Issue 4 (50) 2020

 

Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2020. Issue 4 (50)
Title: LIMITS OF CRIMINAL LAW INTERVENTION IN HUMAN GENOME RESEARCH
Authors:

A. G. Blinov, Saratov State Law Academy

 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0003-2332-7789 ResearcherID: AAP-7421-2020
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39797-5_58

М. М. Lapunin, Saratov State Law Academy

 This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
ORCID: 0000-0002-1774-436X ResearcherID: AAM-6531-2020
Articles of «Scopus» & «Web of Science»:       DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-39797-5_58
Requisites: Blinov A. G., Lapunin M. M. Predely vmeshatel'stva ugolovnogo prava v sferu issledovaniya genoma cheloveka [Limits of Criminal Law Intervention in Human Genome Research]. Vestnik Permskogo universiteta. Juridicheskie nauki – Perm University Herald. Juridical Sciences. 2020. Issue 50. Pp. 804–831. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2020-50-804-831
DOI: 10.17072/1995-4190-2020-50-804-831
Annotation:

 Introduction: the unprecedented successes of genetics have created a clear need to specify the limits of intervention of criminal law in relations associated with research into the human genome. When addressing this issue, it is essential to take into account not only the advantages that genetic engineering offers to mankind but also the threats posed by the technologies in question. Purpose: to determine the potential limits of criminal law interference in relations associated with the study of the genome. Objectives: to classify the limits of criminal law intervention, to identify the forms of socially dangerous behavior to be criminalized; to differentiate between the protective functions of criminal and administrative legislation in relation to the category of offenses under consideration; to designate areas that are off-limits to criminal law interference. Methods: both general and specific scientific methods were used, including dialectic, deduction and induction, content analysis, comparative legal method, statistical method, questioning, interviewing. Results: the limits of intervention within the protective function of criminal law have been analyzed based on five grounds, and none of the listed limits has been found to be properly defined for the field of genetic research. Based on five aspects of the manifestation of the genome in legal relations, the paper outlines the possibilities for improving the Russian criminal law taking into account the protection of each of the aspects. The accent on criminal law in the corresponding area of legal policy appears to be unacceptable. However, it is important to designate several socially dangerous acts affecting relations in the field of genetics as those that should be criminalized. On the other hand, in the interest of progress in genetic research, there is a need to actively develop the institute of circumstances excluding criminality of an act. Conclusions: the formation of temporal, spatial, subjective, substantive and interbranch limits of criminal law intervention in the human DNA research will allow geneticists to more accurately determine the reference points of scientific research, to channel their efforts exclusively into creative and constructive work, and will make it possible for all the interested parties to be more active in providing organizational, financial and scientific assistance for such researchers.
Keywords: genome; genetics; liability limits; criminal law limits; criminalization; reasonable risk; genetic discrimination; genetic information protection
  download the full-version article
References: 1. Babadzhanov I. Kh., Sal'nikov M. V. Status embriona cheloveka: problemy pravovogo regulirovaniya [The Status of the Human Embryo: Problems of Legal Regulation]. Mir politiki i sotsiologii – World of Politics and Sociology. 2016. Issue 10. Pp. 120–130. (In Russ.).
2. Blinov A. G. Pravovaya sreda provedeniya genomnykh issledovaniy i perspektivy ee optimizatsii v Rossii [The Legal Environment for Conducting Genomic Research and the Prospects for Its Optimization in Russia]. Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriya «Pravo» – Herald of Omsk University. Series 'LAW'. 2018. Issue 4. Pp. 138–144. (In Russ.).
3. Delone N. L. U istokov kosmicheskoy genetiki [At the Origins of Cosmic Genetics]. Nauka i zhizn'– Science and Life. 2008. Issue 4. Pp. 112–119. (In Russ.).
4. Kobzeva E. V. Glava 16. Obstoyatel'stva, isklyuchayushchie prestupnost' deyaniya. [Chapter 16. Circumstances Excluding Criminality of an Act]. Rossyiskoe ugolovnoe pravo. Obshchaya i Osobennaya chasti. V 3-kh tomakh. Uchebnik / pod red. N. A. Lopashenko [Russian Criminal Law. General and Special Parts. In 3 vols. Textbook; ed. by N. A. Lopashenko]. Moscow, 2014. Vol. 1. 720 p. Pp. 364–405. (In Russ.).
