Policy Framework for Health and Social Care Research
Dickenson D (2007) Property in the body: feminist perspectives. Cambridge University Press
Diuana V et al (2016) Women’s reproductive rights in the penitentiary system: tensions and challenges in the transformation of reality. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva 21:2041
Donnelly J (1984) Cultural relativism and universal human rights. Hum Rights Q 6:400
Drahos P (ed) (2017) Regulatory theory foundations and applications. ANU Press
Falck EJ (2014) Technology and the memetic self. In: Global issues and ethical considerations in human enhancement technologies. IGI Global
Freeman RE (1984) Strategic management: a stakeholder approach. Pitman
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
Glendinning C (1991) Notes toward a Neo-Luddite Manifesto
Global Fund for Women, ‘Global Fund for Women’ (Global Fund for Women). https://www.globalfundforwomen.org/
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/
Haraway DJ (2000) A cyborg manifesto: science, technology, and socialist-feminism in the late twentieth century. In: Badmington N (ed) Posthumanism. Macmillan Education UK
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
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 26:195
History, Unabomber: Ted Kaczynski: facts and summary (HISTORY.com). http://www.history.com/topics/unabomber-ted-kaczynski
Inhorn M (2009) Right to assisted reproductive technology: overcoming infertility in low-resource countries. Int J Gynecol Obstet 106:172
Jasanoff S (2016) The ethics of invention: technology and the human future. WW Norton & Company
Kaczynski T (1991) Industrial society and its future
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
Laurie G, Harmon SHE, Arzuaga F (2012) Foresighting futures: law, new technologies, and the challenges of regulating for uncertainty. Law Innov Technol 4:1
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 39:131
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2016) Genome editing: an ethical review. Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2018) Genome editing and human reproduction: social and ethical issues. Nuffield Council on Bioethics
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and Of the Council 2016
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 Press
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/
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 Publishing
Schmeer K (1999) Stakeholder analysis guidelines. Policy toolkit for strengthening health sector reform 1
Sen A (1997) Human rights and Asian values. New Republic:33
Sunstein C (1993) After the rights revolution, reconceiving the regulatory state. Harvard University Press
Supreme Court of the United States, Current Members. https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/biographies.aspx
The Eleanor Roosevelt Papers Project, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights. https://www2.gwu.edu/~erpapers/humanrights/lessonplans/
United Nations Population Fund (2014) Reproductive Rights Are Human Rights. https://www.unfpa.org/publications/reproductive-rights-are-human-rights
World Health Organization, WHO|Maternal and Reproductive Health (WHO). http://www.who.int/gho/maternal_health/en/
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
World Health Organization, WHO|World Health Organization. http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/mdg5_mm/atlas.html
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. WTO
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lau, P.L. (2019). Conclusion. In: Comparative Legal Frameworks for Pre-Implantation Embryonic Genetic Interventions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22308-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22308-3_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22307-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22308-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)