Abstract
Since its advent in 2012, CRISPR has spawned a cottage industry of bioethics literature. One principal criticism of the technology is its virtually instant widespread adoption prior to deliberative bodies conducting a meaningful ethical review of its harms and benefits-a violation, to some, of bioethics' "precautionary principle." This view poorly considers, however, the role that the law can play-and does, in fact, play-in policing the introduction of ethically problematic uses of the technology. This Perspective recounts these legal regimes, including regulatory agencies and premarket approval, tort law and deterrence, patents and ethical licenses, funding agencies and review boards, as well as local politics. Identifying these legal regimes and connecting them to the precautionary principle should be instructive for bioethicists and policy makers who wish to conduct ethical reviews of new applications of CRISPR prior to their introduction.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
