Этические и правовые вопросы применения технологий редактирования генома в медицине (обзор)

Поворотной точкой в развитии технологий редактирования генома (ТРГ), по мнению многих экспертов, стал 2012 г., когда Фенг Джанг (Feng Zhang) и Дженнифер Дудна (Jennifer Doudna) независимо друг от друга предложили использовать систему адаптивного бактериального иммунитета CRISPR/Cas9 для редактирования генома живых клеток эукариотических организмов. С тех пор спектр областей применения технологии CRISPR/Cas9 и родственных ей ТРГ продолжает лавинообразно увеличиваться: с их помощью создаются генетически модифицированные микроорганизмы, растения и животные, значительно расширяются возможности экспериментальных методов изучения генетических основ жизни, разрабатываются революционные подходы к терапии и профилактике ранее неизлечимых заболеваний.

Неоспоримые преимущества ТРГ оказались неизбежно сопряжены с высокими реальными и потенциальными рисками для экологии, здоровья человека и общества в целом. Стремительный прогресс в области редактирования генома эукариотических организмов неожиданно быстро привел к появлению первых людей с «улучшенным» геномом, несмотря на открыто высказанную позицию ведущих ученых, работающих в этой области: Дэвида Балтимора (David Baltimore), Пола Берга (Paul Berg), Дженнифер Дудна (Jennifer Doudna), Джорджа Черча (George Church), Мартина Джинека (Martin Jinek), призывавших к глобальному приостановлению работ с человеческими эмбрионами вплоть до момента выработки технических, правовых и этических норм в этой области.

Это демонстрирует острую необходимость в формировании однозначной общественной позиции и совершенствовании нормативно-правовой базы применения ТРГ, в том числе и в Российской Федерации, что стало предпосылкой для подготовки данного обзора литературы.

Рассмотрены различные точки зрения на подходы к регулированию использования ТРГ в медицине. Проведен анализ действующих в различных странах мира законодательных актов и этических рекомендаций, регламентирующих применение ТРГ для модификации генетического материала растений и животных с целью создания медицинских изделий и лекарственных препаратов, а также редактирование генетического материала соматических и герминативных клеток человека. Особое внимание уделено состоянию соответствующих правовых и этических норм в Российской Федерации.

Представленные данные позволяют лучше понять сложившуюся ситуацию и обозначить области применения ТРГ, где особенно остро стоит вопрос разработки и внедрения регуляторных норм.

1. Bhat S.A., Malik A.A., Ahmad S.M., Shah R.A., Ganai N.A., Shafi S.S., Shabir N. Advances in genome editing for improved animal breeding: a review. Vet World 2017; 10(11): 1361–1366, https://doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2017.1361-1366.
2. Donohoue P.D., Barrangou R., May A.P. Advances in industrial biotechnology using CRISPR-Cas systems. Trends Biotechnol 2018; 36(2): 134–146, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tibtech.2017.07.007.
3. Wang C.X., Cannon P.M. Clinical applications of genome editing to HIV cure. AIDS Patient Care STDS 2016; 30(12): 539–544, https://doi.org/10.1089/apc.2016.0233.
4. Hammond A.M., Kyrou K., Bruttini M., North A., Galizi R., Karlsson X., Kranjc N., Carpi F.M., D’Aurizio R., Crisanti A., Nolan T. The creation and selection of mutations resistant to a gene drive over multiple generations in the malaria mosquito. PLoS Genet 2017; 13(10): e1007039, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1007039.
5. Cyranoski D. The CRISPR-baby scandal: what’s next for human gene-editing. Nature 2019; 566(7745): 440–442, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-00673-1.
6. Zayner J. URL: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/diy -crispr-kits-learn-modern-science-by-doing.
7. Berg P., Singer M.F. The recombinant DNA controversy: twenty years later. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1995; 92(20): 9011–9013, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.92.20.9011.
