Numerous cryopreserved surplus embryos are being stored in IVF units in Western countries. IVF patients are required to choose and consent to disposition options for their surplus embryos upon starting treatment. We focus on the option of embryo donation to others for reproductive purposes. The terminology used for this practice is inconsistent, as the term embryo 'donation' is used interchangeably with embryo 'adoption' in different jurisdictions, government programs, and by private initiatives. Our main argument is that the selected terminology bears conceptual and other consequences for public attitudes, in a way which affects the choice of such a surplus embryo-disposition-option. More specifically, we contend that the pairing of 'embryo-adoption' is misguided. We identify material, legal, and policy-related points of distinction between the practices of donation and adoption. Then, we discuss the importance of choosing the terminology, given its power to influence the perception of embryo donation/adoption, and analyze conceptual differences between the two terms, finding only 'donation' to be fit for purpose. Next, relying on findings from an empirical study, we consider the effect of the -personhood of the embryo on the appropriateness of each term. Subsequently, we distinguish donation from adoption and justify why the former is more appropriate.

Enacted primarily to encourage patents on federally funded inventions, an additional policy objective of the Bayh-Dole Act is to increase visibility around scientific discoveries made with US government support. The Bayh-Dole Act requires federal grantees to disclose subject inventions to funding agencies and declare government support in their patents. Prior research has shown, however, that hundreds of grantees have failed to declare federal funding in biomedical patents, and others have acknowledged government support several years late through certificates of corrections. Combining data from the National Institutes of Health and the Patent and Trademark Office, this study explores the extent to which grantees have declared government support late through certificates of corrections and likely reasons why this occurred. Over 3000 patents covering federally funded inventions have been corrected to acknowledge government support late, most in recent years. Many of these corrections appear to have been driven by high-profile controversies, changes in the Bayh-Dole regulations, and civil society advocacy. These findings call for policies to encourage timely compliance with invention reporting requirements and to increase the visibility of late acknowledgements of US government funding.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1093/jlb/lsae026.].

In February 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice, ('Inventorship Guidance'), to clarify agency policy and the Office's interpretation of inventorship requirements for patents that describe inventions made with the assistance of artificial intelligence (AI). From the perspective of an AI-driven drug discovery (AIDD)-focused business, the Inventorship Guidance offers potential benefits that include increased clarity in patent eligibility, facilitated collaboration between AI experts and drug discovery scientists, and incentivization for continued development of AI tools. However, there remain concerns with the application of the framework outlined in the Inventorship Guidance, such as the complex assessment of substantial human contributions in the real world, challenges in applying the Inventorship Guidance to collaborations and partnerships in the drug discovery field, and challenges in determining inventorship for AI tools versus specific drug innovations. To address these challenges, I propose recommendations for modifying the Inventorship Guidance for the AIDD industry, suggest best practices for inventorship documentation and processes, and advocate for continued partnership between the USPTO and the AIDD sector. By refining the existing framework and fostering ongoing dialog, I aim to promote a balanced approach that encourages AI-driven innovation while recognizing essential human contributions in drug discovery.

Genome editing technology is rapidly advancing and has generated significant controversy, particularly in the field of human heritable genome editing, while also presenting vast potential applications. Following the He Jiankui incident in 2018, there was a global call to reinforce the regulatory frameworks governing human germline and heritable genome editing. China's existing regulatory framework for human genome editing has improved with several laws enacted and updated, but there are shortcomings. These include overlapping responsibilities of multiple governing agencies and limited involvement of patient groups and the public in the legislative process. By drawing insights from regulatory agencies, legislation, and multigroup participation from abroad, especially in the United Kingdom and the United States, we can compare the differences between China and foreign countries and help China enhance its regulatory framework based on international practices. This article proposes recommendations for enhancing China's regulatory framework, such as clarifying the responsibilities of agencies, updating policies in a timely manner, strengthening bioethics education and training, and emphasizing the need for a forward-looking, balanced, meticulous, and adaptable regulatory approach.

As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms drug development, regulatory frameworks are evolving to oversee its implementation, particularly at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This paper makes three contributions to understanding emerging regulatory approaches. First, we offer a comparative analysis of how these agencies have responded to AI-driven advances, incorporating new US executive orders and the European Union (EU)'s AI Act. Second, we propose a novel analytical framework to understand regulatory divergence: the FDA's flexible, dialog-driven model contrasts with the EMA's structured, risk-tiered approach, reflecting broader institutional and political-economic differences. While the former encourages innovation via individualized assessment, it can create uncertainty about general expectations; by contrast, the EMA's clearer requirements may slow early-stage AI adoption but provide more predictable paths to market. Third, we examine whether AI applications-spanning target identification, generative chemistry, and clinical trial 'digital twins'-are mature enough for standardized regulation, particularly amid shifting US policies and the EU's structured oversight regime. Our analysis reveals patterns of convergence on risk-based principles but persistent transatlantic implementation differences, compounded by diminished US engagement in international cooperation. We conclude that heightened regulatory uncertainty in the USA under a new administration's 'America First' stance and more stable, formalized rules in Europe both pose opportunities and challenges to AI-driven innovation in drug development.

