Advertisement

The Regulatory Framework in Biomedical Technologies

  • Pin Lean Lau
Chapter

Abstract

This deals with regulatory frameworks for biomedical technologies generally, and pre-implantation genetic interventions more specifically. In doing so, the chapter highlights some of the challenges in attempting to effectively regulate biomedical technologies that move at the pace of lightning speed. In addition, the chapter proposes the use of a combination of regulatory approaches, in complementarity with existing legal frameworks, to consider building a more flexible and reflexive form of governance for biomedical technologies. Further clarity may also be had in examining the development of the regulatory frameworks in the abortion debates and earlier prenatal testing technologies. These are discourses that bear a close nexus to pre-implantation genetic interventions and may impart the values and modalities in these debates to complement the role of the law or legal framework in a regulatory environment.

References

  1. Airedale NHS Trust v Bland [1993] AC 789Google Scholar
  2. Aveyard H (2002) Implied consent prior to nursing care procedures. J Adv Nurs 39:201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Baldwin R, Black J (2008) Really responsive regulation. Modern Law Rev 71:59.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.2008.00681.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baldwin R, Cave M (1999) Understanding regulation: theory, strategy, and practice. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Barak A (2012) Proportionality: constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  7. BBC News (14 November 2012) Abortion “Would Have Saved Wife”. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
  8. Bell AV (2016) The margins of medicalization: diversity and context through the case of infertility. Soc Sci Med 156:39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bentham J, Burns JH, Hart HLA (1988) A fragment on government. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  10. Beyleveld D, Brownsword R (2007) Consent in the law. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Biegel S (2001) Beyond our control?: confronting the limits of our legal system in the age of cyberspace. MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  12. Bimber B (1990) Karl Marx and the three faces of technological determinism. Soc Stud Sci 20:333CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Black J (2005) What is regulatory innovation? In: Black J, Lodge M, Thatcher M (eds) Regulatory innovation. Edward ElgarGoogle Scholar
  14. Braithwaite J (2002) Restorative justice and responsive regulation. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  15. Braithwaite J (2017a) Types of responsiveness. In: Drahos P (ed) Regulatory theory: foundations and applications. Australian National University PressGoogle Scholar
  16. Braithwaite J, Drahos P (2000) Global business regulation. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  17. Braithwaite V (2017b) Closing the gap between regulation and the community. In: Drahos P (ed) Regulatory theory: foundations and applications. Australian National University PressGoogle Scholar
  18. Brownsword R (2008) Rights, regulation, and the technological revolution. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  19. Brownsword R (2011) Why I Wrote … rights, regulation, and the technological revolution. Clin Ethics 6:207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Brownsword R, Goodwin M (2012) Law and the technologies of the twenty-first century. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  21. Brownsword R, Yeung K (2008) Regulating technologies: legal futures, regulatory frames and technological fixes. HartGoogle Scholar
  22. Burns JH (2005) Happiness and utility: Jeremy Bentham’s equation. Utilitas 17:46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Callahan D (1986) How technology is reframing the abortion debate. Hastings Center Rep 16:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cannon L (1991) President Reagan: the role of a lifetime. Public AffairsGoogle Scholar
  25. Carroll D (2011) Genome engineering with Zinc-Finger nucleases. Genetics 188:773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Case of A, B and C v Ireland [2010] Grand Chamber 25579/05Google Scholar
  27. Chaffin BC, Gosnell H, Cosens BA (2014) A decade of adaptive governance scholarship: synthesis and future directions. Ecol Soc 19:56Google Scholar
  28. Clarke AC (1985) Profiles of the future, 1st edn. Warner BooksGoogle Scholar
  29. Collingridge D (1982) The social control of technology. St Martin’s PressGoogle Scholar
  30. Conseil de l’Europe (1997) Convention for the protection of human rights and dignity of the human being with regard to the application of biology and medicine: convention on human rights and biomedicine. Editions du Conseil de l’Europe. http://193.205.211.30/lawtech/images/lawtech/law/convenzioneoviedo.pdf
