The Human Genome Editing and Criminal Law; A Comparative Legal Analysis of Selected Jurisdiction

Abstract

Rapid advancements in human genome-editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-based systems, have generated significant ethical and legal concerns, especially in relation to germline interventions. This paper examines the regulatory and criminal law implications of genome editing, with particular focus on modifications involving healthy human embryos that may result in irreversible and heritable genetic alterations. A comparative legal analysis is conducted to evaluate the regulatory frameworks of selected jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, China, and India. The study reviews statutory provisions, policy guidelines, and documented cases of human genome manipulation to assess how different legal systems address criminal liability, informed consent, and public safety risks. The findings indicate that most jurisdictions either prohibit or strictly restrict germline genome editing due to uncertainties surrounding long-term health effects and intergenerational consequences. The analysis further suggests that criminal liability may arise where genome-editing procedures are performed without valid informed consent or where experimental interventions expose future persons to foreseeable harm. Regulatory inconsistencies and enforcement gaps remain evident across jurisdictions. The paper concludes that a coherent and enforceable legal framework, comprising clear statutory provisions, effective oversight mechanisms, and defined criminal sanctions, is necessary to address emerging risks associated with human genome modification and to safeguard public safety and future generations.