Access and benefit sharing (ABS) regulates the collection and use of genetic resources, associated traditional knowledge and in some cases digital sequence information for research and development (R&D) purposes and the equitable sharing of monetary and non-monetary benefits from their use. Global examples of benefit sharing have fallen short of expectations under this framework and there is little empirical data about the effects of regulation on bio-innovation. This article argues that the limited ABS tools of authorization and contracts are not effectively delivering benefit sharing aspirations because of the disconnect between linear assumptions underlying genetic resource R&D. Through a critical legal analysis of ABS, circular economy principles and legal mechanisms, it rethinks ABS governance to propose a new circular bio-economy system for more efficient benefit sharing. It proposes a pathway for transforming the linear 'single use' regulatory model toward a generative value chain model, supported by a range of legal tools that facilitate long-term benefit sharing for the planet and its people.

One way to ensure adequate legal protection against existing and emerging forms of mental interference is by specifying the human right to mental integrity. This paper considers three possible constructions of the scope of this right in human rights law. It argues that the Mental Control View and the Direct Harmful Interference View fall short of providing a persuasive definition of the right. Rather, it is proposed to construct the scope of the right along the lines of the Significant Mental Interference View. Meanwhile, the of a mental interference and the psychological it entails are plausibly relevant factors to the potential justification of rights infringements.

Research in biomedical and health sciences using data-intensive methods increasingly involve multi-party cross-border institutional collaborations. Regulatory complexities governing international data flow remain challenging to navigate, particularly where differing legal standards in relation to data and privacy protections exist in the respective jurisdictions. In this paper, we use the example of a use case from a joint health research program between Singapore and Switzerland to illustrate the possibility of cross-border data flow for these two jurisdictions with no reciprocal adequacy recognition standards. We have therefore compared data privacy and biomedical research ethics laws in both jurisdictions to help determine when cross-border data sharing could occur that are compliant with data privacy laws. Our comparison makes reference to when technical and organizational measures including privacy enhancing technologies are appropriate to support data sharing. This paper has the potential to inform researchers collaborating with international institutions in navigating similar privacy regulatory considerations in their research and in developing their collaborative agreements.

Partial ectogestation is being developed in a bid to improve the survival rates and health outcomes associated with prematurity, but limited empirical research has been conducted on the views of key stakeholders, particularly healthcare professionals, in relation to this technology. This paper explores healthcare professionals' perspectives in England on the use and implementation of partial ectogestation, within the medicalized context of pregnancy and childbirth. Following an online survey, qualitative interviews were undertaken with 22 healthcare professionals who work closely with pregnant individuals and fetuses. Using a formula of the precautionary principle from environmental studies, the analysis presented illustrates healthcare professionals' apprehension toward partial ectogestation. With the fetus who may come to be transferred to an artificial placenta device at the centre of their concerns, participants were cautious of the technology producing poor outcomes and pushing the boundaries of nature. In response to these threats, they encourage strict criteria and clear parameters around the use of the technology. While healthcare professionals appear to endorse a social model of pregnancy when it comes to partial ectogestation, echoes of medicalization persist through medical determinations of poor outcomes and the continued centralization of the fetus as a patient.

Recent advances in microbiome science and omics technologies are reshaping our understanding of human behavior, suggesting that microbial communities significantly influence cognition, impulse control, and aggression. Emerging studies in neuromicrobiology, including fecal transplant studies, are pointing toward a causal role for gut microbes and their metabolites in human cognition and behavior. This essay introduces the legalome-a framework integrating microbial perspectives, including microbiome and omics sciences, into the courts and larger criminal justice system. We argue that the legalome is on a trajectory that will move the field of neurolaw forward, and challenge traditional doctrines of mens rea and culpability. Drawing on recent court decisions related to auto-brewery syndrome, and neuro-microbiological research, we examine how subtle biological processes influence behavior in ways overlooked by current legal standards. Recent findings raise questions about criminal intent, biological determinism, and equitable access to scientific defenses. At the same time, emergent research also suggests potential for microbiome-based rehabilitative interventions. Despite methodological challenges, we advocate for interdisciplinary collaboration to harmonize biological research with legal principles, creating a more nuanced framework for justice in the twenty-first century. The legalome provides concrete implementation protocols and assessment tools that demonstrate practical utility for courts, practitioners, and policymakers.

