DOI: https://doi.org/10.14710/mmh.55.1.2026.148-170

ETHICAL BOUNDARIES OF GENETIC ENGINEERING PATENTS IN INDONESIA AND MALAYSIA

*Hari Sutra Disemadi orcid  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Internasional Batam, Indonesia
Nor Akhmal Hasmin  -  Faculty of Law, Universiti Teknologi MARA, Malaysia
David Tan  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Internasional Batam, Indonesia
Windi Afdal  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Internasional Batam, Indonesia
Nadia Carolina Weley  -  Faculty of Law, Universitas Internasional Batam, Indonesia
Open Access Copyright (c) 2026 Masalah-Masalah Hukum under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0.

Citation Format:
Abstract

Genetic engineering increasingly pushes the boundaries of science, technology, and ethics by raising difficult questions about the acceptable limits of human intervention in living organisms. Its relationship with intellectual property law is particularly complex because patent protection is intended to reward innovation and encourage scientific development, while also being constrained by ethical limits expressed through ordre public and morality principles. This study examines how Indonesian and Malaysian intellectual property law regulate patent protection for genetic engineering inventions, particularly in relation to ethical safeguards. Using doctrinal legal research with a comparative approach, this study analyses the relevant patent statutes, legal concepts, and regulatory structures in both jurisdictions. The findings show that Indonesia provides a relatively stronger legal basis than Malaysia, mainly because its patent framework contains more developed definitions concerning invention, technology, and scientific methods. These definitions create broader conceptual space for recognising genetic engineering as a patentable field while also allowing ethical considerations to be developed through implementing regulations. However, Indonesia still lacks concrete examination standards and operational mechanisms for assessing ethical risks in genetic engineering patents. Malaysia, by contrast, recognises ordre public and morality clauses only at a general level and primarily uses them as grounds for refusing patent applications. Its legal framework also provides only limited acknowledgement of the patentability of genetic engineering inventions, especially in relation to microorganisms, without establishing a clear ethical review mechanism. This study argues that both jurisdictions require stronger normative and institutional safeguards to ensure that patent protection for genetic engineering does not undermine public morality, human dignity, environmental integrity, or broader public interest. Indonesia should develop implementing regulations and patent-examination guidelines that translate its broader amended patent definitions into concrete ethical safeguards. Malaysia should amend the Patents Act 1983 to provide an explicit ethical review mechanism for genetic-engineering-derived microorganism patents and clearer standards for applying ordre public and morality exclusions.

Fulltext View|Download Email colleagues
Keywords: Genetic Engineering; Patent Law; Ethical Safeguards; Ordre Public and Morality; Indonesia and Malaysia

Article Metrics:

Article Info
Section: Articles
Language : EN
Most cited articles
URGENSI HUKUM PERIZINAN DAN PENEGAKANNYA SEBAGAI SARANA PENCEGAHAN PENCEMARAN LINGKUNGAN HIDUP PRISMATIKA HUKUM SEBAGAI DASAR PEMBANGUNAN HUKUM DI INDONESIA BERDASARKAN PANCASILA (Kajian terhadap Hukum Kekayaan Intelektual) Kebijakan Mediasi Penal Pada Kasus Pencurian di Kepolisian Surakarta PEMBERANTASAN TERORISME BERORIENTASI HAM FORMULASI MODEL PENGELOLAAN HAK ULAYAT LAUT DI PROVINSI MALUKU More cited articles
  1. Adli, M. (2018). The CRISPR Tool Kit for Genome Editing and Beyond. Nature Communications, 9(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-018-04252-2
  2. AgbioInvestor. (2026). Global GM Crop Area Review 2026. https://gm.agbioinvestor.com/downloads
  3. Albanesi, E., & Teasdale, J. (2025). Drafting for Law Reform: Different Models in the Commonwealth Sphere and the Role of Drafting Instructions within Law Commissions. Statute Law Review, 46(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmaf005
