The right to freedom of scientific research in the age of gene editing.

Abstract

The right to freedom of scientific research is largely omitted, or merely given lip service, in legal and ethical arguments surrounding heritable human gene editing (HHGE) in the context of CRISPR-Cas9 technology. The international ethical and foreign legal attitude towards the right to freedom of scientific research, even when constitutionally protected, is generally dismissive. Debates and arguments which omit this fundamental value are ill-informed and are inappropriate for application in the South African context. The omission of a relevant constitutional right in analyses is cavernous. The practical application of the right to freedom of scientific research must be brought into the light and viewed as an equal among other constitutional rights. This is because the right is constitutionally protected in South Africa and serves important purposes — which are also served by the well-established right to freedom of expression — such as the promotion of individual self-fulfilment and the search for truth. The right to freedom of scientific research plays a valuable role in the advancement of science and the diffusion of knowledge. The right is of particular importance to science in the South African context, where the burden of disease necessitates the pursuit of innovative and contextually appropriate scientific solutions. The right to freedom of scientific research has the potential to influence legislation on HHGE and CRISPR-Cas9, thereby advancing the improvement of healthcare in South Africa. This is a benefit which South Africa cannot afford to overlook, and which should drive the consideration of the right to freedom of scientific research. The right to freedom of scientific research should not be limited by public opinion or ethical arguments, but rather only through regulations which establish constitutionally justified limitations.