The Network understands that biolaw, in the absence of a general regulatory and binding legal framework, could represent a plausible option as deliberative reference for legislation on biomedical practices and genetic techniques, and thus promote their consistent application in terms of doctrine and jurisprudence . Especially because biolaw represents an interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary epistemological corpus, as it addresses legally controversial aspects of biomedical practices that impact not only the scientific, but also ethical, legal, social and political contexts. Therefore, biolaw represents a valid theoretical and procedural framework to deliberate on legal viability of biotechnological scope and to regulate those biotechnological techniques that go beyond therapy and, as such, display a reductionist and deterministic understanding of human being: on the one hand, they reduce it to a set of genetic codes that need to be decrypted and improved; on the other, they seek to predetermine human biology, changing its genetic makeup.
Legally controversial issues of biomedicine are still too approached from the perspective of traditional law, ignoring the innate specificity of genetic techniques and their possible consequences. In this sense, the absolute novelty of the issues raised by biotechnology development require, by force of their own implications, specificity and originality in the analysis, namely a law applied to legal controversies, arising by virtue of biomedicine empowerment, and an epistemological platform to develop, at an international level, the major theoretical and practical facets of the discipline.