8. Charo R.A. The legal and regulatory context for human gene editing. Issues in Science and Technology 2016; 32(3): 39–44.
9. Baltimore D., Berg P., Botchan M., Carroll D., Charo R.A., Church G., Corn J.E., Daley G.Q., Doudna J.A., Fenner M., Greely H.T., Jinek M., Martin G.S., Penhoet E., Puck J., Sternberg S.H., Weissman J.S., Yamamoto K.R. A prudent path forward for genomic engineering and germline gene modification. Science 2015; 348(6230): 36–38, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aab1028.
10. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. International Summit on Human Gene Editing: a global discussion. 2015. URL: https://www.nap.edu/read/21913/chapter/1.
11. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine. Statement by the organizing committee of the Second International Summit on Human Genome Editing. 2018. URL: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsit...
12. Allen & Overy. Regulating CRISPR genome editing in humans: where do we go from here? 2017. URL: http://www.allenovery.com/publications/en-gb/Page...
13. Nesbit R. It’s time for rational regulation. The Biologist 2017; 64(4): 10. URL: https://thebiologist.rsb.org.uk/biologist-opinion/159-biologist/ opinion/1789-it-s-time-for-rational-regulation.
14. Ishii T., Pera R.A.R., Greely H.T. Ethical and legal issues arising in research on inducing human germ cells from pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 2013; 13(2): 145–148, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2013.07.005.
15. Bio-IT World Staff. How the world’s governments have regulated human genome editing. 2016. URL: http://www.bio-itworld.com/2016/1/25/how-worlds-governments- have-regulated-human-genome-editing.html.
16. Wired. CRISPR gene-editing gets rules. Well, guidelines, really. 2015. URL: https://www.wired.com/2015/12/crispr-gene- editors-get-the-beginning-of-some-rules/.
17. Blackwell T. End Canada’s criminal ban on contentious CRISPR gene-editing research, major science group urges. 2017. URL: https://nationalpost.com/health/end-canadas-criminal-ban -on-contentious-crispr-gene-editing-research-major-science-group-urges.
18. McNally K. The future of genome editing and how it will be regulated. 2017. URL: https://phys.org/news/2017-01-future-genome.html.
19. European Medicines Agency. Accelerated assessment. 2016. URL: https://www.ema.europa.eu/human-regulatory/marketing -authorisation/accelerated-assessment.
20. Sipp D. Conditional approval: Japan lowers the bar for regenerative medicine products. Cell Stem Cell 2015; 16(4): 353–356, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.stem.2015.03.013.
21. Biffi A., Montini E., Lorioli L., Cesani M., Fumagalli F., Plati T., Baldoli C., Martino S., Calabria A., Canale S., Benedicenti F., Vallanti G., Biasco L., Leo S., Kabbara N., Zanetti G., Rizzo W.B., Mehta N.A., Cicalese M.P., Casiraghi M., Boelens J.J., Del Carro U., Dow D.J., Schmidt M., Assanelli A., Neduva V., Di Serio C., Stupka E., Gardner J., von Kalle C., Bordignon C., Ciceri F., Rovelli A., Roncarolo M.G., Aiuti A., Sessa M., Naldini L. Lentiviral hematopoietic stem cell gene therapy benefits metachromatic leukodystrophy. Science 2013; 341(6148): 1233158, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1233158.
22. Davila M.L., Sadelain M. Biology and clinical application of CAR T cells for B cell malignancies. Int J Hematol 2016; 104(1): 6–17, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12185-016-2039-6.
23. Hirsch T., Rothoeft T., Teig N., Bauer J.W., Pellegrini G., De Rosa L., Scaglione D., Reichelt J., Klausegger A., Kneisz D., Romano O., Secone Seconetti A., Contin R., Enzo E., Jurman I., Carulli S., Jacobsen F., Luecke T., Lehnhardt M., Fischer M., Kueckelhaus M., Quaglino D., Morgante M., Bicciato S., Bondanza S., De Luca M. Regeneration of the entire human epidermis using transgenic stem cells. Nature 2017; 551(7680): 327–332, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature24487.
