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

That's ridiculous

[dskoll]

I think some types of genetic engineering such as, say, creating a strain of HIV that's as easily transmissible as the common cold, would be the scientific equivalent of shouting "Fire!" in a crowded room and are thus not protected forms of expression.

Re:science is inherently political.

[Anonymous Coward]

Then you're a fucking moron. Science is a-political. it doesn't matter what philosophy you ascribe to, you're still going to show that positively and negatively charges attract. Science has zip to do with politics. Scientists, science lab, science funding, these can be political, same as any other organization or person, but science isn't.

You and this law professor should round up the anti-vaxxers, the anti-evolutionists, and the climate deniers and go form your own state of Imbecility. Have fun voting on the value pf pi.

So would building a bomb in a basement?

[Chrisq]

So would building a bomb in a basement be an expression of free speech? After all it could be fundamentally saying "I think XXX should be blown up"! The Muslims will be pleased.