On the Edges of Science and Law

Jurassic Yeast

 By Jake Meyer  

In 1990, Michael Crichton wrote Jurassic Park, a best-selling novel about cloned dinosaurs created from the DNA obtained from mosquitoes trapped in amber.  Crichton’s Jurassic Park cautions us against tinkering with biotechnology by bringing the past to the present.  However, Crichton might not have considered what one microbiologist has released that was trapped in amber -- a mighty fine brew.

Raul Cano discovered that microorganisms trapped in amber, which have laid dormant in a state of hibernation for millions of years, could be revived.  In 1995, Cano extracted one such microorganism from a 45 million-year-old fossil -- a variant of Sacchramoyces cervisiae -- also known as "brewer's yeast."  But you don’t wake up prehistoric brewer’s yeast without wondering what kind of beer it would make. 

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.

"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.

Judge Sotomayor

By Julie Burger

The headline of a recent Time Magazine story about President Obama's U.S. Supreme Court nominee asked, Sotomayor's Diabetes:  Will it Be a Handicap?

The authors seem to be asking whether Judge Sotomayor's type 1 diabetes will be an impediment to her confirmation.  Although many news stories about Judge Sotomayor mention that she was diagnosed with the disease at age 8, most commentators and experts believe that the disease will not negatively impact her ability to be a justice on the Supreme Court.  The disease is serious, raising the risk of heart disease, blindness, amputation, and kidney problems.  And yet, if well-controlled, people with diabetes can live long and productive lives.  There is no reason Judge Sotomayor's diabetes should prevent her from being qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Do Inmates Have a Constitutional Right to DNA Testing? U.S. Supreme Court Says No.

By Tim Welch

Last month, I wrote an entry about the current trend of prosecutors blocking convicted prison inmates from accessing DNA testing on old pieces of evidence stored in police files.  Despite inmate advocacy groups' claims that DNA tests have exonerated hundreds from false imprisonment, prosecutors are denying the tests to inmates, citing insufficient scope of state laws.  William Osborne, a man currently serving a 26-year sentence for a 1994 rape conviction in Alaska, brought his case all the way to the Supreme Court.  Osborne is seeking a DNA test under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on police evidence collected during his 1994 rape trial.  But yesterday, the Supreme Court dealt a major blow to the wrongfully-convicted of America's prisons.

On June 18, 2009, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against Osborne, deciding that convicted prison inmates do not have a constitutional right to obtain DNA tests on old evidence.  As a result, the decision of whether or not to grant inmates access to DNA testing will remain in the hands of state courts and legislatures.  While according to the Chicago Tribune, 47 states have already enacted laws that allow inmates to receive DNA testing in some post-conviction instances, Alaska is not one of them.  Osborne, who won in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, may now face an impossible task in obtaining what he believes to be justice.

Another One Bites the Dust--Second Conspirator Found Guilty in Sale of Body Parts from UCLA

By Julie Burger

On May 14, 2009, a jury convicted Ernest Nelson of conspiring to commit grand theft, embezzlement and tax evasion for selling body parts that had been donated to UCLA's medical school to private medical research companies and pharmaceutical companies.  Nelson's alleged co-conspirator in the case, Henry Reid, the former director of UCLA's willed-body program, is currently serving four years after pleading guilty to conspiring to commit the theft. 

According to allegations, Reid provided portions of cadavers to Nelson who then sold them to companies for research.  But it wasn't the mere exchange of money for body parts that was the problem.  Prosecutors stated in 2009 that the defendants' plan unraveled because they had failed to properly fill out paperwork showing that the bodily tissue had been tested and was disease free, raising the suspicions of a state health investigator.  They stated that the companies that provided $1.5 million for the body parts over the course of four years had "legally paid" for the tissue.  Nelson's defense was that UCLA had authorized the sales, but that Henry Reid, the director, had not forwarded the money to the university. 

The Eyes Have It: Tighter FDA Regulation of LASIK Surgery

By Lori Andrews

What has Tiger Woods got that you don't have?  Ads for LASIK surgery capitalize on his golf swing, his charisma, his fortune--with the subtle implication that you, too, could be a Tiger if only you underwent surgery for nearsightedness.

Over a million people a year undergo LASIK.  But not everyone who submits to the procedure enjoys Tiger's success.  The surgery, laser-assisted in-situ keratomileusis, can pose risks. Some patients who have undergone LASIK complain of double vision, blurriness, and depression.  Last year, the FDA held hearings on the risks, including a report of suicide by a man who had an unsuccessful procedure.