24. Waltz E. USDA approves next-generation GM potato. Nat Biotechnol 2015; 33(1): 12–13, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0115-12.
25. Fagan J. Summary of the tryptophan toxicity incident. URL: http://www.nemsn.org/Articles/summary_tryptophan%...
26. FDA. Regulation of intentionally altered genomic DNA in animals. 2017. URL: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/Guidance ComplianceEnforcement/GuidanceforIndustry/ucm113903.pdf.
27. GMO FAQs. How are governments regulating CRISPR and new breeding technologies (NBTs)? URL: https://gmo.geneticliteracyproject.org/FAQ/how-are- governments-regulating-crispr-and-new-breeding-technologies-nbts/.
28. Carroll D., Charo R.A. The societal opportunities and challenges of genome editing. Genome Biol 2015; 16(1): 242, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-015-0812-0.
29. Sprink T., Eriksson D., Schiemann J., Hartung F. Regulatory hurdles for genome editing: process- vs. product-based approaches in different regulatory contexts. Plant Cell Rep 2016; 35(7): 1493–1506, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00299-016-1990-2.
30. Araki M., Ishii T. Towards social acceptance of plant breeding by genome editing. Trends Plant Sci 2015; 20(3): 145–149, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.01.010.
31. Barton J., Crandon J., Kennedy D., Miller H. A model protocol to assess the risks of agricultural introductions: a risk-based approach to rationalizing field trial regulations. Nat Biotechnol 1997; 15(9): 845–848, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt0997-845.
32. Huang S., Weigel D., Beachy R.N., Li J. A proposed regulatory framework for genome-edited crops. Nat Genet 2016; 48(2): 109–111, https://doi.org/10.1038/ng.3484.
33. HG.org. 2019. URL: https://www.hg.org/ethics.html.
34. World Medical Association. Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. JAMA 2013; 310(20): 2191–2194, https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2013.281053.
35. World Medical Association. Medical ethics manual. 2015. URL: https://www.wma.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/ 11/Ethics_manual_3rd_Nov2015_en.pdf.
36. Rossant J. Gene editing in human development: ethical concerns and practical applications. Development 2018; 145(16): dev150888, https://doi.org/10.1242/dev.150888.
37. Schuttelaar and Partners. The regulatory status of new breeding techniques in countries outside the European Union. 2015. URL: https://www.nbtplatform.org/background-documents/ rep-regulatory-status-of-nbts-oustide-the-eu-june-2015.pdf.
38. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Modernizing the regulatory system for biotechnology products: final version of the update to the coordinated framework for the regulation of biotechnology. 2017. URL: https://www.epa.gov/regulation-biotechnology-under-tsca-and-fifra/modernizing- regulatory-system-biotechnology-products.
39. Library of Congress. Restrictions on genetically modified organisms. 2014. URL: https://www.loc.gov/law/help/restrictions-on-gmos/index.php.
40. Jin S. The ethical implications of a new gene editing technique. 2015. URL: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2015/03/the-ethical- implications-of-a-new-gene-editing-technique/.
41. Peschin S. How should we regulate genome editing? 2017. URL: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/05/ how-should-we-regulate-genome-editing/.
42. Court of Justice of European Union. Organisms obtained by mutagenesis are GMOs and are, in principle, subject to the obligations laid down by the GMO Directive. 2018. URL: https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/ application/pdf/2018-07/cp180111en.pdf.
43. Федеральный закон РФ от 17.12.1997 №149-ФЗ «О семеноводстве». Собрание законодательства РФ 1997, №51, ст. 5715.
44. Федеральный закон РФ от 10.01.2002 №7-ФЗ «Об охране окружающей среды». Собрание законодательства РФ 2002, №47, ст. 4659.
