The global anti-doping regime is a hybrid regime operating as part of the global system of sports governance. This chapter analyses the accountability puzzle surrounding its specific hybrid constellation and the regime’s accountability response to a scandal from 2015, which exposed the Russian large-scale doping scheme. The analysis shows that, in the five years’ period following the scandal, the regime did not fully ignore calls to demonstrate accountability, yet its responses have been protracted and partial. Sanctioning or performance evaluation forums, which are said to be a defining feature of accountability relationships, have not been introduced, although the regime has adopted some structural changes that have dispelled prior conflicts of interests and system dysfunctions. Legitimacy pressures led to some functional improvements within the regime, although their power to enhance the accountability framework was limited. Our case indicates that a ’favourable’ political economy, where stakeholders have neither formal ’voice’ nor exit options, can afford leverage to a private regime owner to direct legitimacy pressures towards solutions that do not structurally diminish its power over the other actors in the regime.

This chapter analyzes the technology of human genome editing with a focus on the ethical issues involved and offers guidance as how best to regulate this technology. First, this chapter explains several common types of gene editing technologies and then analyzes the ethical implications of the two primary therapeutic uses of gene editing: somatic and germline. Primary ethical analysis will focus on the bioethical principles of autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and social justice; analysis will then provide a weighing of these principles and likely consequences–noting the biologic differences between somatic versus germline treatments. Somatic gene editing is generally more confined to the individual, while germline editing changes the genes of cells that are passed sexually to offspring, thus having the power to shape the human genome generationally--the ultimate consequence of which is the influence and shaping of human evolution. In conclusion, the chapter argues the consequences of somatic vs. germline genome editing demand that, when considering the proper emphasis of a regulatory paradigm, somatic editing should be regulated under a nationally guided framework and germline editing should be regulated under both a nationally and globally guided framework.