The principle of inviolability of the human genome is discussed in the context of biomedicine and related areas. The ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of interference in the human genome are presented in terms of somatic and germ cells, as well as those interventions affecting the human genome at the embryonic stage of development. In connection with the development of synthetic biology, the human genome, as well as its fragments, genes, and genetic information, is increasingly becoming of practical interest for various parties (entities and individuals), and, therefore, need protection, including legal protection. From a systemic approach, the principle of inviolability of the human genome cannot be absolute. The limits of its applicability (force and effect) can be affected by: the degree of development of genetic and information technologies; availability of effective institutions for control over modern technologies; functioning of the mechanisms ensuring biological, information and other types of security; national, cultural, religious peculiarities; established legal and ethical traditions, and practices in a number of sectors and fields of activity (research, medicine, information, etc.).

The origins of genetic research in the molecular era are discussed along with the prospects for development of the system of the values underlying their legal regulation. Heredity and variability are included into a historically defined worldview as socially significant values respectively occupying alternate leading positions in archaic and modern societies. The article substantiates a connection between ideas about heredity and variability and the social structure, institutions and social practices of the two main types of the pre-molecular era societies. The article also discusses the significance of pre-scientific ideas concerning blood as a special substance ensuring biological, social and legal inheritance in the system of social action of the archaic society. Analysis is given to the conceptual foundations of the strategy of overcoming the ‘right of blood’ in modern societies, where the value of heredity is replaced by the value of variability to serve as a value-system basis for development and progress. Examples of coexisting worldviews and values inherent in both archaic and modern forms that still interact in present-day societies are presented and generalized. The example of the parascientific blood-type theory prevalent in today’s Japan is used to illustrate the ability of collective consciousness to integrate scientific ideas into deep underlying layers of pre-scientific thinking. The postmodern mixture of worldviews and values gives rise to ambiguity and uncertainty with regard to values in the era of discovery of the genetic mechanism of inheritance, creating additional difficulties for rule-makers (legislators) in course of forming a system for the legal regulation of genetic research. Finding a balance between prohibitions and permissions in the corpus of laws and by-laws regulating genetic knowledge development is all the more important given that the demarcation between representing and intervening in the research carried out by molecular biologists is losing its certainty (definiteness) even faster than in the physics of the microworld, let alone other subject areas of the modern science. Bioethics, which is currently providing a philosophical basis for the legal regulation of genetic research, requires theoretical elaboration and conceptualization. As one of the substantiation options, the article proposes the concept of supplementing instrumental rationality with social communication put forward by Jürgen Habermas within the framework of his theory of communicative action

Objective: The legal concept and content of biosafety is discussed in the context of International Law. Biosafety issues are enumerated as part of a definition of concrete aspects related to responsibility of the states for using biological weapons. The latest trends in international law on ensuring the international biosafety are analysed. Legal issues concerning the definition of a just war are discussed in terms of international humanitarian law, the issues of fundamental principles in current international law (the principle of necessity governing the use of force, the right of states to self-defence in case of a bioattack, the principle of the peaceful settlement of international disputes, the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of states, arms control, and responsibility). The article presents an overview of new types of sovereignty such as biosovereignty, cyber sovereignty, and genomic sovereignty of states, along with the legal concept of international biocrime (genomocide), as well as classifications of bioterrorism, bioaggression, biopolitics and bioeconomics. Under current conditions, the importance of facilitating a broad interpretation of the concept of biosafety is emphasized.
Methodology: The research uses general scientific and special cognitive techniques wherein legal analysis and synthesis, systemic, formal-legal, comparative-legal, historical-legal and dialectical methods are applied.
Results: Despite the prohibition of biological weapons, urgent issues, such as establishing an international control mechanism for monitoring the non-proliferation of biological weapons, remain. Moreover, the Protocol to the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC), which entered into force in 1975, is yet to be fully adopted and / or ratified by all member states. Identifying certain types of biomedical research that should be banned according to generally accepted principles, the study concludes that the problem of banning these research activities has yet to be solved by some states. The concept of biosafety is interpreted broadly in terms of issues arising in relevant industrial processes. Biosecurity and biosafety are directly related to ensuring environmental security, marine security, food security and the security of outer space. Principles governing effective legal regulation for ensuring environmental, biological, and food safety are presented.

 Background. Genetic information is often used for purposes of discrimination. For example, the results of genetic testing can demonstrate a high risk of developing a disease in an apparently healthy person, which will require expensive medical care. Such information may affect the decision on the employment of a candidate for a job or the conditions for concluding an insurance contract with him/her. Objective. The article discusses major issues of legal regulation of public relations arising from protection against discrimination based on genetic status in the legislation and law enforcement practice of a number of foreign countries (Australia, Canada, the USA).
Design. 20 studies written in English were retrieved from Scopus and Web of Science databases.
Results. The research methodology is based on dialectical, logical, predictive methods, system analysis, content analysis, as well as private scientific methods (statistical, technical legal, comparative legal methods). The article provides an overview of the international legal framework for the regulation of public relations arising from countering discrimination based on genetic status, as well as key acts of leading foreign jurisdictions and law enforcement practice.
Conclusion. In conclusion, the author reflects on the advisability of implementing relevant foreign experience into the Russian legal system.

One of the major research problems related to artificial intelligence (AI) models at present is algorithmic bias. When an automated system “makes a decision” based on its training data, it can reveal biases similar to those inherent in the humans who provided the training data. Much of the data used to train the models comes from vector representations of words obtained from text corpuses, which can transmit stereotypes and social prejudices. AI system design focused on optimising processes and improving prediction accuracy ignores the need for new standards for compensating the negative impact of AI on the most vulnerable categories of peoples. An improved understanding of the relationship between algorithms, bias, and non-discrimination not only precedes any eventual solution, but also helps us to recognize how discrimination is created, maintained, and disseminated in the AI era, as well as how it could be projected into the future using various neurotechnologies. The opacity of the algorithmic decision-making process should be replaced by transparency in AI processes and models. The present work aims to reconcile the use of AI with algorithmic decision processes that respect the basic human rights of the individual, especially the principles of non-discrimination and positive discrimination. The Argentine legislation serves as the legal basis of this work.