45. Федеральный закон РФ от 05.07.1996 (в ред. от 29.06.2017) №86-ФЗ «О государственном регулировании в области генно-инженерной деятельности». Собрание законодательства РФ 1996, №28, ст. 3348.
46. Комиссия Таможенного союза. ТР ТС 021/2011 «О безопасности пищевой продукции». 2011. URL: http://www.tsouz.ru/db/techreglam/ Documents/TR%20TS%20PishevayaProd.pdf.
47. Kalinina N., Klink G., Glukhanyuk E., Lopatina T., Efimenko A., Akopyan Z., Tkachuk V. MiR-92a regulates angiogenic activity of adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells. Exp Cell Res 2015; 339(1): 61–66, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yexcr.2015.10.007.
48. Kalinina N., Kharlampieva D., Loguinova M., Butenko I., Pobeguts O., Efimenko A., Ageeva L., Sharonov G., Ischenko D., Alekseev D., Grigorieva O., Sysoeva V., Rubina K., Lazarev V., Govorun V. Characterization of secretomes provides evidence for adipose-derived mesenchymal stromal cells subtypes. Stem Cell Res Ther 2015; 6: 1–12, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13287-015-0209-8.
49. Eremichev R.Y., Makarevich O.A., Alexandrushkina N.A., Kulebyakin K.Y., Dyikanov D.T., Makarevich P.I. Menstrual-blood serum displays an antifibrotic effect on human endometrial mesenchymal stromal cells. Cell Tissue Biol 2018; 12(4): 281–288, https://doi.org/10.1134/s1990519x1804003x.
50. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, Medicine Report. Human genome editing: science, ethics and governance. National Academies Press; 2017, https://doi.org/10.17226/24623.
51. Rysenkova K.D., Semina E.V., Karagyaur M.N., Shmakova A.A., Dyikanov D.T., Vasiluev P.A., Rubtsov Y.P., Rubina K.A., Tkachuk V.A. CRISPR/Cas9 nickase mediated targeting of urokinase receptor gene inhibits neuroblastoma cell proliferation. Oncotarget 2018; 9(50): 29414–29430, https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.25647.
52. Tyurin-Kuzmin P.A., Karagyaur M.N., Rubtsov Y.P., Dyikanov D.T., Vasiliev P.A., Vorotnikov A.V. CRISPR/Cas9-mediated modification of the extreme C-terminus impairs PDGF-stimulated activity of Duox2. Biol Chem 2018; 399(5): 437–446, https://doi.org/10.1515/hsz-2017-0229.
53. Califf R.M., Nalubola R. FDA’s science-based approach to genome edited products. 2017. URL: https://blogs.fda.gov/fdavoice/index.php/2017/01/fdas- science-based-approach-to-genome-edited-products/.
54. O’Rourke D.M., Nasrallah M.P., Desai A., Melenhorst J.J., Mansfield K., Morrissette J.J.D., Martinez-Lage M., Brem S., Maloney E., Shen A., Isaacs R., Mohan S., Plesa G., Lacey S.F., Navenot J.M., Zheng Z., Levine B.L., Okada H., June C.H., Brogdon J.L., Maus M.V. A single dose of peripherally infused EGFRvIII-directed CAR T cells mediates antigen loss and induces adaptive resistance in patients with recurrent glioblastoma. Sci Transl Med 2017; 9(399): eaaa0984, https://doi.org/10.1126/scitranslmed.aaa0984.
55. Ho B.X., Loh S.J.H., Chan W.K., Soh B.S. In vivo genome editing as a therapeutic approach. Int J Mol Sci 2018; 19(9): E2721, https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19092721.
56. Cyranoski D. CRISPR gene-editing tested in a person for the first time. Nature 2016; 539(7630): 479, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20988.
57. Reardon S. First CRISPR clinical trial gets green light from US panel. Nature (News) 2016, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature.2016.20137.
