Legal Personality of «Designer Babies» in the Context of Modern Legal Anthropology..

Advances in genetic engineering have enabled science to intervene in the natural processes of human conception, development, and the formation of personal identity. These developments are driving fundamental   shifts in legal anthropology, particularly in the understanding of human life as an absolute legal value. The application of traditional constitutional and legal norms that enshrine the first (classical) generations of human rights to relationships involving convergent technologies is often inadequate and fraught with contradictions. For instance, the emergence of CRISPR/Cas9 technology has brought to the forefront the issue of defining the legal personality of so-called «designer babies». This technology allows geneticists to edit parts of the human germline genome by deleting, adding, or altering DNA sequences. However, parental «customization» of a child’s somatic traits raises concerns about fulfilling parental demands that may carry potential harm of various kinds to the child and their personal identity. The authors advocate for an approach where the overarching principle in protecting the legal personality of children born via reproductive technologies should be the recognition of their status as the vulnerable party in legal relations complicated by genetic engineering. The study highlights, within legal anthropological methodology, both the interconnection and the distinction between the subject-level and personhood-level dimensions of human presence in law. Attempts to modify human nature and influence the personhood-level of existence underscore the urgent need for foundational cultural, bioethical, and normative frameworks to ensure adequate and effective legal regulation.

1. Alekseeva IY, Arshinov VI. The Information Society and the NBICS revolution. Moscow: IF RAS Publ.; 2016. (In Russ.).

2. Baruch S. Preimplantation genetic diagnosis and parental preferences: beyond deadly disease. Houston journal of health law & policy. 2008;8:245-280.

3. Beers B van. The Chinese nature of law’s natural pT impact of emerging technologies on the legal concept of the person. German law Journal. 2017;16(3):559-594.

4. Bogdanova EE. About the rights to human biomaterial. Grazhdanskoe pravo. 2019;4:28-32. (In Russ.).

5. Bogdanova EE. Correlation of private and public principles in the legal regulation of the use of genomic and assisted reproductive technologies. Vestnik Universiteta imeni O.Е. Kutafina (MGYuA) [Courier of Kutafin Moscow State Law University (MSAL)]. 2021;1(11):32-46. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.17803/2311-5998.2021.87.11.032-046.

6. Filatova AA. DIY biology: Re-setting the Boundaries of science. Gumanitarnye i sotsialnye nauki. 2020;1:56-77. (In Russ.).

7. Frati P, Fineschi V, Di Sanzo M, La Russa R, Scopetti M, Severi FM, Turillazzi E. Preimplantation and prenatal diagnosis, wrongful birth and wrongful life: a global view of bioethical and legal controversies. Human Reproduction Update. 2017;23(3):338-357.

8. Frati P, Gulino M, Turillazzi E, Zaami S, Fineschi V. The physician’s breach of the duty to inform the parent of deformities and abnormalities in the foetus: «wrongful life» actions, a new frontier of medical responsibility. The Journal of Maternal-Fetal Neonatal Medicine. 2014;27(11):1113-1117.

9. Genovese U, Lombardo K, Akulin IM, Chesnokova EA. Unwanted birth of a child in the Italian legal system: Between law and public consciousness. Journal of Obstetrics and Women’s Diseases [Zhurnal akusherstva i zhenskikh bolezney]. 2016;1:87-94. (In Russ.).

10. Grechkina EN. Transhumanism — the worldview of the 21st century or a civilizational threat to humanity. Gumanitarnye, sotsialno-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki. 2015;8:34-37. (In Russ.).

11. Habermas J. The future of human nature: Towards a liberal eugenics? Translated from German by Khorkov ML. Moscow: Ves mir Publ.; 2002. (In Russ.).

12. Khabrieva TYa. Technological plots of global development in the focus of legal doctrine. Global development: Problems of predictability and manageability. 19th International Likhachev Scientific Readings, May 22–24, 2019. St. Petersburg: SPbGUP; 2019. Pp. 227–231. (In Russ.).

13. Kravets IA. Anthropological bioconstitutionalism and constitutional bioethics: Prospects for the constitutionalization of biodiversity and Constitutional reform in 2020. Konstitutsionnoe i munitsipalnoe pravo [Constitutional and Municipal Law]. 2022;5:11-15. (In Russ.).

14. Kurzweil R, Grossman T. Transcend: Nine steps towards eternal life. Translated from English by Suslyakova A. 6th ed. Moscow: Mann, Ivanov and Ferber; 2020. (In Russ.).

15. Kuteynikov DL, Izhaev OA, Lebedev VA, Zenin SS. Regulation of interaction of an individual with autonomous technical devices: Legal regimes discussion. Lex russica. 2019;9(154):85-95. (In Russ.).

16. Lapaeva VV. Law and religion in the «Era of genomics»: Prospects for interaction. Zhurnal Rossiyskogo Prava [Journal of Russian Law]. 2020;8:14-26. (In Russ.).

