On the Edges of Science and Law

From Rabbits to Humans: Transplanting Wombs

  By Sarah Blenner

In 2000, the first human womb transplant was attempted in Saudi Arabia.  The transplant failed when the 26 year old woman developed a blood clot and the transplanted uterus had to be removed.  But now scientists believe that they are close to perfecting a reproductive technology that could solve some women’s infertility: transplanting a womb into a woman who lacks a functioning uterus. 

Infertility affects one in six women.  Some women are unable to get pregnant because they either do not have a uterus or do not have a properly functioning uterus.  At least 15,000 women in Britain alone are infertile because of a condition associated with uterine function.  A woman may lack a uterus because she has had a hysterectomy or may not have a properly functioning uterus because of a medical condition, such as intrauterine adhesions, also known as Asherman’s syndrome.  Currently, if women without a properly functioning uterus wish to have children, they must either adopt or turn to surrogacy.  Despite the availability of these alternatives, some women want to bear their own children and are willing to undergo surgery to achieve pregnancy. 

CSI Meets PhD: Should Universities Require DNA Testing of Job Applicants?

 By Lori Andrews

If you're applying for a job at the University of Akron, you may have more to worry about than the old adage of publish or perish.  Whether you want to work as a secretary or a tenured professor, a new university policy empowers the college to require job applicants to submit DNA.  Laurie Massie, a spokesperson for the University of Akron, told CBS News that the board decided to include DNA testing in the policy because "there have been national discussions that indicate that in the future, reliance on fingerprinting will diminish and DNA for criminal identification will be the more prominent technology." 

But Massie’s statement obscures the difference between a DNA sample and a fingerprint.  Taking DNA is more intrusive, even if it is just done through a cheek swab.  A recent criminal case, Friedman v. Boucher, 580 F.3d 847 (9th Cir. 2009), found that police exceeded their authority when they subjected an unwilling suspect to a cheek swab.  Plus, DNA contains far more information than does the fingerprint.  Testing an applicant’s DNA could provide information about whether the applicant, while healthy now, was likely to develop a costly-to-treat genetic disease.  Even if the DNA was only used to see if an applicant’s DNA was in the federal DNA databank because he or she had committed a crime, adding employment searches to the investigative searches of the databank would result in even greater backlogs than currently exist.

Motion to Dismiss Denied in Breast Cancer Case: The USPTO is a Defendant in a Case Challenging the Constitutionality of Patents Granted by the USPTO

 By Jake Meyer

November 1, 2009, Judge Sweet of the United States District Court in the Southern District of New York issued an opinion in Association for Molecular Pathology v. United States Patent and Trademark Office.  The plaintiffs in the case, which were previously blogged about here, challenge the constitutionality and validity of patents on the BRCA1 and BRCA2 breast cancer genes owned by Myriad.  The defendants -- the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Myriad Genetics, and the Directors of the Utah Research Foundation -- moved to dismiss the case for standing and jurisdictional issues.  Judge Sweet denied all motions to dismiss, finding there was both standing and jurisdiction.

The inclusion of the USPTO as a defendant in this case is unique to this case, as the USPTO has never been a party to a lawsuit in which the constitutionality of patents issued by the USPTO were brought into question.  The USPTO moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (the USPTO also moved to dismiss for lack of standing) arguing that it had a comprehensive statutory scheme in place to redress violations of the Patent Act.  However, the cases the USPTO cited involved claims that alleged statutory violations that the Patent Act provided a remedy for.  Judge Sweet found that there was no comparable statutory scheme that provided remedies for constitutional violations.  Judge Sweet found that there was subject matter jurisdiction over the USPTO citing the novel circumstances of the action, the absence of any remedy provided in the Patent Act, and the importance of the constitutional rights asserted by the plaintiffs.