58. Rossidis A.C., Stratigis J.D., Chadwick A.C., Hartman H.A., Ahn N.J., Li H., Singh K., Coons B.E., Li Li, Lv W., Zoltick P.W., Alapati D., Zacharias W., Jain R., Morrisey E.E., Musunuru K., Peranteau W.H. In utero CRISPR-mediated therapeutic editing of metabolic genes. Nat Med 2018; 24(10): 1513–1518, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-018-0184-6.
59. Hill M.A. Embryology ovary development. URL: https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/ Ovary_Development#Human_Ovary_Timeline.
60. Hill M.A. Embryology testis development. URL: https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/ embryology/index.php/Testis_Development.
61. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Geneva. 2018. URL: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-geneva/.
62. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects of Biomedical and Behavioral Research. The Belmont Report. Ethical principles and guidelines for the protection of human subjects of research. J Am Coll Dent 2014; 81(3): 4–13.
63. Raposo V.L., Osuna E. European convention of human rights and biomedicine. Legal and Forensic Medicine 2013; 1405–1423, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-32338-6_98.
64. Bosley K.S., Botchan M., Bredenoord A.L., Carroll D., Charo R.A., Charpentier E., Cohen R., Corn J., Doudna J., Feng G., Greely H.T., Isasi R., Ji W., Kim J.S., Knoppers B., Lanphier E., Li J., Lovell-Badge R., Martin G.S., Moreno J., Naldini L., Pera M., Perry A.C., Venter J.C., Zhang F., Zhou Q. CRISPR germline engineering — the community speaks. Nat Biotechnol 2015; 33(5): 478–486, https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3227.
65. Specter M. The gene hackers. 2015. URL: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/the-gene-hackers.
66. Kaiser J. U.S. panel gives yellow light to human embryo editing. Science 2017, https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aal0750.
67. Bamford K.B., Wood S., Shaw R.J. Standards for gene therapy clinical trials based on pro-active risk assessment in a London NHS Teaching Hospital Trust. QJM 2005; 98(2): 75–86, https://doi.org/10.1093/qjmed/hci013.
68. Human Tissue Authority. Regulation of regenerative medicine in the UK. URL: https://www.hta.gov.uk/sites/default/files/ Role_of_regulators_in_regenerative_medicine.pdf.
69. Pocklington D. Genome editing of human cells. 2015. URL: http://www.lawandreligionuk.com/2015/ 09/08/genome-editing-of-human-cells.
70. Department of Health & Social Care UK. British Society for Gene and Cell Therapy (BSGCT). Public engagement day 2019. 2019. URL: https://www.bsgct.org/public-engagement-day-2019/.
71. FDA. Gene therapy clinical trials — observing subjects for delayed adverse events. Guidance for industry. 2006. URL: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBlood Vaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/CellularandGeneTherapy/ucm078719.pdf.
72. FDA. Points to consider in human somatic cell therapy and gene therapy. Hum Gene Ther 1991; 2(3): 251–256, https://doi.org/10.1089/hum.1991.2.3-251.
73. FDA. Considerations for the design of early-phase clinical trials of cellular and gene therapy products. 2015. URL: https://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBlood Vaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/ Guidances/CellularandGeneTherapy/UCM564952.pdf.
74. FDA. Fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval, priority review. 2015. URL: https://www.fda.gov/forpatients/approvals/fast/default.htm.
75. Федеральный закон РФ от 23.06.2016 №180-ФЗ «О биомедицинских клеточных продуктах». Собрание зако­но­дательства РФ 2016, №26, ст. 3849.
76. Makarevich P., Akopyan Z., Tkachuk V. On new regulation of cell therapy and regenerative medicine in the Russian Federation. Cytotherapy 2017; 19(9): 1125–1126, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcyt.2017.05.011.