5. Lopashenko N. A. Mezhotraslevaya differentsiatsiya: model' kriteriev, uchityvaemykh pri kriminalizatsii deyaniy [Interbranch Differentiation: a Model of Criteria Taken into Account When Criminalizing Acts]. Izvestiya Yugo-Zapadnogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya: Istoriya i pravo – Proceedings of the Southwest State University. Series: History and Law. 2018. Vol. 8. Issue 4 (29). Pp. 131–136. (In Russ.).
6. Loseva P. V rezhime redaktirovaniya: Eksperimenty po sozdaniyu CRISPR-detey glazami opponentov i patsientov [In the Editing Mode: Experiments on Creating CRISPR-Children through the Eyes of Opponents and Patients]. N+1. September 30, 2019. Available at: https://nplus1.ru/ material/2019/09/30/rebrikovs-patients. (In Russ.).
7. Montgomery J. Modifikatsiya genoma cheloveka: vyzovy so storony sfery prav cheloveka, obuslovlennye nauchno-tekhnicheskimi dostizheniyami [Modification of the Human Genome: Human Rights Challenges Raised by Scientific and Technological Developments]. Pretsedenty Evropeyskogo suda po pravam cheloveka – Precedents of the European Court of Human Rights. 2018. Issue 3. Pp. 42–56. (In Russ.).
8. Razgil'diev B. T. Sushchnostnye razlichiya okhranyaemykh ugolovnym i administrativnym zakonodatel'stvom Rossii ob"ektov, ikh mezhotraslevoe znachenie (na primere ekologicheskikh sostavov) [Essential Differences of Objects Protected by the Criminal and Administrative Legislation of Russia, Their Intersectoral Significance (a Case Study of Environmental Compositions)]. Vestnik Saratovskoy gosudarstvennoy yuridicheskoy akademii – Bulletin of Saratov State Law Academy. 2019. Issue 4. Pp. 160–172. (In Russ.).
9. Rebrikov D. V. Redaktirovanie genoma cheloveka [Editing the Human Genome]. Vestnik Rossiyskogo gosudarstvennogo meditsinskogo universiteta – Bulletin of Russian State Medical University. 2016. Issue 3. Pp. 4–15. (In Russ.).
10. Fomina O.Y u. O vozmozhnosti sudebnoy zashchity pri redaktirovanii genoma cheloveka [On the Possibility of Judicial Protection When Editing the Human Genome]. Lex Russica. 2019. Issue 6. Pp. 37–47. (In Russ.).
11. Shartogasheva A. Deti redaktsii [Children of Editing]. Populyarnaya mekhanika – Popular Mechanics. 2019. Issue 9. Pp. 36–39. (In Russ.).
12. Bettinger B. Mitochondrial Eve and
Y-Chromosomal Adam. The Genetic Genealogist. 2007. July 20. Available at: https://thege¬ne-ticgenealogist.com/2007/07/20/mitochondrial-eve-and-y-chromosomal-adam/. (In Eng.).
13. Bourn D. Mainstreaming Genomic Medicine. Lancet. 2017. September 23. Vol. 390. Issue 10101. P. 1486. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(17)32391-7. (In Eng.).
14. Brown K. V. Biohacker Investigation Is Dropped by California Medical Board. Bloomberg. 2019. October 16. Available at: https://www. bloom-berg.com/news/articles/2019-10-15/bio¬hacker-investigation-is-dropped-by-california-me¬dical-board. (In Eng.).
15. Brown N. Mass General Performs First Application of Genetically Modified, Live-Cell, Pig Skin to a Human Wound. 2019. October 11. Available at: https://www.mass¬general.org/news/ press-release/mass-general-performs-first-application-of-genetically-modified-live-cell-pig-skin-to-a-human-wound. (In Eng.).
16. Chapman C. R., Mehta K. S., Parent B., Caplan A. L. Genetic Discrimination: Emerging Ethical Challenges in the Context of Advancing Technology. Journal of Law and the Biosciences. 2019. December 5. Lsz 016. P. 2. DOI: 10.1093/ jlb/lsz016. (In Eng.).
17. Cyranoski D. Russian Biologist Plans More CRISPR-Edited Babies. Nature. 2019. Issue 570. Pp. 145–146. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-01770-x. (In Eng.).
18. Devaney S. All of Us. DNA-Based Medicine Needs More Diversity to Avoid Harmful Bias. One Big Research Project is Fixing That. Nature. 2019. Vol. 576. Pp. 16–17. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03717-8. (In Eng.).
19. Frumkin D., Wasserstrom A., Davidson A., Grafit A. Authentication of Forensic DNA Samples. Forensic Science International: Genetics. 2010. Vol. 4. Issue 2. Pp. 95–103. DOI: 10.1016/ j.fsigen.2009.06.009. (In Eng.).
20. Goh A. M. Y., Chiu Е., Yastrubetskaya O., Erwin C., Williams J. K., Juhl A. R., Paulsen J. S., et al. Perception, Experience, and Response to Genetic Discrimination in Huntington's Disease: The Australian Results of the International RESPOND-HD Study. Genetic Testing and Molecular Biomarkers. 2013. February. Issue 17(2). Pp. 115–121. DOI: 10.1089/gtmb.2012.0288. (In Eng.).