17. Lapaeva VV. Preimplantation and prenatal genetic diagnostics in the Russian Federation: Ethical and legal issues. Vestnik Rossiyskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya «Yuridicheskie nauki» [RUDN Journal of Law. Legal Sciences Series]. 2021;25(1):179-197. (In Russ.)

18. Lapaeva VV. The concept of improving Russian legislation regulating the development of research in the field of the human genome. Proceedings of the Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences. 2020;2:111-134. (In Russ.).

19. Liang P et al. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated gene editing in human tripronuclear zygotes. Protein Cell. 2015;6:363-372.

20. Melnov SB, Mishatkina TV, Aizberg OR. «Human improvement» and neuroethics: Genome editing: The danger of stigmatization and stratification of society. Filosofiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Philosophy. Journal of the Higher School of Economics]. 2020;4(1):111-134. (In Russ.).

21. Pavlov VI, Pavlova LV. Modification of human legal personality under the influence of convergent technologies: The problem of legal identification of embryos in vitro. Pravo.by. 2023;3:99-108. (In Russ.).

22. Pavlov VI. The idea of social inclusion in legal discourse: Methodological status and variability of understanding. In: Chupris OI, editor. Dynamics of legal establishment and legal realization in the field of public law relations: Collection of scientific papers. National Center for Legislation and Legal Research. Republic of Belarus. Minsk: Kolorgrad Publ.; 2023. Issue 5. Pp. 67–78. (In Russ.).

23. Pestrikova AA, Kholopova EN. The risks of genetic editing of the human genome, taking into account the recommendations of the World Health Organization. Pravovoe gosudarstvo: teoriya i praktika. 2022;4:47-53. (In Russ.).

24. Pestrikova AA. Advantages and risks of human genome editing: Legal aspect. Sotsialnye novatsii i sotsialnye nauki. 2022;4:65-75. (In Russ.).

25. Petrov KA. The phenomenon of biohacking in the context of essentialist and constructivist concepts of science. Logos et Praxis. 2019;4:6-15. (In Russ.).

26. Popova OV. Biotechnological human engineering: Ethical and philosophical problems. Dr. Diss. (Philosophy). Moscow; 2018. (In Russ.).

27. Posadkova MV. The future is already here: On the constitutional nature of the reproductive right to have a child using assistive technologies. Sravnitelnoe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie. 2022;6:72-94. (In Russ.).

28. Pozdeeva EA, Melentyev AN, Russu ON, Korichko YuV, Davydova SA. Healthy lifestyle and biohacking: An analysis of concepts, components and basic principles. Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Tomsk State University Journal]. 2022;477:191-200. (In Russ.).

29. Rembis M (Re)Defining disability in the «genetic age»: behavioral genetics, «new» eugenics and the future of impairment. Disability & society. 2009;24(5):585-597.

30. Rostova NN. Antihumanism: Overcoming humanism or its new version? Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta [Tomsk State University Journal]. 2021;463:55-62. (In Russ.).

31. Rostova NN. The soft power of posthumanism. What prevents us from thinking in Russian: A monograph. Moscow: Prospekt Publ.; 2022. (In Russ.).

32. Savina SV. The process of changing the human psyche in the process of the evolution of man-made civilization: Issues of psychological and ethical dilemmas created by a number of implants of information and communication technologies. Pravo i praktika. 2015;1:125-134. (In Russ.).

33. Schmeink L. Biopunk dystopias: Genetic engineering, society and science fiction. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press; 2016.

34. Sergeev DN. Responsibility for manipulating the human genome (He Jiankui case). Rossiyskiy yuridicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Juridical Journal]. [electronic]. 2019;5:5-13. (In Russ.).

35. Skleinova MA, Biryukova NV. The most widely used methods of editing the human genome and various aspects of their application in modern medicine. The Scientific Heritage. 2021;66:45-50. (In Russ.).

36. Song L, Joly Y. After He Jianku: China’s biotechnology regulation reforms. Medical Law International. 2021;21(2):174-192.

37. Turillazzi E, Frati P, Busardò FP, Gulino M, Fineschi V. The European Court legitimates access of Italian couples to assisted reproductive techniques and to pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. Medicine, Science and the Law. 2015;55(3):194-200.

38. Yumartov DA. Inclusivity as the basic principle of posthumanism. Gumanitarnye vedomosti TGPU imeni L.N. Tolstogo. 2021;4(40):109-122. (In Russ.).

39. Zotov AV, Filipenko VA. Biohacking: Advantages, problems, prospects. Collection of scientific articles of the 4th International Scientific Conference of promising developments of young scientists: in 8 volumes. Vol. 4. Kursk: South-West State University Publ.; 2019. Pp. 389–393. (In Russ.)