  31. Cosens BA et al (2017) The role of law in adaptive governance. Ecol Soc 22:30Google Scholar
  32. Dafoe A (2015) On technological determinism: a typology, scope conditions, and a mechanism. Sci Technol Human Values 40:1047CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dietz T, Ostrom E, Stern PC (2003) The struggle to govern the commons. Science 302:1907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Drahos P (ed) (2017) Regulatory theory foundations and applications. Australian National University PressGoogle Scholar
  35. Engeli I, Rothmayr CA (2016) When doctors shape policy: the impact of self-regulation on governing human biotechnology: when doctors shape policy. Regul Gov 10:248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Erdman JN (2015) The politics of global abortion rights. Brown J World Aff 39:22Google Scholar
  37. European Commission JRC Science for Policy EC (2018) ‘JRCF7- Knowledge Health and Consumer Safety, Overview of EU National Legislation on Genomics. European Commission. EUR29404EN. http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC113479/policy_report_-_review_of_eu_national_legislation_on_genomics_-_with_identifiers.pdf
  38. European Medicines Agency (2018) Report of the EMA Expert Meeting on Genome Editing Technologies Used in Medicinal Product Development. European Medicines Agency. EMA/47066/2018Google Scholar
  39. Exploring Constitutional Conflicts ‘Levels of Scrutiny Under the Equal Protection Clause’. http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/epcscrutiny.htm
  40. Farokhmanesh M (12 December 2016) How a Trump Administration Threatens Women’s Health. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/12/13904032/trump-womens-reproductive-health-affordable-care-planned-parenthood
  41. Finnis J (2015) Grounding human rights in natural law. Am J Jurisprud 60:199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Foucault M (1977) Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison. Vintage Books, Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  43. Foucault M, Gordon C (1980) Power/knowledge: selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977, 1st American edn. Pantheon BooksGoogle Scholar
  44. Francioni F (2007) Biotechnologies and international human rights. Bloomsbury PublishingGoogle Scholar
  45. Freedland J (2 July 2015) 1984 by George Orwell, Book of a Lifetime: An Absorbing, Deeply Affecting Political Thriller. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/books/reviews/1984-by-george-orwell-book-of-a-lifetime-an-absorbing-deeply-affecting-political-thriller-10360789.html
  46. Fuller LL (1969) The morality of law. Yale University PressGoogle Scholar
  47. Gibbs WW (2014) Biomarkers and aging: the clock-watcher. Nature 508:168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Gotsis T, Ismay L. Abortion Law: A National Perspective, Briefing Paper No. 2/2017. NSW Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20Law.pdf
  49. Gunningham N, Sinclair D (2017) Smart regulation. In: Drahos P (ed) Regulatory theory: foundations and applications. Australian National University PressGoogle Scholar
  50. Gunningham N, Grabosky P, Sinclair D (1998) Smart regulation: designing environmental policy. Clarendon PressGoogle Scholar
  51. Harari YN (2015) Sapiens: a brief history of humankind, 1st edn. HarperGoogle Scholar
  52. Harmon SHE (2016) Modernizing biomedical regulation: foresight and values in the promotion of responsible research and innovation. J Law Biosci 3:680CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Harryono M et al (2006) Thailand medical tourism cluster. Harvard Business School Microeconomics of CompetitivenessGoogle Scholar
  54. History, ‘The 1960s - Facts & Summary’. (HISTORY.com) http://www.history.com/topics/1960s
  55. Hobbes T. Leviathan or the Matter, Forme, & Power of a Common-Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civill. Andrew Crooke at the Green Dragon in St Paul’s Church-yard 1651. https://socialsciences.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf
  56. Hume D (1896) A treatise of human nature. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  57. Inglis-Arkell E (28 April 2013) Technology isn’t magic: why Clarke’s third law always bugged me. io9. http://io9.gizmodo.com/technology-isnt-magic-why-clarkes-third-law-always-bug-479194151
  58. Inhorn MC (2003) Global infertility and the globalization of new reproductive technologies: illustrations from Egypt. Soc Sci Med 56:1837CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) (26 April 2015) Reproductive Rights, Abortion & Zoe’s Law: Why Freedom of Choice Is Still Feminism’s Biggest Fight. https://iwda.org.au/reproductive-rights-abortion-zoes-law-why-freedom-of-choice-is-still-feminisms-biggest-fight/
  60. Kamel RMA (2013) Assisted reproductive technology after the birth of Louise Brown, vol 3. Gynecol Obstet, p 156Google Scholar
  61. Kant I (2003) The critique of pure reason. JMD Meiklejohn tr, The Project GutenbergGoogle Scholar
