Balancing Innovation, 'Ordre Public' and Morality in Human Germline Editing: A Call for More Nuanced Approaches in Patent Law.

This article analyses the role that 'ordre public' and morality exceptions can play in the granting of patents on inventions in the field of human germline editing and the consequences of this policy option. In order to provide the context for such an analysis, the article will, first, provide an overview of the current patent landscape for relevant genome editing technologies, drawing attention to recent patent disputes and, second, examine 'ordre public' and morality exceptions under patent law in international, national and regional law, and the implications for innovation and access to novel treatments. The article argues that patent exceptions should not be used as a blunt policy instrument, nor interpreted in a way that is contrary to the patent system's overall objectives. The 'ordre public' and morality based exceptions in the context of human germline editing should not be interpreted and applied in a way which results in outcomes counterproductive to the goal of balancing innovation with the protection of societal higher normative values. Instead, the application of the exception should be based on a sound understanding of both the underlying science as well as the broader ethical, social, and legal implications, thus enabling case-by-case decisions that provide the basis for patent claim amendments and nuanced purpose-bound protection. Further analysis and debate as to the role that such flexibilities can play in the context of genome editing technologies is therefore both necessary and desirable, and can be facilitated in the ways set out in this article.

Regulating germline editing in assisted reproductive technology: An EU cross-disciplinary perspective.

Potential applications of genome editing in assisted reproductive technology (ART) raise a vast array of strong opinions, emotional reactions and divergent perceptions. Acknowledging the need for caution and respecting such reactions, we observe that at least some are based on either a misunderstanding of the science or misconceptions about the content and flexibility of the existing legal frameworks. Combining medical, legal and ethical expertise, we present and discuss regulatory responses at the national, European and international levels. The discussion has an EU starting point and is meant as a contribution to the general international regulatory debate. Overall, this paper concludes that gene editing technologies should not be regulated autonomously. Rather, potential uses should be regulated under general, existing frameworks and where applicable by reference to sufficiently equivalent technologies and techniques already subject to specific regulation. To be clear, we do not argue for the hasty introduction of gene editing as a reproductive treatment option in the immediate future. We call for caution with regard to overreaching moratoria and prohibitions that will also affect basic research. We recommend flexible regulations that allow for further responsible research into the potential development of the technology. We call for an open and inclusive debate and argue that scientific communication should claim a more prominent role to counter the danger of widespread misinformation. A high level of transparency and accuracy should guide scientific communication while simultaneously global-scale responsibility and governance should be fostered by promoting cross-disciplinary thinking and multi-level stakeholder involvement in legal and regulatory processes.

Cutting edges and weaving threads in the gene editing (Я)evolution: reconciling scientific progress with legal, ethical, and social concerns.

Gene-editing technology, such as CRISPR/Cas9, holds great promise for the advancement of science and many useful applications technology. This foundational technology enables modification of the genetic structure of any living organisms with unprecedented precision. Yet, in order to enhance its potential for societal benefit, it is necessary to adapt rules and produce adequate regulations. This requires an interdisciplinary effort in legal thinking. Any legislative initiative needs to consider both the benefits and the problematic aspects of gene editing, from a broader societal and value-based perspective. This paper stems from an interdisciplinary research project seeking to identify and discuss some of the most pressing legal implications of gene-editing technology and how to address these. While the questions raised by gene editing are global, laws and regulations are to a great extent bound by national borders. This paper presents a European perspective, written for a global audience, and intends to contribute to the global debate. The analysis will include brief references to corresponding USA rules in order to place these European debates in the broader international context. Our legal analysis incorporates interdisciplinary contributes concerning the scientific state of the art, philosophical thinking regarding the precautionary principle and dual-use issues as well as the importance of communication, social perception, and public debate. Focusing mainly in the main regulatory and patent law issues, we will argue that (a) general moratoriums and blank prohibitions do a disservice to science and innovation; (b) it is crucial to carefully consider a complex body of international and European fundamental rights norms applicable to gene editing;