What do you think the patient-doctor relationship will look like in the future of AI?

The law can be conceived as both an object as well as the propagator of societal ethos. Thus, when we approach the domain of international law, we operate upon the underlying assumption that the law is grounded upon a consensus-based foundation as opposed to unilateral application. Consequently, the application of international law acts as a prefatory mechanism towards the codification of standards between sovereign nations, precluding any single nation from superseding another. In the context of recent biological advancements in genomic technology, the question is now put of the extent to which the emergence of genetic modification should be regulated. International organizations such as the World Health Organisation and the Codex Alimentarius have promulgated existing frameworks as to the handling of genetic modification technologies, yet contention persists regarding the standards set as the international community confronts the challenge of balancing our ethical principles and facilitating scientific innovation. 

 

Spanish neo-scholastic Francisco de Vitoria once constructed a systematic framework of international jurisprudence grounded in the theory of natural law. Vitoria erroneously assumed that the values of any given community were universal manifestations.[1] The fact is that the impetus for existing instruments in international law originates from Europe, and thus Eurocentric bias and morals permeate much of the development of international regulation. Such is acknowledged by Noelle Lenoir, key author of the UNESCO declaration: the underlying ideas of such bear the imprint of an “European perspective.” It is with this that two key ideas are introduced in regards to genetic modification: the preservation of nature and the sanctity of human DNA — or, the matter of “species integrity” — and opposition to the monetization of genetic engineering for fear of exploitation by private corporations.[2]

 

The latter is up for contention within Western powers as considerations in America often reflect neoliberal economic preferences. This perspective tends to prioritize the freedom of consumers and technology developers, viewing the pursuit of financial gain from patenting life forms and genetic modification as morally neutral or positive rather than emphasizing social consequences.2 Proponents of this view argue within the inviolable right to self-determination: just as the market should operate with minimal government intervention, the consumer should be an autonomous person whose choices, even pertaining to their physical person, should be respected and empowered. This is a more utilitarian approach in its rejection to paternalistic intervention, though it raises questions of impoverished populations who lack the economic means to access healthcare options, threatening inequity. 

 

This brings up the question of whether the law should be accustomed to individual liberty or acknowledge the perceived innate nature of genetics. What was proposed by Lenoir is grounded in an essentialist conceptualization of human nature, characterized by skeptical, if not outright negative, perception of genetic modification. The basis of this mistrust is not entirely unwarranted, given the problematic application of the eugenics movement in the 20th century and its political perpetuation of discriminatory policies rooted in social and class bias — most notably, the Nazi effort to produce a superior race. Any argument towards eugenics following World War Two was undeniably perceived with its deeply disturbing past. Similarly, research on genetic essentialism revealed people tend to view genes in simplistic and deterministic ways: genes are perceived as immutable and as natural causes. By default, any alteration to nature is hereby deemed “unnatural” and troublesome.[3] This essentialist view on genetics has been shown to translate into a cynical attitude towards genetically modified organisms (GMOs), one study showing that 20% of Europeans endorsed the misconception that GMO foods are consistent with the ability to change a person’s genes.3 Currently, GMOs are banned in 16 of 27 countries in the European Union.

 

Such is where the issue of bias in the application of international law, reflecting only Western values, arises. It is presumptuous to assume genetic modification pertains solely to the alteration of the human genome. The rise of biotechnology has yielded a range of applications, particularly in the developing world, in fostering high-yielding, disease and pest resistant crops and thus has rooted itself as fundamental to enhancing food security and poverty alleviation. 90% of the world’s 13.3 million “biotech crop farmers” are from developing countries.[4] The introduction of genetic modification has also led to further advancements in medicine, such as injectable insulin, paving a way for more affordable healthcare. 

 

The antithetical argument to employment of GMOs in farming and healthcare centers upon the risk of accelerated development of antibiotic resistance and allergenicity. When seen through the lens of consequentialist ethical reasoning, the threat posed by the development of antibiotic resistance and potential for disease outbreaks far outweigh the necessity of employing GMOs to alleviate global hunger. Acknowledging that neither the use nor the aversion to GMOs yields a fully optimal outcome, the crux of the matter lies in the fact that the propagation of disease transcends national boundaries, bearing consequences for the global populace rather than remaining a domestic concern. This understanding outlines the need for a cohesive transnational legal framework. 

 

Many issues that go beyond the capabilities of individual countries have evolved in an increasingly complex global system, and an answer appears to have been sought through the application of international law and supranational governance for problems that have transcended single states. Compliance with such legislation is anticipated and justified when they align with the interests of sovereign actors, and little to prohibit states from violating and withdrawing if not.[5] This dynamic can then catalyze a “race to the bottom” as the lack of meaningful consequences or agreement emboldens states to follow under the mentality of “if they did it, so can we” gradually eroding the integrity of law over time. Compounding this is tension between the interests of the state, individual and market. The challenge, and fundamental role to which international law must fulfill, is to establish a framework rooted in the interests of all stakeholders. Though idealistic, it is the role of law to reach balance between flexibility and stability, to adapt to changing circumstances in a manner equitable and effective. 

 

-

 

References

1. Marks SP. Tying Prometheus Down: the International Law of Human Genetic Manipulation. Chicago Journal of International Law \[Internet\]. 2002 Jan 4;3(1):115–21. Available from: [https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176\&context=cjil](https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176\&context=cjil)

 

2. T. Gaubatz K, MacAthur M. How International is “International” Law? . Michigan Journal of International Law \[Internet\]. 2001;22(2):241–78. Available from: [https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372\&context=mjil](https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372\&context=mjil)

 

3. Y. Cheung B, Schmalor A, V. Heine S. The role of genetic essentialism and genetics knowledge in support for eugenics and genetically modified foods. Gao Z, editor. National Library of Medicine. 2021 Sep 30;

 

4. Jamil K. Biotechnology – A Solution to Hunger? \[Internet\]. United Nations. United Nations; Available from: [https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/biotechnology-solution-hunger\#:\~:text=GM%20crops%20will%20hopefully%20produce](https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/biotechnology-solution-hunger\#:\~:text=GM%20crops%20will%20hopefully%20produce)

 

5. J. Eby C. GLOBAL LEGALISM: THE ILLUSION OF EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL LAW. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy. 2010 Jan;38(4 Fall):687–92.

 

[^1]:  T. Gaubatz K, MacAthur M. How International is “International” Law? . Michigan Journal of International Law \[Internet\]. 2001;22(2):241–78. Available from: https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1372\&context=mjil

 

[^2]:  Marks SP. Tying Prometheus Down: the International Law of Human Genetic Manipulation. Chicago Journal of International Law \[Internet\]. 2002 Jan 4;3(1):115–21. Available from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1176\&context=cjil

 

[^3]:  Y. Cheung B, Schmalor A, V. Heine S. The role of genetic essentialism and genetics knowledge in support for eugenics and genetically modified foods. Gao Z, editor. National Library of Medicine. 2021 Sep 30;

 

[^4]:  Jamil K. Biotechnology – A Solution to Hunger? \[Internet\]. United Nations. United Nations; Available from: https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/biotechnology-solution-hunger\#:\~:text=GM%20crops%20will%20hopefully%20produce

 

[^5]:  J. Eby C. GLOBAL LEGALISM: THE ILLUSION OF EFFECTIVE INTERNATIONAL LAW. Denver Journal of International Law & Policy. 2010 Jan;38(4 Fall):687–92.