The Human Rights System Facing Challenges of Biotechnological Improvement of the Human Nature

 
PIIS023620070018017-5-1
DOI10.31857/S023620070018016-4
Publication type Article
Status Published
Authors
Occupation: Chief Researcher
Affiliation: Institute of State and Law Research of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Journal nameChelovek
EditionVolume 32 Issue №6
Pages178-189
Abstract

The opening possibilities of turning the mankind’s biological evolution into controlled technological process are inevitable result of development of the anthropocentric technogenic civilization in the direction of transforming the nature and subordinating it to a man. If the biological risks of this scenario can be reduced to acceptable level in the foreseeable future according to expert opinion, then the social risks, associated with the possibility of splitting the human community into “improved” elite and masses of “commoner”will only increase. At the same time, it is becoming more and more obvious that law, which is the main element of the cultural matrix of technogenic civilization, carries its main risks: law as a normative form of individual freedom is not able to withstand properly the threats to all mankind, which are caused by the social practices of liberal eugenics.

The attempt of the Oviedo Convention to solve this problem by establishing prohibition of genetic editing of the human embryo line created preconditions for discrimination against a certain group of people based on their genetic status, as well as for disproportionate restrictions on the scientific freedom in this area of research. This clearly demonstrated the unlawful nature of such a prohibition. The desire to disguise that this type of regulation goes beyond the law framework by including it in the system of the rights of future generations without proper legalizing this concept doesn’t withstand criticism. Recently the biomedical community has been moving from the idea of unequivocal prohibition of inherited editing of the human genome towards the establishing legal restrictions, that take into account the positions of all stakeholders, and monitoring their compliance. Particular importance is attached to the organization of public discussions and the preparing society to take a responsible and conscious solution to the problem. The success of this risky but perhaps the only possible strategy will mainly depend on the social context in which it can be implemented.

Keywordshuman genome, germ line, editing, designer baby, technogenic civilization, human rights, legal restrictions, prohibition
Received27.12.2021
Publication date27.12.2021
Number of characters27170
Cite  
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 647

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Varlamova N.V. Tri pokoleniya prav cheloveka kak raznyye formy oposredovaniya svobody [Three Generations of Human Rights as Different Forms of Mediation of Freedom]. Filosofiya prava v Rossii: Istoriya i sovremennost’: Materialy tret'ikh filosofsko-pravovykh chteniy pamyati akademika V.S. Nersesyantsa [Philosophy of Law in Russia: History and Modernity: Materials of the Third Philosophical and Legal Readings in Memory of Academician V.S. Nersesyants]. Moscow: Norma Publ., 2009. Р. 190–208.

2. Guseynov A.A. Moral' i pravo: liniya razgranicheniya [Morality and Law: The Line of Demarcation]. Lex russica. 2018. N 8. P. 7–22.

3. Dzhennifer Dudna ob etike redaktirovaniya chelovecheskikh genomov [Jennifer Dudna on the Ethics of Editing Human Genomes] [Electronic resource]. URL: http:// batrachospermum.ru›2020/10/daudna-genomes-ethics/ (date of access: 12.05.2021).

4. Yonas G. Printsip otvetstvennosti: Opyt etiki dlya tekhnologicheskoi tsivilizatsii [The Responsibility Principle: An Ethical Experience for a Technological Civilization], transl. from Germ. by I.I. Makhan'kov. Moscow: Ayris-press Publ., 2004.

5. Lapaeva V.V. Tipy pravoponimaniya: pravovaya teoriya i praktika [Types of Law-thinking: Law Theory and Practice]. Moscow: RAP Publ., 2012. Р. 38–219.

6. Lapaeva V.V. Pravo tekhnogennoi tsivilizatsii pered vyzovami tekhnologicheskoi degumanizatsii [The Law of Technogenic Civilization in the Face of the Challenges of Technological Dehumanization]. Pravo. Zhurnal vysshey shkoly ekonomiki. 2021. N 3. Р. 4–35.