Local vaccine and pharmaceutical production has transitioned from a mere policy option to an essential requirement in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic. Developed countries' vaccine nationalism and hoarding through bilateral agreements with manufacturers left African countries with minimal access to vaccines. As Africa strives for self-sufficiency in vaccine development and pharmaceutical manufacturing by aiming to produce 60 percent of the continent's vaccine doses through indigenous manufacturing by 2040, it is crucial to examine existing initiatives and the roles of foreign players, especially China. In the first section, this article examines and evaluates regional initiatives aimed at promoting local production in Africa, focusing on efforts at global, continental, and regional levels to boost the manufacturing of vaccines and pharmaceuticals on the continent. The second section shifts focus to China's role in Africa's healthcare sector and highlights Chinese-backed pharmaceutical companies involved in vaccine and pharmaceutical production on the continent. The paper concludes by advocating for a harmonized and sustainable approach to local manufacturing. Specifically, the article argues that for these initiatives, whether government-backed or private investment, to succeed, there is a critical need to harmonize regulations, streamline procurement, diversify production, and address the challenge posed by intellectual property rights.

Organisms are complex biological entities that are less easily defined by specific structures or sequences than molecules, nucleic acids, and antibodies. Nor are they necessarily fixed in time or reproducible by repeatable methods, given their capacity for replication and mutation. Like organisms themselves, names and classifications also change over time as scientists better understand extant biodiversity. Taxonomy is the field of evolutionary biology concerned with classifying, naming, and identifying organisms, while phylogenetics concerns organisms' evolutionary history and relatedness. Here, I review the challenges evolution poses for patentees, using the examples of evolving influenza viruses and bacterial classifications, and Federal Circuit decisions relevant each issue. I conclude that careful consideration of organisms' evolutionary histories and the systematics underlying their classification in specification drafting allows patentees to: (i) mitigate the impact of scientific disagreement (such as the 'species problem' in microbiology) in claim construction; (ii) limit the effects of changing classifications on infringement analysis; (iii) describe generic categories of related organisms to encompass later-arising ones; and (iv) bolster compliance with the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112(a). Accordingly, patentees might address the challenges that evolutionary uncertainty poses for organism-centered patents by embracing these areas of evolutionary biology.

Gene therapies represent a significant advancement in modern medicine, offering potential cures for untreatable genetic disorders. However, equitable access to these innovative therapies remains a critical ethical challenge within the European Union (EU). This paper examines the adequacy of the EU's centralized market authorization framework, supplemented by alternative pathways such as the Hospital Exemption and Compassionate Use Program, in addressing access disparities. While the centralized framework ensures high standards of safety, quality, and efficacy, its implementation reveals significant barriers related to affordability, geographical disparities, and fragmented national healthcare systems. High costs create financial obstacles for both healthcare systems and individuals, disproportionately affecting low-income countries and regions. Geographic disparities are further exacerbated by fragmented regulations and uneven healthcare infrastructures across member states, limiting patient access in rural areas. Alternative pathways, while designed to improve access, suffer from inconsistent national-level implementation. This paper argues that as the EU navigates the complexities of gene therapy regulation, it must focus on creating a more cohesive and inclusive framework. By doing so, it can ensure that the potential of gene therapies is realized in a manner that benefits all EU citizens, irrespective of their geographic or economic circumstances.

The capacity-building mechanism in the Biosafety Protocol aims to assist the parties, , in establishing and implementing national measures concerning genetically modified organisms (GMOs) that are aligned with the objectives of the Biosafety Protocol. Regulatory capacities of developing countries to address environmental risks caused by GMOs remain to be improved. The article takes China as an example to analyze how regulatory capacity-building activities organized under the Biosafety Protocol contributed to and will further influence China's establishment and implementation of GMO laws and regulations. A four-stage analytical framework is established to examine the interaction between capacity-building activities and the development of China's GMO regulation. China has gradually developed its GMO laws and regulations, with each stage having different regulatory needs and capacity-building efforts. External intervention and endogenous regulatory capacity-building activities mutually strengthened China's implementation of the Biosafety Protocol. Endogenous regulatory capacity-building activities are increasing in enhancing China's GMO regulation. The article concludes by proposing ways to enhance China's regulatory capacities regarding GMOs against the backdrop of adopting the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and China's Biosecurity Law, involving making laws and regulations on GMOs consistent with the Biosecurity Law and reconsidering the regulatory modes on genome-editing techniques.