77. Федеральный закон РФ от 12.04.2010 №61-ФЗ «Об обращении лекарственных средств». Собрание законо­дательства РФ 2010, №16, ст. 1815.
78. Федеральный закон РФ от 21.11.2011 (в ред. от 05.12.2017) №323-ФЗ «Об основах охраны здоровья граждан в Российской Федерации». Собрание законодательства РФ 2011, №48, ст. 6724.
79. Совет ЕАЭС. Правила проведения исследований био­логических лекарственных средств на территории Ев­ра­зийского экономического союза. Решение №89 от 03.11.2016. EAEU. URL: http://pharmacopoeia.ru/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/8903111.pdf.
80. Rubin C. Editing the book of life. URL: 2017, https://www.lawliberty.org/2017/08/07/editing-the-book-of-life/.
81. Andoh C.T. Genome editing technologies: ethical and regulation challenges for Africa. International Journal of Health Economics and Policy 2017; 2(2): 30–46.
82. HG.org. 2019. URL: https://www.hg.org/human-rights.html.
83. Karagyaur M., Rubtsov Y., Vasiliev P., Tkachuk V. Practical recommendations for improving efficiency and accuracy of the CRISPR/Cas9 genome editing system. Biochemistry (Mosc) 2018; 83(6): 629–642, https://doi.org/10.1134/s0006297918060020.
84. Dyikanov D.T., Vasiluev P.A., Rysenkova K.D., Aleksandrushkina N.A., Tyurin-Kuzmin P.A., Kulebyakin K.Y., Rubtsov Y.P., Shmakova A.A., Evseeva M.N., Balatskiy A.V., Semina E.V., Rostovtseva A.I., Makarevich P.I., Karagyaur M.N. Optimization of CRISPR/Cas9 technology to knock-out genes of interest in aneuploid cell lines. Tissue Eng Part C Methods 2019; 25(3): 168–175, https://doi.org/10.1089/ten.tec.2018.0365.
85. de Lecuona I., Casado M., Marfany G., Lopez Baroni M., Escarrabill M. Gene editing in humans: towards a global and inclusive debate for responsible research. Yale J Biol Med 2017; 90(4): 673–681.
86. Missmer S.A., Pearson K.R., Ryan L.M., Meeker J.D., Cramer D.W., Hauser R. Analysis of multiple-cycle data from couples undergoing in vitro fertilization: methodologic issues and statistical approaches. Epidemiology 2011; 22(4): 497–504, https://doi.org/10.1097/ede.0b013e31821b5351.
87. Ormond K.E., Mortlock D.P., Scholes D.T., Bombard Y., Brody L.C., Faucett W.A., Garrison N.A., Hercher L., Isasi R., Middleton A., Musunuru K., Shriner D., Virani A., Young C.E. Human germline genome editing. Am J Hum Genet 2017; 101(2): 167–176, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajhg.2017.06.012.
88. Sample I. Genetically modified babies given go ahead by UK ethics body. 2018. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/jul/17/genetically- modified-babies-given-go-ahead-by-uk-ethics-body.
89. Araki M., Ishii T. International regulatory landscape and integration of corrective genome editing into in vitro fertilization. Reprod Biol Endocrinol 2014; 12(1): 108, https://doi.org/10.1186/1477-7827-12-108.
90. Blakemore E. First human embryos “edited” in U.S. — get the facts. 2017. URL: https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/08/human-embryos-gene- editing-crispr-us-health-science/?user.testname=none.
91. Приказ Министерства здравоохранения РФ от 30 августа 2012 г. №107н г. Москва “О порядке использования вспомогательных репродуктивных технологий, противо­показаниях и ограничениях к их применению”. URL: https://www.rosminzdrav.ru/documents/8023-prikaz-o-poryadke -ispolzovaniya-vspomogatelnyh-reproduktivnyh-tehnologiy- protivopokazaniyah-i-ogranicheniyah-k-ih-primeneniyu.