  4. Aliyev, T., & Eyvazova, D. (2025). Genetic Engineering and Its Ethical Implications: A Bioethical Perspective. Luminis Applied Science and Engineering, 2(1), 57–64. https://doi.org/10.69760/lumin.20250001010
  5. Almeida, M., & Ranisch, R. (2022). Beyond Safety: Mapping the Ethical Debate on Heritable Genome Editing Interventions. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 9(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01147-y
  6. Ansori, A. N., Antonius, Y., Susilo, R. J., Hayaza, S., Kharisma, V. D., Parikesit, A. A., Zainul, R., Jakhmola, V., Saklani, T., Rebezov, M., Ullah, M. E., Maksimiuk, N., Derkho, M., & Burkov, P. (2023). Application of CRISPR-Cas9 Genome Editing Technology in Various Fields: A review. Narra J, 3(2), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.52225/narra.v3i2.184
  7. Bajwa, N., & Ng, V. (2025). Character Virtues: Toward a Functionalist Perspective on Character Virtue Science. Behavioral Sciences, 15(5), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3390/bs15050638
  8. Barizah, N. (2017). The Development of ASEAN’s Intellectual Property Rights Law; From TRIPS Compliance to Harmonization. Indonesia Law Review, 7(1), 95–112. https://doi.org/10.15742/ilrev.v7n1.247
  9. Barizah, N. (2019). Indonesia’s Patent Policy on the Protection of Genetic Resources related to Traditional Knowledge; Is it a Synergy to Fulfill the TRIPs Agreement and CBD Compliance? Yuridika, 35(2), 321–342. https://doi.org/10.20473/ydk.v35i2.16891
  10. Baron, P., & Corbin, L. (2017). The Unprofessional Professional: Do Lawyers Need Rules? Legal Ethics, 20(2), 155–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/1460728x.2017.1397402
  11. Bastidas Venegas, V. (2022). The Application of EU Competition Law to the Exploitation of Human Genome Editing Technology. European Journal of Health Law, 29(3–5), 589–619. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10077
  12. Bodimeade, C., & Deane, F. (2023). Evolving Theory of IP Rights: Promoting Human Rights in the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 18(8), 603–614. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad056
  13. Boëte, C. (2025). Gene Drives, Species Complexes, and The Risks Of Collateral Damage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(45), 1–3. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2512489122
  14. Brown, V. L. (2018). Pride and ‘Prejudice to the Environment’: An Application of TRIPS Article 27.2 to Genetically Modified Seeds. LSU Journal of Energy Law and Resources, 6(2), 583–620. https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/jelr/vol6/iss2/13/
  15. Burch, M., & Furman, K. (2019). Objectivity in Science and Law: A Shared Rescue Strategy. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 64, 60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.02.004
  16. Capps, B., Chadwick, R., Joly, Y., Mulvihill, J. J., Lysaght, T., & Zwart, H. (2017). Falling Giants and the Rise of Gene Editing: Ethics, Private Interests and the Public Good. Human Genomics, 11(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40246-017-0116-4
  17. Cerar, M. (2023). Ethical Perspective of the Future Development of Law. Medicine, Law & Society, 16(2), 247–266. https://doi.org/10.18690/mls.16.2.247-266.2023
  18. Charo, R. A. (2019). Rogues and Regulation of Germline Editing. New England Journal of Medicine, 380(10), 976–980. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMms1817528
  19. Clayton Thompson, J. (2019). Law’s Autonomy and Moral Reason. Laws, 8(1), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws8010006
  20. Coller, B. S. (2019). Ethics of Human Genome Editing. Annual Review of Medicine, 70(1), 289–305. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-112717-094629
  21. Courtier-Orgogozo, V. (2025). Risks Associated with CRISPR Homing Gene Drive. Comptes Rendus. Biologies, 348, 211–227. https://doi.org/10.5802/crbiol.182
  22. Dagger, R. (2018). Authority, Legitimacy, and the Obligation to Obey the Law. Legal Theory, 24(2), 77–102. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1352325218000083
  23. Davis, D. J., & Yeddula, S. G. R. (2024). CRISPR Advancements for Human Health. Missouri Medicine, 121(2), 170–176. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38694604/
