{"title":"2D监管环境中的3D生物打印:差距、不确定性和问题","authors":"P. Li, A. Faulkner, N. Medcalf","doi":"10.1080/17579961.2020.1727054","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In this paper we assess both the ex ante and the ex post dimensions of the regulatory landscape of 3D bioprinting governance. While the former is mainly concerned with the market approval and safety of 3D bioprinting, the latter is concerned with the matter of liability once bioprinting has been licensed or authorised for use. In this 2D landscape, we highlight three sets of choices: whether regulation should focus on the process, the product or both; whether to rely on existing regimes or create a new bespoke and distinct regulatory framework; and whether to employ top down, bottom up, or co-regulation. We identify a series of interpretative uncertainties as well as gaps in the current legal regimes. We consider an initial provisional ‘process-based’ approach and a co-regulation model for bioprinting governance. We anticipate that the study of the regulatory landscape will offer key insights in relation to other types of biofabrication.","PeriodicalId":37639,"journal":{"name":"Law, Innovation and Technology","volume":"12 1","pages":"1 - 29"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2020.1727054","citationCount":"14","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"3D bioprinting in a 2D regulatory landscape: gaps, uncertainties, and problems\",\"authors\":\"P. Li, A. Faulkner, N. Medcalf\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/17579961.2020.1727054\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In this paper we assess both the ex ante and the ex post dimensions of the regulatory landscape of 3D bioprinting governance. While the former is mainly concerned with the market approval and safety of 3D bioprinting, the latter is concerned with the matter of liability once bioprinting has been licensed or authorised for use. In this 2D landscape, we highlight three sets of choices: whether regulation should focus on the process, the product or both; whether to rely on existing regimes or create a new bespoke and distinct regulatory framework; and whether to employ top down, bottom up, or co-regulation. We identify a series of interpretative uncertainties as well as gaps in the current legal regimes. We consider an initial provisional ‘process-based’ approach and a co-regulation model for bioprinting governance. We anticipate that the study of the regulatory landscape will offer key insights in relation to other types of biofabrication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37639,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Law, Innovation and Technology\",\"volume\":\"12 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 29\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/17579961.2020.1727054\",\"citationCount\":\"14\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Law, Innovation and Technology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2020.1727054\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law, Innovation and Technology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2020.1727054","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
3D bioprinting in a 2D regulatory landscape: gaps, uncertainties, and problems
ABSTRACT In this paper we assess both the ex ante and the ex post dimensions of the regulatory landscape of 3D bioprinting governance. While the former is mainly concerned with the market approval and safety of 3D bioprinting, the latter is concerned with the matter of liability once bioprinting has been licensed or authorised for use. In this 2D landscape, we highlight three sets of choices: whether regulation should focus on the process, the product or both; whether to rely on existing regimes or create a new bespoke and distinct regulatory framework; and whether to employ top down, bottom up, or co-regulation. We identify a series of interpretative uncertainties as well as gaps in the current legal regimes. We consider an initial provisional ‘process-based’ approach and a co-regulation model for bioprinting governance. We anticipate that the study of the regulatory landscape will offer key insights in relation to other types of biofabrication.
期刊介绍:
Stem cell research, cloning, GMOs ... How do regulations affect such emerging technologies? What impact do new technologies have on law? And can we rely on technology itself as a regulatory tool? The meeting of law and technology is rapidly becoming an increasingly significant (and controversial) topic. Law, Innovation and Technology is, however, the only journal to engage fully with it, setting an innovative and distinctive agenda for lawyers, ethicists and policy makers. Spanning ICTs, biotechnologies, nanotechnologies, neurotechnologies, robotics and AI, it offers a unique forum for the highest level of reflection on this essential area.