Ethics and Information Technology

, Volume 4, Issue 2, pp 109–121 | Cite as

Lex genetica: The law and ethics of programming biological code

  • Dan L. Burk

Abstract

Recent advances in genetic engineering nowallow the design of programmable biologicalartifacts. Such programming may include usageconstraints that will alter the balance ofownership and control for biotechnologyproducts. Similar changes have been analyzedin the context of digital content managementsystems, and while this previous work is usefulin analyzing issues related to biologicalprogramming, the latter technology presents new conceptual problems that require morecomprehensive evaluation of the interplaybetween law and technologically embeddedvalues. In particular, the ability to embedcontractual terms in technological artifactsnow requires a re-examination of disclosure andconsent in transactions involving such artifacts.

autonomy biotechnology clickwrap code content management contract copyright genetic engineering informed consent plant variety protection shrinkwrap terminator UPOV 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Keith Aoki. Neocolonialism, Anti-Commons Property, and Biopiracy in the (Not-So-Brave) New World Order of International Intellectual Property Protection. Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies, 6: 11–58, 1998, p. 54.Google Scholar
  2. Randy E. Barnett. A Consent Theory of Contract. Columbia Law Review, 86: 269–321, 1986.Google Scholar
  3. Dan L. Burk. The Milk-Free Zone: Federal and Local Interests in Regulating Rebombinant BST. Columbia Environmental Law Review, 22(2): 227–317, 1997.Google Scholar
  4. Julie E. Cohen. Copyright and the Jurisprudence of Self-Help. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 13(3): 1090–1143, 1998.Google Scholar
  5. Julie E. Cohen. Some Reflections on Copyright Management Systems and Laws Designed to Protect Them. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 12(1): 161–187, 1997.Google Scholar
  6. Julie E. Cohen. Reverse Engineering and the Rise of Electronic Vigilantism: Intellectual Property Implications of ‘Lock-Out’ Programs. Southern California Law Review, 68(5): 1091–1202, 1995.Google Scholar
  7. M.L. Crouch. How the Terminator Terminates: An Explanation for the Non-scientist of a Remarkable Patent for Killing Second Generation Seeds of Crop Plants. Edmonds Institute, 1998. (http://www.bio.indiana.edu/people/terminator.html)Google Scholar
  8. Cruzanv. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).Google Scholar
  9. Kenneth W. Dam. Self-Help in the Digital Jungle. The Journal of Legal Studies, 28: 393–412, 1999.Google Scholar
  10. Richard Delgado and David R. Millen. God, Galileo, and Government: Toward Constitutional Protection for Scientific Inquiry. Washington Law Review, 53: 349–404, 1978.Google Scholar
  11. Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonization of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society, 2001 Q.J. (L. 167) 10.Google Scholar
  12. Rebecca Dresser. Ethical and Legal Issues in Patenting New Animal Life. Jurimetrics Journal, 28: 399–435, 1988. United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1989, p. 121.Google Scholar
  13. Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).Google Scholar
  14. Niva Elkin-Koren. The Privitazation of Information Policy. Ethics and Information Technology, 2: 201–209, 2000.Google Scholar
  15. Niva Elkin-Koren. A Public-Regarding Approach to Contracting Over Copyrights. In Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, Diane Leenheer Zimmerman, and Harry First, editors, Expanding the Boundaries of Intellectual Property: Innovation Policy for the Knowledge Society, pp. 191–221. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2001.Google Scholar
  16. Ruth Faden and Thomas Beauchamp. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.Google Scholar
  17. E. Allen Farnsworth. Farnsworth on Contracts. §§ 2.11, 4.28, 4.29a, 2000.Google Scholar
  18. Gary L. Francione, Experimentation and the Marketplace Theory of the First Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 136: 417–512, 1987.Google Scholar
  19. Harold P. Green, Constitutional Implications of Federal Restrictions on Scientific Researcha nd Communication. UMKC Law Review, 60: 619–643 (1992).Google Scholar
  20. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).Google Scholar
  21. Robert W. Gomulkiewicz and Mary L. Williamson. A Brief Defense of Mass Market Software License Agreements. Rutgers Computer and Technology Law Journal, 22: 335–367, 1996.Google Scholar
  22. Neil D. Hamilton. Legal Issues Shaping Society's Acceptance of Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms. Drake Journal of Agricultural Law, 6: 81–117, 2001. pp. 90-91.Google Scholar
  23. International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants, Dec. 2. 1961, as revised 33 U.S.T. 2703, 815 U.N.T.S. 89.Google Scholar