  62. Kelly J (8 April 2016) Why are Northern Ireland’s abortion laws different? BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35980195
  63. Keszthelyi C (2 May 2017) Government’s “Stop Brussels” Campaign Revs Up. Budapest Bus J. http://bbj.hu/politics/governments-stop-brussels-campaign-revs-up_132259
  64. Kleinlein T (2012) Constitutionalization of international law. Das Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht 231:703Google Scholar
  65. 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
  66. Lee MYH (31 March 2016) Donald Trump’s Claim He Evolved into “pro-Life” Views, like Ronald Reagan. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/03/31/donald-trumps-claim-he-evolved-into-pro-life-views-like-ronald-reagan/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.a98e5a4e62f8
  67. Lessig L (1997) The constitution of code: limitations on choice-based critiques of cyberspace regulation. Commlaw Conspectus: J Commun Law Technol Policy 5:181Google Scholar
  68. Lessig L (1999) Code and other laws of cyberspace. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  69. Lessig L (2001) The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world, 1st edn. Random HouseGoogle Scholar
  70. Lessig L (2006) Code: Version 2.0, 2nd edn. Basic BooksGoogle Scholar
  71. Level Crossings, Law Commission Consultation Paper No. 194, Scottish Law Commission and Law Commission Discussion Paper No. 143, ‘Regulatory Theory’ (2010). https://www.scotlawcom.gov.uk/files/5312/8024/5698/regulatory_theory.pdf
  72. Liebert W, Schmidt JC (2010) Collingridge’s Dilemma and technoscience: an attempt to provide a clarification from the perspective of the philosophy of science. Poiesis Praxis 7:55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Mandel GN (2009) Regulating emerging technologies. Law Innov Technol 1:75CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Maturo A (2012) Medicalization: current concept and future directions in a bionic society. Mens Sana Monogr 10:122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meidinger E (1987) Regulatory culture: a theoretical outline. Law Policy 9(4):355–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Mohd Mutalip SS (2012) Promoting Malaysia through “fertility” tourism. J Tourism Hosp Culinary Arts 4:1Google Scholar
  77. Morrison M (2016) Overdiagnosis, medicalisation and social justice: commentary on Carter et al (2016) ‘A definition and ethical evaluation of overdiagnosis. J Med Ethics 42:720CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Müller J-W (11 February 2016) The problem with Poland. The New York Review of Books. http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2016/02/11/kaczynski-eu-problem-with-poland/
  79. Munro K (10 March 2017) Fred Nile gives renewed push to Zoe’s law to criminalise harm to a fetus. The Sydney Morning Herald. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fred-nile-gives-renewed-push-to-zoes-law-to-criminalise-harm-to-a-fetus-20170309-guup40.html
  80. National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) ‘An Overview of the Human Genome Project’. https://www.genome.gov/12011238/an-overview-of-the-human-genome-project/
  81. Nelson TE, Oxley ZM (1999) Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. J Polit 61:1040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Nemudryi AA et al (2014) TALEN and CRISPR/Cas genome editing systems: tools of discovery. Acta Naturae 6:22CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Nielsen VL, Parker C (2009) Testing responsive regulation in regulatory enforcement. Regul Gov 3:376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Noonan JT (1977) Abortion in the American context. Human Life Rev 3:29Google Scholar
  85. Norberg J (20 August 2016) ‘Why can’t we see that we’re living in a golden age? The Spectator. https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/08/why-cant-we-see-that-were-living-in-a-golden-age/
  86. Noyes J (21 November 2013) ‘On Zoe’s law, and the accidental/on purpose erosion of your reproductive rights. Junkee. http://junkee.com/on-zoes-law-and-the-accidentalon-purpose-erosion-of-your-reproductive-rights/21659
  87. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2016) Genome editing: an ethical review. Nuffield Council on BioethicsGoogle Scholar
  88. Nuffield Council on Bioethics (2017) Non-invasive prenatal testing: ethical issues. Nuffield Council on BioethicsGoogle Scholar
  89. O’Connor A (28 October 2017) How the death of Savita Halappanavar changed the abortion debate. The Irish Examiner. http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html
  90. OECD (2010) Biomedicine and Health Innovation: Synthesis Report. http://www.oecd.org/health/biotech/46925602.pdf
  91. Parens E (2013) On good and bad forms of medicalization. Bioethics 27:28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. Parker C (2013) Twenty years of responsive regulation: an appreciation and appraisal: twenty years of responsive regulation. Regul Gov 7:2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Patterson D et al (2015) The dark future of constitutionalism: the cosmopolitan constitution. Const Commentary 30:667Google Scholar