  24. Demir, E., & Stamhuis, E. (2023). Patenting Human Biological Materials and Data: Balancing the Reward of Innovation with the Ordre Public and Morality Exception. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 18(7), 546–553. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad052
  25. Demirer, G. S., Silva, T. N., Jackson, C. T., Thomas, J. B., W. Ehrhardt, D., Rhee, S. Y., Mortimer, J. C., & Landry, M. P. (2021). Nanotechnology to Advance CRISPR–Cas Genetic Engineering of Plants. Nature Nanotechnology, 16(3), 243–250. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41565-021-00854-y
  26. Deng, H., Hu, R., Pray, C., & Jin, Y. (2019). Impact of Government Policies on Private R&D Investment in Agricultural Biotechnology: Evidence From Chemical and Pesticide Firms in China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 147, 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.07.011
  27. Dermawan, A. (2024). AI v Copyright: How Could Public Interest Theory Shift the Discourse? Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 19(1), 55–63. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad111
  28. Disemadi, H. S. (2022). Lenses of Legal Research: A Descriptive Essay on Legal Research Methodologies. Journal of Judicial Review, 24(2), 289–304. https://doi.org/10.37253/jjr.v24i2.7280
  29. Disemadi, H. S., Habidin, N. F., Fitri, W., Rusdiana, S., & Febriyani, E. (2025). Reframing Genetic Engineering Patents Through the Lens of Hisbah: Harmonizing Innovation and Ethical Values. Al-’Adalah, 22(2), 627–664. https://doi.org/10.24042/adalah.v222.28115
  30. Doudna, J. A. (2020). The Promise and Challenge of Therapeutic Genome Editing. Nature, 578(7794), 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-1978-5
  31. Ebrahim, T. Y. (2025). Bioethics of Patents and Licensing. North Carolina Journal of Law & Technology, 26(3), 297–344. https://scholarship.law.unc.edu/ncjolt/vol26/iss3/2/
  32. Eckerstorfer, M. F., Dolezel, M., Miklau, M., Greiter, A., Heissenberger, A., Kastenhofer, K., Schulz, F., Hagen, K., Otto, M., & Engelhard, M. (2025). Environmental Applications of GM Microorganisms: Tiny Critters Posing Huge Challenges for Risk Assessment and Governance. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 26(7), 1–40. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms26073174
  33. Fasa, A. W. H., & Hendrix, T. (2022). Urgency of Deposit Microorganism for Patent Biotechnology Protection in Indonesia. NTUT Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Management, 11(1), 53–74. https://lawdata.com.tw/tw/detail.aspx?no=479145
  34. Feeney, O., Cockbain, J., & Sterckx, S. (2021). Ethics, Patents and Genome Editing: A Critical Assessment of Three Options of Technology Governance. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.731505
  35. Floridi, L. (2018). Soft Ethics, the Governance of the Digital and the General Data Protection Regulation. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2133), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2018.0081
  36. Foreign Agricultural Service. (2024). Agricultural Biotechnology Annual: Malaysia. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Agricultural+Biotechnology+Annual_Kuala+Lumpur_Malaysia_MY2024-0009
  37. Glenna, L. L. (2023). Are Intellectual Property Policies for Gene‐Edited Crops Fit for Purpose? The Perspectives of German Scientists. Plants, People, Planet, 5(6), 976–984. https://doi.org/10.1002/ppp3.10397
  38. Greely, H. T. (2019). CRISPR’d Babies: Human Germline Genome Editing in the ‘He Jiankui affair’. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 6(1), 111–183. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsz010
  39. Gschwindt, D. (2021). Temporary Relief of Pay-for-Delay: The ECJ as Specifically Different Antidepressant. GRUR International, 70(3), 250–256. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikaa199
  40. Gstrein, O. J., Haleem, N., & Zwitter, A. (2024). General-Purpose AI Regulation and the European Union AI Act. Internet Policy Review, 13(3), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.14763/2024.3.1790
  41. Guerrini, C. J., Curnutte, M. A., Sherkow, J. S., & Scott, C. T. (2017). The Rise of the Ethical License. Nature Biotechnology, 35(1), 22–24. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3756