  24. Deborah Kemp. Mass Marketed Software: The Legality of the Form License Agreement. Louisiana Law Review, 48: 87–128, 1987.Google Scholar
  25. William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner. An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. Journal of Legal Studies, 18: 325–363, 1989.Google Scholar
  26. Bruno Latour. Where are the Missing Masses? The Sociology of a Few Mundane Artifacts. In Weibe E. Bijker and John Law, editors, Shaping Technology/Building Society: Studies in Sociotechnical Change pages 225–258. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1992.Google Scholar
  27. Mark Lemley. Beyond Preemption: The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing. California Law Review, 87: 111–172, 1999.Google Scholar
  28. Mark Lemley. Shrinkwraps in Cyberspace. Jurimetrics Journal, 35: 311–323, 1995.Google Scholar
  29. Mark Lemley. Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses. Southern California Law Review, 68(5): 1239–1294, 1995.Google Scholar
  30. Lawrence Lessig. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books, 1999.Google Scholar
  31. Charles R. McManis. The Privatization (or 'shrink-Wrapping') of American Copyright Law. California Law Review, 87: 173–190, 1999.Google Scholar
  32. Michael J. Madison. Legal-Ware: Contract and Copyright in the Digital Age. Fordham Law Review, 67(3): 1025–1143, 1998.Google Scholar
  33. Jerry L. Mashaw and David L. Harfst. The Struggle for Auto Safety. Harvard University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  34. Robert P. Merges, Intellectual Property in Higher Life Forms: The Patent System and Controversial Technologies. Maryland Law Review 47: 1051–1075, 1988.Google Scholar
  35. David W. Maher. The Shrink-Wrap License: Old Problems in a NewWrapper. Journal of the Copyright Society, 34: 292–312, 1987.Google Scholar
  36. Jeffrie Murphy and Jules Coleman. Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Juris prudence, 2nd ed. Westview Press, 1990.Google Scholar
  37. Richard Posner. The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication. Hofstra Law Review, 8: 487–507, 1980.Google Scholar
  38. Richard Posner. Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory. Journal of Legal Studies, 8: 103–140, 1979.Google Scholar
  39. J.H. Reichman and Jonathan Franklin. Privately Legislated Intellectual Property Rights: Reconciling Freedom of Contract With Public Good Uses of Information. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 147(4): 875–970, 1999.Google Scholar
  40. Joel Reidenberg. Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through Technology. Texas Law Review, 76: 553–593, 1998.Google Scholar
  41. P.D. Robbins. Retroviral Vectors. In Thomas Blankenstein editor, Gene Therapy, Principles and Applications, page 18. Birkhauser, Basel, 1999.Google Scholar
  42. John A. Robertson, The Scientist's Right to Research: A Constitutional Analysis. California Law Review, 51: 1203–1281, 1977.Google Scholar
  43. Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).Google Scholar
  44. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  45. Skinner v. Oklahoma, 319 U.S. 535 (1942).Google Scholar
  46. Eric Schlachter. The Intellectual Property Reniassance in Cyberspace: Why Copyright Law Could Be Unimportant on the Internet. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 12(1): 15–52, 1997.Google Scholar
  47. Roy G. Spece, Jr. and Jennifer Weinziel. First Amendment Protection of Experimentation: A Critical Review and Tentative Synthesis/Reconstruction of the Literature. Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Review, 8: 185–228, 1998.Google Scholar
  48. Mark Stefik. Shifting the Possible: How Trusted Systems and Digital Property Rights Challenge Us to Rethink Digital Publishing. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 12(1): 137–160, 1997.Google Scholar
  49. Stenberg v. Carhart, 120 S.Ct. 2597 (2000).Google Scholar
  50. Carl Schneider. The Practice of Autonomy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.Google Scholar
  51. Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 12, 79, 153, 164, 283.Google Scholar
  52. Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(c). Uniform Commercial Code § 2-316(2).Google Scholar
  53. United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. A New Technological Era for American Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1992.Google Scholar
  54. United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1989, p. 121.Google Scholar
  55. U.S. Patent No. 5,723,765 (Mar. 3 1998).Google Scholar
  56. LeRoy Walters and Julie Gage Palmer. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.Google Scholar
  57. Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 707 (1997).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dan L. Burk
    • 1
  1. 1.University of Minnesota Law SchoolMinneapolisUSA

Personalised recommendations