The human right to science, including the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress, is by far the least understood human right despite its central role in shaping scientific innovation. Research into innovative cancer therapies and biotechnologies has been pivotal in the realization of much of these advancements. Yet much of it is not accessible, affordable, or available to patients who need them most. This article examines the nature and scope of the right to science in cancer research in the context of General Comment No. 25 on Science and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (E/C.12/GC/25) and Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The normative and ethical imperative of the right is annotated to provide a basis for its justiciability when redressing the pervasive issue of inequitable access to innovative cancer therapy. It argues that a constitutional dialogue that conceptualizes the right to science is warranted when rethinking ways ethical and human rights friendly research can be achieved. This renewed interest comes at a critical juncture when science in its contemporaneous situation needs to tackle cancer healthcare inequities amid turbulent geopolitical and epidemiologic challenges while addressing the rising cancer burden globally.

Human embryo-like structures (ELSs) are novel entities emulating aspects of embryogenesis to advance understanding of early human life and enable future clinical applications. ELSs frequently fall into a regulatory gap: the laws that govern embryo research do not commonly apply, but nor are there bespoke regulatory schemes. There is international consensus that the gap must be addressed, but disagreement as to when and how this should be achieved. To date ELSs embryos, mimicking aspects of embryonic development. In 2024 a UK Nuffield Council on Bioethics report recommended that these `stem cell-based embryo models' should be regulated separately to embryos. Building on this report, this paper considers a subset of ELSs that may in future lose their model status because they replicate rather than model embryos. Distinguishing between models and replicas it considers what circumstances, in the UK and internationally, would require regulation as an embryo, the circumstances in which replicas might justifiably be regulated separately to embryos and why maintaining distinct regulatory paths for embryos and ELSs is beneficial.

The situation of persons diagnosed with locked-in syndrome (LIS) raises a significant legal challenge. As a consequence of a brainstem stroke, they are quadriplegic and lack articulate speech but have normal visual perception, bodily sensations, consciousness, and cognitive functions. It is only with human and technological assistance that they can communicate, express their will, make responsible decisions, and exert their civil rights. Insofar as they can communicate, there seems in principle to be no reason for restricting their legal capacity. This, however, has not always been recognized. In the early 2000s in Spain, two men with LIS who had been declared 'incapable' and deprived of their civil rights reclaimed them in court. Rights were given back to the one who could use a computer. They were initially refused to the other, who communicated solely by blinking and depended on a human intermediary. Only the human-machine system was trusted to convey faithfully and reliably the subject's autonomous will. This article describes these two cases in their legal context and discusses how they can throw light on the exercise of legal capacity by persons with disabilities after the adoption in 2006 of the UN .

Federated Learning (FL) promises to enhance data-driven health research by enabling collaborative machine learning across distributed datasets without direct data exchange. However, current FL implementations primarily reflect the data-sharing interests of institutional controllers rather than those of individual patients whose data are at stake. Existing consent mechanisms-like broad consent under HIPAA or explicit consent under the GDPR-fail to provide patients with control over how their data is used. This article explores the integration of smart contracts (SCs) into FL as a mechanism for automating, enforcing, and documenting consent in data transactions. SCs, encoded in decentralized ledger technologies, can ensure that FL processes align with patient preferences by providing an immutable, and dynamically updatable consent architecture. Integrating SCs into FL and swarm learning (SL) frameworks can mitigate ethico-legal concerns related to patient autonomy, data re-identification, and data use. This approach addresses persistent principle-agent asymmetries in biomedical data sharing by ensuring that patients, rather than data controllers alone, can specify the terms of access to insights derived from their health data. We discuss the implications of this model for regulatory compliance, data governance, and patient engagement, emphasizing its potential to foster public trust in health data ecosystems.

Stem cell science lies at the heart of regenerative medicine; it is believed to have the potential to address several otherwise incurable diseases. However, even though stem cell interventions are at the experimental stage, they are advertised as a panacea for various human maladies. India, like other jurisdictions across the globe, has witnessed the mushrooming of 'experts' and 'clinics' selling (unproven) stem cell therapies to vulnerable and desperate patients. The unscrupulous activities in the stem cell industry endanger patients and hinder legitimate scientific progress. In light of the crisis of unproven stem cell therapies, I seek to comprehensively study the Indian regulatory framework on stem cells. The article identifies multiple issues in the framework-the inherent ambiguity in the governing laws, the unscientific functioning of the regulatory institutions, the poor implementation of the existing laws, and the seemingly consequent rise of India as an unregulated stem cell tourism hub. The suggested reforms broadly include streamlined funding, consolidated clinical regulation, and public engagement. The policymakers shall consider redefining their playbook to facilitate a conducive atmosphere for the growth of stem cell science.