  42. Guida, A. (2021). The Precautionary Principle and Genetically Modified Organisms: A Bone of Contention Between European Institutions And Member States. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 8(1), 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab012
  43. Gyngell, C., Bowman-Smart, H., & Savulescu, J. (2019). Moral Reasons to Edit the Human Genome: Picking Up from the Nuffield Report. Journal of Medical Ethics, 45(8), 514–523. https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2018-105084
  44. Halpern, Jodi, O’Hara, Sharon E, Doxzen, Kevin W, Witkowsky, Lea B, & Owen, Aleksa L. (2019). Societal and Ethical Impacts of Germline Genome Editing: How Can We Secure Human Rights? The CRISPR Journal, 2(5), 293–298. https://doi.org/10.1089/crispr.2019.0042
  45. Hargreaves, R. (2026). Can You Patent a Plant? What Dandelion Rubber Reveals about IP Law in the UK and EU. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 21(2), 129–135. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpaf080
  46. Hawkins, J. (2024). Tangled Webs of Trust: A Study of Public Trust in Risk Regulation. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 44(2), 286–312. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqae006
  47. Heled, Y., Vertinsky, L., & Rutschman, A. S. (2024). A Theory of Genetic Dimensions in the Law. Indiana Law Journal, 99(4), 1341–1401. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4524682
  48. Henham, R. (2022). Sentencing Policy, Social Values and Discretionary Justice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(4), 1093–1117. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqac011
  49. Hervouet, A., & Langinier, C. (2018). Plant Breeders’ Rights, Patents, and Incentives to Innovate. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 43(1), 118–150. https://doi.org/10.22004/ag.econ.267613
  50. Hultgren, A., Carleton, T., Delgado, M., Gergel, D. R., Greenstone, M., Houser, T., Hsiang, S., Jina, A., Kopp, R. E., Malevich, S. B., McCusker, K. E., Mayer, T., Nath, I., Rising, J., Rode, A., & Yuan, J. (2025). Impacts of Climate Change on Global Agriculture Accounting for Adaptation. Nature, 642(8068), 644–652. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-025-09085-w
  51. Husovec, M. (2019). The Essence of Intellectual Property Rights Under Article 17(2) of the EU Charter. German Law Journal, 20(6), 840–863. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.65
  52. Hutukka, P. (2023). Patent Law in Comparative Context: Differences and Similarities of Patent Law in the European Union, the United States and China. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 30(3), 273–311. https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X231206007
  53. Jacobs, N. T. (2025). Clades, Classifications, and Claims: Evolution of Organisms and Their Nomenclature in Life Science Patents. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 12(2), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaf026
  54. Kambhampati, S. B. S., Menon, J., & Maini, L. (2023). Ethics in Research and Publications. Indian Journal of Orthopaedics, 57(11), 1722–1734. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43465-023-00971-x
  55. Kim, A. Y., Lee, B., Choi, D. in, & Lee, H. Y. (2026). Genetically Modified Foods and Human Health: A Comprehensive Review and Cross-National Time-Trend Analysis. GM Crops & Food, 17(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/21645698.2026.2634489
  56. Kotzé, L. J. (2021). Neubauer et al. versus Germany: Planetary Climate Litigation for the Anthropocene? German Law Journal, 22(8), 1423–1444. https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2021.87
  57. Krieger, E., De Keyser, E., & De Riek, J. (2020). Do New Breeding Techniques in Ornamentals and Fruits Lead to Essentially Derived Varieties? Frontiers in Plant Science, 10, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2019.01612
  58. Kudina, O., & Verbeek, P.-P. (2019). Ethics from Within: Google Glass, the Collingridge Dilemma, and the Mediated Value of Privacy. Science, Technology, & Human Values, 44(2), 291–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243918793711
  59. Lawson, C. (2023). Propagating Materials and Harvested Materials: Clarifying the Scope of Plant Variety or Breeder’s Rights. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 18(9), 655–672. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiplp/jpad065
