-Some countries (Canada & Mexico) already given out legislative bans on germline editing

GENE-EDITING TECH:

-somatic cells--> change fundamental traits of individual

-germline cells--> change heritable traits

-

MLA FORMAT: Benston, Shawna. “Everything in Moderation, Even Hype: Learning from Vaccine Controversies to Strike a Balance with CRISPR.” Journal of Medical Ethics, vol. 43, no. 12, 2017, pp. 819–23. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26879628. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.

-patent dispute: a legal battle where a patent holder sues another party for infringing on their exclusive rights to an invention by making, using, or selling it without permission

-CHINA-->allowed CRISPR-Cas9 technology to gene edit on human embryos

-CANADA--> strict laws against it

-EUROPE--> cautious-placing restrictions that are leading to confusion

-USA--> laws based on patent disputes, restrictions, and certain ethical considerations that play a huge role in deciding and making government laws/policies on gene editing

-In US, gene editing laws are more based on the moral/ethical

view

MLA CITATION: Torrance, Andrew W. “At Law: CRISPR Becomes Clearer.” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 47, no. 5, 2017, pp. 5–6. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26628303. Accessed 13 Nov. 2025.

-parents can alter the genes of an embryo to give their wanted qualities

-UK: made legal the use of mitochondrial donation-spiking talk within the FDA about research allowed in this field

-if the research continues to expand, we will have to look into the permissibility

MLA CITATION: Ossareh, Tandice. “WOULD YOU LIKE BLUE EYES WITH THAT? A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO GENETIC MODIFICATION OF EMBRYOS.” Columbia Law Review, vol. 117, no. 3, 2017, pp. 729–66. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/44177168. Accessed 14 Nov. 2025.

-global prohibition calls:

-1997 Oviedo Convention--> adresses human rights in biomedical development

-somatic editing effects only the person underneath the therapy

-nuclear DNA go gametes/early embryos: effect felt in every cell of the human body

-preamble suggests: advances in genetics=hope for cure/prevention of diseases-->unwanted social affects | loss of human integrity

-even in the best conditions--> convention doesn't allow "germline" edits that would allow for the individuals descedants to be affected

MLA CITATION: Charo, R. Alta. “GERMLINE ENGINEERING AND HUMAN RIGHTS.” AJIL Unbound, vol. 112, 2018, pp. 344–61. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/27003864. Accessed 14 Nov. 2025.

-"The wave is coming. Let's paddle out and ride it together"- need for society to adapt

-germline trials could happen but only under strict view & under the law

-Oviedo Convention: "an intervention seeking to modify the human genome may only be undertaken for preventive, diagnostic, or therapeutic purposes, and only if its aim is not to introduce the genome of any descendants"

- Sweden & Finland-->gene editing in plants (biologists)

-Europeans--> confusing everyone w/ policies

-

MLA CITATION: Torrance, Andrew W. “At Law: CRISPR Becomes Clearer.” The Hastings Center Report, vol. 47, no. 5, 2017, pp. 5–6. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26628303. Accessed 17 Nov. 2025.

-"For example, 29 countries have signed and ratified the European Oviedo Convention ( https://www.coe.int/en/web/bioethics/oviedo-convention ), which specifically outlaws heritable genome editing (20, 21).

-

MLA CITATION: Coller, Barry S. “Ethics of Human Genome Editing | Annual Reviews.” Anualreviews.Org, 2019, www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629.

-Center for Genetics & Society (social justice org.) --> been pressing for prohibition | goes against basic human rights

-most opinions are focused on science an technical perspective, legal & social affects are rarely discussed

Cite: Darnovsky, Marcy, et al. “CRISPR REGULATION.” Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 35, no. 4, 2019, pp. 5–12. JSTOR, https://www.jstor.org/stable/26949035. Accessed 21 Nov. 2025.

-"Federal law prohibits the use of federal funds for research on human germline gene therapy."

WHY?

-->people who aren't born yet don't have a say on if they receive treatment (right to choose-your body your choice)

-no law that prohibits gene editing if funded privately

-if trying to sell this therapy in US, an FDA approval for clinical studies and marketing is necessary

-"In 2019, US Senators introduced a bipartisan resolution encouraging international standards for germline gene editing to “prevent unethical researchers from moving to whichever country has the loosest regulations.”'

cite: https://crispr-gene-editing-regs-tracker.geneticliteracyproject.org/united-states-embryonic-germline-gene-editing/

"I think we'll get here eventually. It's just a matter of time. It's because we as humans, like, want to push the envelope. We want to know more. It's a desire. Otherwise we wouldn't have gotten to where we are. You know, you would not be in clothes, you would not have this technology. We are constantly curious. So I think genetic altering is going to come at some point, especially the way that IVF is going. What I think will be interesting is once the baby is born and is old enough, is there a way to genetically mutate?"