Peculiarities of Legal Regulation of the Use of Genomic Technologies in Embryology and Artificial Fertilization in the UK

The development of modern medicine is based on the development of high-tech treatment methods. One of such methods includes the application of genomic research that in Russia is not inferior, but in many ways superior to the achievements of Western scientists. However, legal regulation, or rather lack of such regulation in our state prevents comprehensive application of advanced techniques in practice. In order to solve this issue, it becomes relevant to study the experience of foreign countries in order to take into account their flaws and gaps in legal regulation to deal with the debate over problems that may be associated with the application of advanced techniques. The paper considers the use of genomic technologies in the UK in the field of embryology and artificial fertilization as one of the most open areas for genomic editing in modern medicine. The paper elucidates the issue of obtaining and withdrawal (revoking or suspending) of the license by organizations that provide medical services in the field of embryology and artificial human fertilization. The authors also deal with the issue of the formation of specialized bodies, e.g. appeals committees in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Department, dealing with narrow issues. The authors have chosen legal regulation of the issue under consideration in Britain because it appears to be the most liberal regulation as compared with the regulation applied in the other States and even under international law. This, in turn, creates grounds for fears, disputes and discussions in the expert community, which is also of particular interest to the forthcoming Russian law-making and law enforcement. For the purposes of the study, the authors analyze the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in terms of their applicability both in the UK and in Russia and examine expert opinions regarding the issues under consideration. Based on the work done, the authors propose to implement the model of legal regulation under which both children who appeared as a result of genomic editing and donors are to be informed of the application of this method.

1. Mashkova KV, Varlen MV, Zenin SS, Bartsits AL, Suvorov GN. Samoregulirovanie otnosheniy v sfere informirovaniya o khode i rezultatakh geneticheskikh issledovaniy: problemy razrabotki professionalnoeticheskikh trebovaniy [Self-Regulation of Relations in Information-Sharing on the Progress and Results of Genetic Studies: Problems of Professional and Ethical Requirements Development]. Lex russica. 2019;6(151):131—142. (In Russ.)

2. Nikiforov VV, Suvorova EI, Istomin NP, Zenin SS, Suvorov GN. Problemy zakonodatelnogo regulirovaniya ispolzovaniya geneticheskoy informatsii v sfere lichnogo strakhovaniya v Rossii [Problems of legislative regulation of the use of genetic information in the sphere of personal insurance in Russia]. Law and Legislation. 2019;10:26—32. (In Russ.)

3. Osavelyuk AM. Konstitutsionnoe pravo zarubezhnykh stran [Constitutional Law of Foreign Countries]. St. Petersburg; 2019. (In Russ.)

4. Troitskiy AV, Suranova TG, Suvorov GN, Zenin SS, Suvorova EI. Analiz mezhdunarodnykh pravil khraneniya, dostupa i zashchity dannykh polnogenomnogo sekvenirovaniyan [Analysis of International Rules for Storage, Access and Protection of Full-Genome Sequencing Data]. Problemy prava [Issues of Law]. 2019;3(72):55—63. (In Russ.)

5. Baylis F. Human nuclear gene transfer (so-called mitochondrial replacement): Clearing the underbrush. Bioethics. 2017;31:7—19.

6. Bredenoord A, Dondorp W, Pennings G. Ethics of modifying the mitochondrial genome. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2011;37:97—100.

7. Carson C, Hinton L, Kurinczuk J, Quigley M. “I haven’t met them, I don’t have any trust in them. It just feelers like a big unknown”: A qualitative study exploring the determinants of consent to use Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority registration data in research. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5),e026469.

8. Craven L, Tang M-X, Gorman GS, De Sutter P, Heindryckx B. Novel reproductive technologies to prevent mitochondrial disease. Human Reproduction Update. 2017. 23(5);501—519.

9. De Campos TC, Milo C. Mitochondrial donations and the right to know and trace one’s generic origin: An ethical and legal challenge. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family. 2018;32(2): 170—183.

10. Greenfield A. Carry on Editing. British Medical Bulletin. 2018;127:23—31.

11. Lewens T. The division of advice labor: the case of ‘mitochondrial donation’. European Journal for Philosophy of Science. 2019;9(1);10.

12. Sharpe A, Avery P, Choudhary M. Reproductive outcome following pre-implication generic diagnosis (PGD) in the UK. Human Fertility. 2018;21(2): 120—127.

13. Williams CL, Jones ME, Swerdlow AJ, Murphy MFG, Sutcliffe AG. Risks of ovarian, breast, and corpus uteri cancer in women treated with assistant reproductive technology in Great Britain, 1991—2010: Data linkage study inclusion 2.2 million person years of observation. BMJ (Online). 2018; 362, k2644.