  60. LeBaron, G., & Rühmkorf, A. (2019). The Domestic Politics of Corporate Accountability Legislation: Struggles Over The 2015 UK Modern Slavery Act. Socio-Economic Review, 17(3), 709–743. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwx047
  61. Legault, G. A., Verchère, C., & Patenaude, J. (2017). Support for the Development of Technological Innovations: Promoting Responsible Social Uses. Science and Engineering Ethics, 24, 529–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9911-5
  62. Londoño-Lázaro, M. C., & Córdoba-Marentes, J. F. (2021). Embedding Human Dignity Standards into Biotechnology Patents: The Role of Morality Clauses. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 12(3), 584–601. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2021.46
  63. Lukasiewicz, J. M., van de Wiel, C. C., Lotz, L. A., & Smulders, M. J. (2024). Intellectual Property Rights and Plants Made by New Genomic Techniques: Access to Technology and Gene-Edited Traits in Plant Breeding. Outlook on Agriculture, 53(3), 205–215. https://doi.org/10.1177/00307270241277219
  64. Macfarlane, N. B. W., Adams, J., Bennett, E. L., Brooks, T. M., Delborne, J. A., Eggermont, H., Endy, D., Esvelt, K. M., Kolodziejczyk, B., Kuiken, T., Oliva, M. J., Peña Moreno, S., Slobodian, L., Smith, R. B., Thizy, D., Tompkins, D. M., Wei, W., & Redford, K. H. (2022). Direct and Indirect Impacts of Synthetic Biology on Biodiversity Conservation. IScience, 25(11), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isci.2022.105423
  65. Mali, F. (2020). Is the Patent System the Way Forward with the CRISPR-Cas 9 Technology? Science & Technology Studies, 33(4), 2–23. https://doi.org/10.23987/sts.70114
  66. Matthews, D., Minssen, T., & Nordberg, A. (2022). Balancing Innovation, ‘Ordre Public’ and Morality in Human Germline Editing: A Call for More Nuanced Approaches in Patent Law. European Journal of Health Law, 29(3–5), 562–588. https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10073
  67. McLennan, A. (2017). Patent Law and the Emerging Science of Synthetic Biology: An Examination of Principle and Practice. Biotechnology Law Report, 36(2), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.1089/blr.2017.29009.am
  68. Meyer, M., & Vergnaud, F. (2021). The Geographies and Politics of Gene Editing: Framing Debates Across Seven Countries. Frontiers in Political Science, 3, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpos.2021.731496
  69. Navin, M. C., & Attwell, K. (2023). Making Salient Ethics Arguments About Vaccine Mandates: A California Case Study. Bioethics, 37(9), 854–861. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.13227
  70. Negara, T. A. S. (2023). Normative Legal Research in Indonesia: Its Originis and Approaches. Audito Comparative Law Journal (ACLJ), 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.22219/aclj.v4i1.24855
  71. Neoh, J. (2024). Kierkegaard and Hobbes on the State of Nature. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 68(3), 211–228. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajj/auae002
  72. Nordberg, A., Minssen, T., Holm, S., Horst, M., Mortensen, K., & Møller, B. L. (2018). Cutting Edges and Weaving Threads in the Gene Editing (Я)Evolution: Reconciling Scientific Progress with Legal, Ethical, and Social Concerns. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 5(1), 35–83. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx043
  73. Nwakoby, I. P., Iheukwumere, I. H., Iheukwumere, C. M., Nwakoby, N. E., Idigo, M. A., & Ike, V. E. (2025a). Intellectual Property Law and Microbiology: Patenting Microorganisms and Genetic Material. IPS Journal of Education, 2(1), 43–47. https://doi.org/10.54117/h9ad4d86
  74. Nwakoby, I. P., Iheukwumere, I. H., Iheukwumere, C. M., Nwakoby, N. E., Idigo, M. A., & Ike, V. E. (2025b). The Law and Ethics of Genetic Engineering: Microbiological Perspectives. IPS Journal of Law and Humanities, 1(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.54117/v1dky806
  75. O’Brien Laramy, C. R. (2024). Biotechnology & the Patent Quid Pro Quo: When Is “This” Enough For “That”? Stanford Technology Law Review, 27(2), 264–307. https://law.stanford.edu/publications/biotechnology-the-patent-quid-pro-quo-when-is-this-enough-for-that/
