On the Edges of Science and Law

Michael Jackson's DNA Will Be Used to Make Jewelry

By Lori Andrews

During his life, Michael Jackson's hair was at the center of a legal dispute.  When he filmed a Pepsi commercial, the pyrotechnics on the set set his hair aflame, leading to a lawsuit against the soft drink company.  In that case, Jackson donated his $1.5 million settlement to the burn unit that treated him.

Now, after his death, his hair is raising an issue central to bioethics:  What right do people have to control the use of their tissue?

During the ill-fated commercial--which some commentators think led to the singer's use of painkillers--executive producer Ralph Cohen picked up charred hairs from the floor.  John Reznikoff, a hair collector, purchased the hair and now has an arrangement with an Elk Grove Village, Illinois company, Life Gems, to create man-made diamonds out of the carbon in Jackson's hair.

Did I Say I was 16? I meant 20. The MLB tries DNA Testing to Thwart a New Generation of Cheaters.

GUEST BLOGGER Keith Syverson

Another testing controversy has arisen in the world of baseball.  This time it was not Alex Rodriguez or Roger Clemens testing positive for performance enhancing drugs, but rather it was an amateur baseball player from the Dominic Republic named Damian Arredondo "failing" a DNA test as part of an investigation to confirm his age.  It does not come as a big surprise that in an era where Bud Selig, the Commissioner of Major League Baseball (MLB), is trying to clean up the sport's image and punish cheaters such as those who use performance enhancing drugs, that the MLB is also testing to prevent other forms of cheating such as misrepresenting one's age.  A young prospect is valuable because it gives the potential signing team more time to develop the player and teach him how to be a successful hitter or pitcher in the Major League.  Additionally, as players age, they become more injury prone and are less productive as hitters.  Teams usually take a players age into account when offering a contract extension later in life.  For example, a 30-year-old player will generally be paid more and receive a longer contract then a 34-year-old player.

 Most baseball fans remember when Miguel Tejada, a Dominic Republic native, announced to the Houston Astros that he was in fact 33 years old and not 31, or when investigators discovered that a Washington Nationals prospect assumed an alter ego that was four years younger then his actual age.  In the aftermath of the steroid scandal, the MLB has established an investigative team taking extreme measures to ensure that this does not happen again by subjecting potential players and their family members to bone scans and DNA testing.

Lawsuits in Pink and Blue: Sex Selection Cases Hit the Courts

By Lori Andrews

On-line genetic testing companies offer to provide people with information regarding their family tree; their relative chances of developing a disease, condition, or trait; their nutritional profile; and their response to a particular drug.  For example, at HairDX, individuals can be tested for a susceptibility to hair loss, or their response to a particular hair loss prevention aid.  If a customer wishes to learn whether his Y-chromosome shares any similarity with the Jefferson Y-chromosome, he can visit FamilyTreeDNA.com.

Initially, the testing focused on illness and ancestry.  But now companies are reaching out to pregnant women with promises to predict the sex of their child.  The pregnant woman pricks her finger, then collects three drops of blood on a test card and sends it to the company for testing.  For $275, Acu-Gen Biolab, Inc. offers pregnant women such a test which analyzes fetal cells circulating in maternal blood to make the assessment.

"Is That Your Grandmother? No, That's My Mom!"

GUEST BLOGGER Marilyn Boskey

In 2006, Maria del Carmen Bousada received in vitro fertilization (IVF) from the Pacific Fertility Center in Los Angeles, CA.  At age 66, she was well above the 55-year-old age limit.  Bousada claimed that they did not ask her for any identification, and she simply told them she was 55.  With the birth of her twin sons in December 2006, she became the oldest new mom, according to the Guinness Book of World Records (although that record now belongs to a 70-year-old-woman in India).  Whenever she was criticized for being too old to have children, Bousada would cite her own mother's 101-year life span.  Unfortunately, soon after the birth of her sons, she was diagnosed with a tumor.  Bousada died this week at the age of 69--her twin boys are only 2.