  94. Pennings AJ (1 July 2012) Arthur C. Clarke’s three laws of innovation. Writings on Digital Strategies, ICT Economies, and Global Communications. http://apennings.com/political-economies-in-sf/arthur-c-clarkes-three-laws-of-innovation/
  95. Peter F (2008) Pure epistemic proceduralism. Episteme: A J Soc Epistemol 5:33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Phillips DC (1995) The good, the bad, and the ugly: the many faces of constructivism. Edu Res 24:5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Poort L, van Beers B, van Klink B (2016) Introduction: symbolic dimensions of biolaw. In: Symbolic legislation theory and developments in biolaw. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  98. Posner RA (2006) The role of the judge in the twenty-first century. BUL Rev 86:1049Google Scholar
  99. Powell CMH. Being human: how should we define life and personhood? Enrichment Journal. http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/201002/201002_134_define_person.cfm
  100. Ribeiro GL (2001) Cosmopolitanism. Int Encycl Soc Behav Sci 4:2842Google Scholar
  101. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Law). https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
  102. Sajó A, Ryan C (2016) Judicial reasoning and new technologies: framing, newness, fundamental rights and the internet. In: Pollicino O, Romeo G (eds) The internet and constitutional law. The protection of fundamental rights and constitutional adjudication. RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
  103. Sandel M (2004) The case against perfection. Atl Mon 51:293Google Scholar
  104. Sanders L (2017) 40 more genes linked to intelligence. Sci News 191:14Google Scholar
  105. Schloendorff v The Society of the New York Hospital (1914) 211 NY 125 (The Court of Appeals of New York)Google Scholar
  106. Somek A (2014) The cosmopolitan constitution. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  107. Stock G (2005) Germinal choice technology and the human future. Reprod BioMed Online 10:27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Stockholm Resilience Centre ‘Adaptive Governance’ (6 December 2010). http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-streames/stewardship/adaptive-governance-.html
  109. Strawson G (11 September 2014) Sapiens: a brief history of humankind by Yuval Noah Harari – review. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/sep/11/sapiens-brief-history-humankind-yuval-noah-harari-review
  110. Suter SM (2002) The routinization of prenatal testing. Am J Law Med 28:233Google Scholar
  111. Sweet AS, Mathews J (2008) Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia J Transntl Law 72:47Google Scholar
  112. Taranto S (22 January 2018) How abortion became the single most important litmus test in American politics. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/made-by-history/wp/2018/01/22/how-abortion-became-the-single-most-important-litmus-test-in-american-politics/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.b4015648272b
  113. ten Have HAMJ, Jean MS (2009) The UNESCO universal declaration on bioethics and human rights: background, principles and application. UNESCO PublishingGoogle Scholar
  114. The Guardian (4 March 2011) Profiles of the future by Arthur C Clarke – review. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/science/2011/mar/04/profiles-future-arthur-clarke-review
  115. Trebilcock MJ, Iacobucci EM (2009) Designing competition law institutions: values, structure, and mandate. Loyola Univ Chicago Law J 41:455Google Scholar
  116. Uitz R (2015) Can you tell when an illiberal democracy is in the making? An appeal to comparative constitutional scholarship from hungary. Int J Const Law 13:279CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. UNESCO (11 November 1997) Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights. http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13177&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html
  118. UNESCO (2006) The Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf
  119. United States v. Carolene Products Co. 304 U.S. 144 (1938) (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/304/144/case.html
  120. van Gossum O, Arts B, Verheyen K (2010) From “smart regulation” to “regulatory arrangements”. Policy Sci 43:245–261.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11077-101-9108-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. van Klink B (2016) Symbolic legislation: an essentially political concept. In: van Klink B, van Beers B, Poort L (eds) Symbolic legislation theory and developments in biolaw, vol 4. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  122. World Medical Association (19 October 2013) WMA Declaration of Helsinki - Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

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

Personalised recommendations