  76. Ortiz-Bobea, A., Ault, T. R., Carrillo, C. M., Chambers, R. G., & Lobell, D. B. (2021). Anthropogenic Climate Change as Slowed Global Agricultural Productivity Growth. Nature Climate Change, 11(4), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-021-01000-1
  77. Panagopoulos, A., & Sideri, K. (2021). Prospect Patents and CRISPR; Rivalry and Ethical Licensing in a Semi-Commons Environment. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 8(2), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab031
  78. Peukert, A. (2021). A Critique of the Ontology of Intellectual Property Law. In Cambridge Intellectual Property and Information Law. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108653329
  79. Pila, J. (2020). Adapting the Ordre Public and Morality Exclusion of European Patent Law to Accommodate Emerging Technologies. Nature Biotechnology, 38(5), 555–557. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-020-0504-5
  80. Prifti, V. (2019). The Limits of “Ordre Public” and “Morality” for the Patentability of Human Embryonic Stem Cell Inventions. The Journal of World Intellectual Property, 22(1–2), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12109
  81. Rahayu, T. (2025). Biotechnology and Other New Production Technologies Annual: Indonesia. https://apps.fas.usda.gov/newgainapi/api/Report/DownloadReportByFileName?fileName=Biotechnology and Other New Production Technologies Annual_Jakarta_Indonesia_ID2025-0038
  82. Rahman, S. S. (2021). Patents and Genetic Engineering Technologies: A Review of Judicial Decisions. IIUM Law Journal, 29(2), 147–170. https://doi.org/10.31436/iiumlj.v29i2.568
  83. Ren, C., & Zhao, H. (2025). Walking a Fine Line: Deconstructing China’s Regulatory Strategy for Human Genome Editing. Asian Review of Political Economy, 4(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44216-025-00064-6
  84. Riva, L., & Petrini, C. (2019). A Few Ethical Issues in Translational Research for Gene and Cell Therapy. Journal of Translational Medicine, 17(1), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12967-019-02154-5
  85. Rochel, J. (2023). Learning from the Ethics of AI – A Research Proposal on Soft Law and Ethics of AI. Tilburg Law Review, 27(1), 37–59. https://doi.org/10.5334/tilr.297
  86. Rueda, J., Segers, S., Hopster, J., Kudlek, K., Liedo, B., Marchiori, S., & Danaher, J. (2025). Anticipatory Gaps Challenge the Public Governance of Heritable Human Genome Editing. Journal of Medical Ethics, 51(5), 317–321. https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2023-109801
  87. Samuelson, P. (2017). Strategies for Discerning the Boundaries of Copyright & Patent Protections. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(4), 1493–1538
  88. Sánchez De Jaegher, C. (2024). Methodological Notes for Decolonizing Dignity in the Common Goods’ Configuration of Justice. Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 14(2), 321–347. https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl.1760
  89. Schmidt, Jeremy J, Brown, Peter G, & Orr, Christopher J. (2016). Ethics in the Anthropocene: A Research Agenda. The Anthropocene Review, 3(3), 188–200. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019616662052
  90. Seixas, R. N. de L., Silveira, J. M. F. J. da, & Ferrari, V. E. (2022). Assessing Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Seeds in Brazilian Agriculture. Frontiers in Bioengineering and Biotechnology, 10, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbioe.2022.977793
  91. Sherkow, J. S. (2017a). Inventive Steps: the CRISPR Patent Dispute and Scientific Progress. EMBO Reports, 18(7), 1047–1051. https://doi.org/10.15252/embr.201744418
  92. Sherkow, J. S. (2017b). Patent Protection for CRISPR: an ELSI Review. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 4(3), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsx036
  93. Showalter, R., & Edelson, L. (2025). Captured Innovation: Technology Monopoly Response to Transformational Development. The University of Chicago Business Law Review, 4(1), 143–188
  94. Sinhmar, D., & Purohit, R. (2025). Patenting Life: Global Perspectives on Intellectual Property in Genetic and Biotechnological Innovation Amidst Ethical and Legal Challenges. Journal on Development of Intellectual Property and Research, 1(1), 29–40. https://doi.org/10.64618/z3gqsk52