7. Monjal P. Individual'nye svobody v usloviyakh krizisa v oblasti klimata i zdravookhraneniya: razmyshleniya o totaliziruyushchey ideologii prav cheloveka [Individual Freedoms in the Climate and Health Crisis: Reflections on the Totalizing Ideology of Human Rights]. Justice. 2021. N 2. Р. 17–61.

8. Montgomery J. Modifikatsiya genoma cheloveka: vyzovy so storony sfery prav cheloveka, obuslovlennye nauchno-tekhnicheskimi dostizheniyami [Modification of the Human Genome: Challenges from the Sphere of Human Rights Caused by Scientific and Technological Advances]. Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. Special issue “Human Rights and Biomedicine”. 2018. N 3(51). P. 42–56.

9. Nazaretyan A.P. Nelineinoye budushchee [Non-linear Future]. Moscow: ARGAMAK-MEDIA Publ., 2015.

10. Nauka. Tekhnologii. Chelovek. Materialy “Kruglogo stola” zhurnalov “Voprosy filosofii” i “Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki” [Science. Technologies. Human. Materials of “Round table” of the magazines “Problems of Philosophy” and “Philosophy of Science and Technology”]. Filosofiya nauki i tekhniki. 2015. Vol. 20, N 2. P. 5–49.

11. Nersesyants V.S. Filosofiya prava: libertarno-yuridicheskaya kontseptsiya [Philosophy of Law: Libertarian Legal Concept]. Voprosy filosofii. 2002. N 3. P. 3–15.

12. Nersesyants V.S. Filosofiya prava: Uchebnik dlya vuzov [Philosophy of Law: Textbook for Universities]. Moscow: Norma Publ., 2006.

13. Popova O.V. Chelovek kak artefakt biotekhnologii [Human as an Artifact of Biotechnology]. Moscow: Kanon+ Publ., 2017.

14. Rekomendatsii YUNESKO o statuse nauchno-issledovatel'skikh rabotnikov [UNESCO Recommendations on the Status of Scientific Researchers] [Electronic resource]. URL: http://docs.cntd.ru›document/902084640 (date of access: 27.03.2021).

15. Watson J.D., Berry F., Davies K. DNK: Istoriya geneticheskoi revolyutsii [DNA: The Story of the Genetic Revolution], transl. from Engl. by A. Pasechnik. St. Petersburg: Piter Publ., 2019.

16. Fukuyama F. Nashe postchelovecheskoye budushchee: [Our Рosthuman Future: Consequences of the Biotechnology Revolution], transl. from Engl. by M.B. Levin. Moscow: AST Publ., 2004.

17. Shalyutin B.S. Pravogenez kak faktor stanovleniya obshchestva i cheloveka [Legal Genesis as a Factor in the Formation of Society and a Person]. Voprosy filosofii. 2011. N 11. P. 14–26.

18. Etiko-pravovye aspekty proekta “Genom cheloveka”: Mezhdunarodnye dokumenty i analiticheskie materialy [Ethical and Legal Aspects of the Human Genome Рroject: International Documents and Analytical Materials]. Moscow: FTSNTP “Tekhnologii grazhdanskogo naznacheniya” Publ., 1998.

19. Andorno R., Darnovsky M., Baylis F., Dickenson D. Geneva Statement on Heritable Human Genome [Electronic resource]. URL: http://researchgate.net›…Heritable…Genome…Need…Correction (date of access: 05.03.2021).

20. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine [Electronic resource]. URL: http://coe.int›en/web/bioethics/oviedo-convention (date of access: 05.03.2021).

21. Darnovsky M., Dickenson D., Hasson K. Heritable Human Genome Editing is Not Inevitable [Electronic resource]. URL: https:// www.researchgate.net›publication›339999593 (date of access: 05.07.2021).

22. Lander E., Baylis F., Zhang F. et. al. Adopt a Moratorium on Heritable Genome Editing. Nature. 2019. Mar. 14. P. 165–168.

Система Orphus

Loading...
Up