Law Professor: Genetic Engineering Is (Probably) Protected By the First Amendment

Jason Koebler writes: The dawn of cheap genome editing techniques such as CRISPR understandably have people across the political spectrum worried about what a future of designer babies, more pathogenic viruses, deextincted species, clones, and glow-in-the-dark sushi might look like. But does putting limits on genetic engineering violate scientists' constitutional rights? The First Amendment has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to encompass not just the freedom of speech, but also the freedom of expression and expressive conduct, which likely includes acts of science, according to Alta Charo, a bioethicist and law professor at University of Wisconsin Law School, who says that science is inherently political.

Comments

science is inherently political.

[turkeydance]

just wanted to emphasize by repetition.

Yeah right.

[h33t l4x0r]

By that interpretation blowing up the moon is protected speech.

All things are political

[drinkypoo]

All things of note are inherently political. If they involve more than one person with their own ideas and opinions, there's going to be politics. The world is a lumpy place.

Re:All things are political

[rmdingler]

...there's going to be politics. The world is a lumpy place.

This is the very thing that makes the playing field unlevel. There will be some nations, particularly in the West, concerned with restricting and regulating these genome-altering experiments.

Caution will rule the day in many legislations, but there will be exceptions, and because of the ever present arms race, even the cautious nations will be tempted to ignore their own imposed limitations. As always.