  95. Sipe, M. G. (2019). Patent Law’s Philosophical Fault Line. Wisconsin Law Review, 2019(5), 1033–1107. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3322703
  96. Sobolev, D., & Voege, N. (2020). Consumer Judgment of Morally-Questionable Behaviors: The Relationship Between Ethical and Legal Judgments. Journal of Business Ethics, 165(1), 145–160. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-019-04124-9
  97. Sparrow, R. (2019). Yesterday’s Child: How Gene Editing for Enhancement Will Produce Obsolescence—and Why It Matters. The American Journal of Bioethics, 19(7), 6–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15265161.2019.1618943
  98. Spedicato, G. (2024). The Untapped Potential of Patent Law in Deterring Environmentally Unsustainable Innovation. GRUR International, 73(8), 751–762. https://doi.org/10.1093/grurint/ikae067
  99. Sujatmiko, A., Romadhona, M. K., & Saraswati, Y. R. (2025). Patents at the Crossroads: Legal Pathways for Advancing Technology Transfer in Indonesia. LAW REFORM, 21(1), 94–119. https://doi.org/10.14710/lr.v21i1.64666
  100. Taekema, S. (2018). Theoretical and Normative Frameworks for Legal Research: Putting Theory into Practice. Law and Method. https://doi.org/10.5553/rem/.000031
  101. Tamanaha, B. Z. (2020). Sociological Jurisprudence Past and Present. Law & Social Inquiry, 45(2), 493–520. https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2019.26
  102. Tan, D. (2021). Metode Penelitian Hukum: Mengupas dan Mengulas Metodologi dalam Menyelenggarakan Penelitian Hukum. NUSANTARA: Jurnal Ilmu Pengetahuan Sosial, 8(5), 2463–2478. https://jurnal.um-tapsel.ac.id/index.php/nusantara/article/view/5601
  103. Tanaka, H., Stone, H. A., & Nelson, D. R. (2017). Spatial gene drives and pushed genetic waves. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 114(32), 8452–8457. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1705868114
  104. van Beers, B. C. (2020). Rewriting The Human Genome, Rewriting Human Rights Law? Human Rights, Human Dignity, And Human Germline Modification In The CRISPR Era. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa006. https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsaa006
  105. van der Weij, F. H., Bührman, E. A. M., van El, C. G., Arets, D. J. A. M., Timmis, J. K., & van Baalen, S. J. (2026). Towards Societal Alignment in the Governance of Human Germline Genome Editing in the Netherlands. Journal of Responsible Innovation, 13(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/23299460.2025.2587982
  106. Wu, C. (2024). Balancing Protection of Plant Varieties and Other Public Interests. Sustainability, 16(13), 1–23. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135445
  107. Xu, Y., Yu, L., Li, W., Ciais, P., Cheng, Y., & Gong, P. (2020). Annual Oil Palm Plantation Maps in Malaysia and Indonesia from 2001 to 2016. Earth System Science Data, 12(2), 847–867. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-12-847-2020
  108. Yotova, R. (2020). Regulating Genome Editing under International Human Rights Law. International and Comparative Law Quarterly, 69(3), 653–684. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020589320000184
  109. Young, C. (2019). Putting the Law in Its Place: Business Ethics and the Assumption that Illegal Implies Unethical. Journal of Business Ethics, 160(1), 35–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3904-4
  110. Zanatta Tocchetto, G. (2021). The Moral Clause in Patent Law and Threats Posed by Human Germline Genome Editing. Mexican Law Review, 14(1), 145–169. https://doi.org/10.22201/iij.24485306e.2021.1.16095
  111. Zanella, C. M., Horsnell, R., Love, B., Wright, T. I. C., Taferner-Kriegl, J., Flamm, C., Andreani, L., Delogu, C., McMillan, V., Wallace, M., Scott, E., & Cockram, J. (2026). Genome-Wide Association Study (GWAS) Identifies Genetic Loci Controlling Distinctness, Uniformity, and Stability (DUS) Traits in Wheat. Theoretical and Applied Genetics, 139(2), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00122-025-05130-4
  112. Zhang, Y., Ji, Y., Tang, X., Chen, M., & Su, J. (2024). Spread of Plasmids Carrying Antibiotic Resistance Genes in Soil-Lettuce-Snail Food Chain. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(23), 34295–34308. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024-33509-1

Last update:

No citation recorded.

Last update: 2026-07-13 13:39:27

No citation recorded.