21. Huerta-Sánchez E., Jin X., Asan et al. Altitude Adaptation in Tibetans Caused by Introgression of Denisovan-like DNA. Nature. 2014. Issue 512. Pp. 194–197. DOI:10.1038/nature1340. (In Eng.).
22. Joly Y., Dupras C., Pinkesz M., Tovino S.A., Rothstein M.A. Looking Beyond GINA: Policy Approaches to Address Genetic Discrimination. Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics. 2020. January 21. Vol. 21. Pp. 491-507. DOI: 10. 1146/annurev-genom-111119-011436. (In Eng.).
23. Joly Y., Dalpe G., Dupras C. et al. Establishing the International Genetic Discrimination Observatory. Nature Genetics. 2020. March 23. Vol. 54. Pp. 466-468. DOI: 10.1038/s41588-020-0606-5. (In Eng.).
24. Knapton S. Three-Parent Babies: the Arguments for and against. The Telegraph. 2015. February 3. Available at: https://www.telegraph. co.uk/news/science/science-news/11386151/Three -parent-babies-the-arguments-for-and-against.html. (In Eng.).
25. Lewis T. 23 and Baby. We Now Have the Ability to Screen for Thousands of Genetic Diseases in Newborns. That May not Always Be the Healthy Thing to Do. Nature. 2019. Vol. 576. Pp. 8–12. DOI: 10.1038/d41586-019-03715-w. (In Eng.).
26. Liu Z., Cai Y., Liao Z., Xu Y., Wang Y., Wang Z., Jiang X., Li Y., Lu Y., Nie Y., Zhang X., Li C., Bian X., Poo M., Chang H.-C., Sun Q. Cloning of a Gene-Edited Macaque Monkey by Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer. National Science Review. 2019. Vol. 6. Issue 1. Pp. 101–108. DOI: 10.1093/nsr/nwz003. (In Eng.).
27. Matveeva T. V., Otten L. Widespread Occurrence of Natural Genetic Transformation of Plants by Agrobacterium. Plant Molecular Biology. 2019. Issue 101. Pp. 415–437. DOI: 10.1007/s11103-019-00913-y. (In Eng.).
28. Middleton А., Milne R., Thorogood A., Kleiderman E., Niemiece E., Prainsack B., Farley L., Bevan P., Steed C., Smith J., Vears D., Atutornu J., Howard H. C., Morley K. I. Attitudes of Publics Who Are Unwilling to Donate DNA Data for Research. European Journal of Medical Genetics. 2019. Vol. 62. Issue 5. Pp. 316–323. DOI: 10. 1016/j.ejmg.2018.11.014. (In Eng.).
29. Murphy H. When a DNA Test Says You're a Younger Man, Who Lives 5,000 Miles Away. 2019. December 7. Available at: https://www.ny¬¬times.com/2019/12/07/us/dna-bo¬ne-marrow-transplant-crime-lab.html. (In Eng.).
30. Parikh R. B., Teeple S., Navathe A. S.
Addressing Bias in Artificial Intelligence in Health Care. JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association. 2019. Vol. 322. Issue 24. Pp. 2377–2378. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2019.18058. (In Eng.).
31. Reeves R. G., Voeneky S., Caetano-Anollés D., Beck F., Boëte C. Agricultural Research, Or a New Bioweapon System? Science. 2018. Vol. 362. Issue 6410. Pp. 35–37. DOI: 10. 1126/science.aat7664. (In Eng.).
32. Regalado A. Here Are Some Actual Facts about George Church's DNA Dating Company. MIT Technology Review. 2019. December 11. Available at: https://www.technologyreview.com/ s/614920/actual-facts-about-george-church-dna-dating-company-digid8/. (In Eng.).
33. Scott R. H., Fowler T. A., Caulfield M. Genomic Medicine: Time for Health-Care Transformation. Lancet. 2019. Vol. 394. Issue 10197. Pp. 454–456. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(19) 31796-9. (In Eng.).
34. Stokstad E. Genetics Lab Accused of Misusing African DNA. Science. 2019. Vol. 366. Issue 6465. Pp. 555–556. DOI: 10.1126/science. 366.6465.555. (In Eng.).
35. Wauters A., Van Hoyweghen I. Global Trends on Fears and Concerns of Genetic Discrimination: a Systematic Literature Review. Journal of Human Genetics. 2016. Vol. 61. Pp. 275–282. DOI: 10.1038/jhg.2015.151. (In Eng.).
Received: 11.07.2020
Financing: Acknowledgments: The reported study was funded by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research, project No. 18-29-14036 'Threats to human security in the field of research on the genome of living organisms and a criminal law model of their prevention', 2018–2020
The Perm State University
614068, Perm, street Bukireva, 15 (Faculty of Law), +7 (342) 2 396 275
vesturn@yandex.ru
ISSN 1995-4190 ISSN (eng.) 2618-8104
ISSN (online) 2658-7106
DOI 10.17072/1995-4190
(с) Editorial board, 2010
The magazine is registered in Federal Agency of supervision in sphere of communication and mass communications.
The certificate on registration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-33087 from September, 5th, 2008
The certificate on reregistration of mass media ПИ № ФС77-53189 from Marth, 14th, 2013

The magazine is included in List ВАК and in the Russian index of scientific citing

The founder & Publisher: the State educational institution of the higher training
“The Perm State University”.
Publishing 4 times a year