This is only the latest in a string of news stories that paint IVF in a negative light in recent months.  The birth of octuplets to Nadya Suleman and the recent divorce proceedings between Jon and Kate Gosselin, who used IVF twice to give birth to twins and sextuplets, have caused many to question the regulation of IVF as well as the psychological and physical effects on children. An article in The New York Times provides data that 70% of survey respondents want tougher standards on IVF, and 50% believe that women over the age of 45 are unfit to become mothers.  Although assisted reproduction has allowed many young families the opportunity to have children when they cannot naturally, it has also lead to questions such as the one Maria Bousada's death creates.  How old is too old to be a new mom?

The U.S. Supreme Court Holds That Strip Search of Student Violated the Fourth Amendment

GUEST BLOGGER Aaron Midler

Last month, in Safford Unified School District Number 1 v. Redding, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the strip search of a female middle-schooler by school officials violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure and was therefore unconstitutional.  The dispute arose when a classmate told school officials that Savanna Redding had given her prescription-strength ibuprofen.  When questioned by school officials, Ms. Redding denied having any knowledge of or involvement in bringing contraband to school.  With Ms. Redding's permission, school officials then searched her backpack, which turned up nothing.  Two female school officials subsequently took Ms. Redding to a private room and ordered her to remove her outer clothing.  Ms. Redding was then ordered to pull both her bra and underwear aside and to shake them out to determine whether any contraband was hidden therein.  This search also turned up nothing.

On her daughter's behalf, Ms. Redding's mother sued the school district and several school officials in federal court.  Ms. Redding lost at the trial level and in front of a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But she won when the Ninth Circuit reheard the case with all circuit judges sitting. The school district then appealed to the Supreme Court, where the justices held 8-to-1 that the strip search had violated Ms. Redding's Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches.  The majority held that the weak strength of the pills--each equivalent to two Advil--did not justify the use of an "embarrassing, frightening, and humiliating search."

People Always Told Me Be Careful What You Do: The Supreme Court's Refusal to Determine a Constitutional Right to Post-Conviction DNA Testing

GUEST BLOGGER Aaron Midler

Last month, the Supreme Court of the United States decided that convicted prison inmates do not have a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing. The Court's decision in District Attorney's Office for the Third Judicial District v. Osborne dealt a significant blow to prisoners in the three states without provisions for post-conviction DNA testing, as well as prisoners who cannot prove conclusively that DNA testing will exonerate them.  Blog entries by Tim Welch, here and here, explore these issues more fully.

Last month's decision is also an interesting example of how the Supreme Court deals with the potential of new technology to upset the established legal system.  Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, framed the problem as "how to harness DNA's power to prove innocence without overthrowing the established system of criminal justice."  The majority's solution to this problem was to not disturb the "prompt and considered" response of state legislatures in drafting post-conviction DNA statutes. The majority reasoned that creating a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing would shift the responsibility of adapting the criminal justice system to DNA technology from the legislatures to the courts. If the Court had determined that a constitutional right to post-conviction DNA testing existed, the majority predicted that the Court would soon be required to determine a host of other questions, such as whether the states are constitutionally obligated to preserve DNA evidence for future testing--a result that the majority aimed to avoid.

Texas Families Bring Suit Challenging State Newborn Screening Program

By Tim Welch

Another state's newborn screening program has come under fire recently, highlighting growing concerns about the protection and proper use of human tissue and genetic information. 

On March 12, 2009, five parents filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas in San Antonio against the Texas Department of State Health Services (TDSHS), Texas A&M University, and various Texas A&M University officials (Beleno v. Texas Dept. of State Health Serv.).  The plaintiffs claim that TDSHS violated federal and state law when, as part of the legally-mandated Texas newborn screening program, TDSHS collected blood samples from the plaintiffs' newborn babies, stored the samples indefinitely, and allegedly used the samples for unidentified research purposes, all without the plaintiffs' knowledge or consent.

The Beleno plaintiffs allege that TDSHS has violated their right to be free from unlawful search and seizure, as guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 9 of the Texas Constitution.  The plaintiffs also claim that TDSHS has deprived them of their liberty and privacy interests, as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, the Texas Constitution, and Texas common law.