92. Федеральный закон РФ от 20.05.2002 №54-ФЗ «О временном запрете на клонирование человека». Собрание законодательства РФ 2002, №21, ст. 1917.
93. International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). Guidelines for stem cell research and clinical translation. 2016. URL: http://www.isscr.org/docs/default-source/all-isscr- guidelines/guidelines-2016/isscr-guidelines-for-stem-cell- research-and-clinical-translation.pdf?sfvrsn=4.
94. Plomer A. EU ban on stem cell patents is a threat both to science and the rule of law. 2011. URL: https://www.theguardian.com/science/ blog/2011/dec/12/eu-ban-stem-cell-patents.
95. International Society for Stem Cell Research (ISSCR). ISSCR comments on U.S. study to correct disease genes in human embryos. 2017. URL: http://www.isscr.org/professional-resources/news-publicationsss/ isscr-news-articles/article-listing/2017/08/02/isscr-comments- on-u.s.-study-to-correct-disease-genes-in-human-embryos.
96. CRISPRcon. 2017. URL: https://crisprcon.org/crisprcon-2017/.
97. Cartagena protocol on biosafety to the convention on biological diversity. Montreal; 2000. URL: https://www.cbd.int/doc/legal/cartagena-protocol-en.pdf.
98. World Medical Association. WMA Declaration of Helsinki — ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects. 2018. URL: https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki- ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/.
99. UNESCO. Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights. 2005. URL: http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf.
100. Witherspoon Council on Ethics and the Integrity of Science. The stem cell debates: lessons for science and politics. 2012. URL: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the- stem-cell-debates-lessons-for-science-and-politics.
101. US Environment Protection Agency. The National Environmental Policy Act. 1969. URL: https://www.epa.gov/laws-regulations/summary-national-environmental-policy-act.
102. FDA. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. 2018. URL: https://www.fda.gov/regulatoryinformation/lawsenforcedbyfda /federalfooddrugandcosmeticactfdcact/default.htm.
103. Galli M.G., Serabian M. Regulatory aspects of gene therapy and cell therapy products. Adv Exp Med Biol 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-18618-4.
104. Justice Laws Website. Plant Protection Act. 2019. URL: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/P-14.8/.
105. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Regulating agricultural biotechnology in Canada: an overview. 2016. URL: http://www.inspection.gc.ca/plants/plants-with-novel- traits/general-public/overview/eng/1338187581090/1338188593891.
106. Knoppers B.M., Isasi R., Caulfield T., Kleiderman E., Bedford P., Illes J., Ogbogu U., Ravitsky V., Rudnicki M. Human gene editing: revisiting Canadian policy. NPJ Regen Med 2017; 2(1): 3, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41536-017-0007-2.
107. Knoppers B.M., Nguyen M.T., Noohi F., Kleiderman E. Human genome editing: ethical and policy considerations. 2018. URL: http://www.genomequebec.com/DATA/PUBLICATION/34 _en~v~Human_Genome_Editing_-_Policy_Brief.pdf.
108. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Human germline gene editing: points to consider from a Canadian perspective. 2016. URL: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/50158.html.
109. Presidency of the Republic Civil Cabinet Sub-Office of Legal Affairs. Law No.11.105. 2005. URL: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/lexdocs/laws/en/br/br060en.pdf.
110. National Administration of Drugs, Foods and Medical Devices. Regulation 6677/10. Buenos Aires; 2010. URL: http://www.anmat.gov.ar/Comunicados/Dispo_6677-10_en.pdf.
111. Ministry of Health. Secretary Office of Policies, Regulations and Institutes. Regulation 7075. Buenos Aires; 2011. URL: https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/archives/r/ Reg7075-11RegistrationProceduresBiologicalPharmaProducts.pdf.
112. European Medicines Agency. Guidelines are relevant for advanced therapy medicinal products. URL: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/human- regulatory/research-development/advanced-therapies/ guidelines-relevant-advanced-therapy-medicinal-products.
