Embryo-Related Research and Innovation: Changed or Changing Regulatory Landscape?
Bernadette RichardsTess Whitton1, Tamra Lysaght2, Molly JohnstonJonathan Ives Melbourne Law School Carlton2, 1Melbourne Law School, Carlton, VIC, Australia2University of Singapore
Abstract
Mitochondrial Donation Law Reform (Maeve’s Law) Act 2022 recently reformed both the Research Involving Human Embryos Act 2002 (Cth) and the Prohibition of Human Cloning for Reproduction Act 2002 (Cth). The newly created mitochondrial donation licences encourage staged mitochondrial technological development from research to clinic. A simple example of progression is that a pre-clinical research and training licence may permit the fertilisation of a human egg by a human sperm using the permitted mitochondrial technique. Research creation of these embryos (human egg fertilized by human sperm) for research was previously prohibited. Maeve’s Law reforms could suggest a changing landscape for research and clinical use of innovative reproductive techniques, or they might be carefully ‘segmented’ (Lewis 2022) innovation regulation.
Beyond mitochondrial therapy, research is ongoing into the impact of Human Germline Genome Editing developments and whether Australian law should be subject to broader reforms. An early study on Australian attitudes pointed to a possible emerging view that Australians support health-based germline editing but that embryos still hold us up (Critchley et al. 2019). Results from the Australian Citizens’ Jury regarding germline editing illuminate identifiable and varied positions among the participants (Nicol et al. 2022).
The panel will examine these developments and the changing landscape. They will delve deeper into issues that may include the regulatory need to ensure sound research as a base for innovation, public attitudes and active support, ethical positioning and ultimately, regulatory governance role in innovation.
Biography
Bio to come