113. Kipling J. The European landscape for human genome editing. A review of the current state of the regulations and ongoing debates in the EU. 2016. URL: https://acmedsci.ac.uk/file-download/41517-573f212e2b52a.pdf.
114. Parliament of the United Kingdom. Environmental Protection Act 1990. URL: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/43/contents.
115. European Food Safety Authority. GMO applications: regulations and guidance. URL: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/applications/gmo/regulationsandguidance.
116. Genetherapynet.com. Gene therapy legislation in the United Kingdom. URL: http://www.genetherapynet.com/europe/united-kingdom.html.
117. Parliament of the United Kingdom. Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. URL: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2008/22/contents.
118. Genetherapynet.com. Gene therapy legislation in France. URL: http://www.genetherapynet.com/europe/france.html.
119. Mahalatchimy A., Rial-Sebbag E. Regulation of stem cell research in France. 2017. URL: https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-france.
120. Genetherapynet.com. Gene therapy legislation in Germany. URL: http://www.genetherapynet.com/europe/germany.html.
121. Small S. Regulation of stem cell research in Germany. https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-germany.
122. Genetherapynet.com. Gene therapy legislation in Sweden. URL: http://www.genetherapynet.com/europe/sweden.html.
123. MPA. The Medical Product Agency’s provisions and guidelines on clinical trials of medicinal products for human use. 2003. URL: https://lakemedelsverket.se/upload/eng-mpa-se/lvfse/LVFS2003_6.pdf.
124. Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. The Genetic Integrity Act (2006:351). 2006. URL: http://www.smer.se/news/the-genetic-integrity-act-2006351/.
125. Small S., Hovatta O. Regulation of stem cell research in Sweden. URL: https://www.eurostemcell.org/regulation-stem-cell-research-sweden.
126. Genetherapynet.com. Gene therapy legislation in China. URL: http://www.genetherapynet.com/asia/china.html.
127. Rosemann A., Sleeboom-Faulkner M. New regulation for clinical stem cell research in China: expected impact and challenges for implementation. Regen Med 2015; 11(1): 5–9, https://doi.org/10.2217/rme.15.80.
128. Ahuja V., Jotwani G. The regulation of genetically modified organisms in India. 2007. URL: http://bch.cbd.int/database/record.shtml?documentid=42185.
129. Tiwari S.S., Raman S., Martin P. Regenerative medicine in India: trends and challenges in innovation and regulation. Regen Med 2017; 12(7): 875–885, https://doi.org/10.2217/rme-2017-0094.
130. Chodisetty S., Nelson E.J. Gene therapy in India: a focus. J Biosci 2014; 39(3): 537–541, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12038-014-9431-2.
131. Laurens J.B. A comparative analysis of the regulatory framework of the therapeutic application of stem cell technologies [dissertation]. University of Pretoria; 2017. URL: https://repository.up.ac.za/bitstream/handle/2263/62543/ Laurens_Comparative_2017.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y.
132. Постановление правительства РФ от 29.06.2017 №770 «О внесении изменений в постановление Прави­тельства РФ от 23.09.2013 г. №839 «О государственной регистрации генно-инженерно-модифицированных орга­низ­мов, предназначенных для выпуска в окружающую сре­ду, а также продукции, полученной с применением та­ких организмов или содержащей такие организмы». 2017. URL: http://static.government.ru/media/files/12ZF6o3Z9m4toLDUehVzzeGLj201gv68.pdf.

Karagyaur M.N., Efimenko A.Yu., Makarevich P.I., Vasiluev P.A., Akopyan Zh.A., Bryzgalina E.V., Tkachuk V.A. Ethical and Legal Aspects of Using Genome Editing Technologies in Medicine (Review). Sovremennye tehnologii v medicine 2019; 11(3): 117, https://doi.org/10.17691/stm2019.11.3.16