BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY, POLICY AND LAW
DICKINSON COLLEGE
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
SPRING 2007
DOUGLAS E. EDLIN
102 DENNY HALL
OFFICE HOURS: TUE. AND THU. 3:00-5:00 AND BY APPOINTMENT
Course Description
This course examines the legal, ethical and policy issues surrounding developments in
biomedical technology, with a focus on surrogate motherhood, in vitro fertilization, stem cell
research and cloning. We will study the scientific advances in these areas along with their
practical applications. We will consider how the different individual and institutional
perspectives of scientific, political and legal actors combine to frame the policy debate about the
use and regulation of cutting-edge medical and scientific research.
Required Readings
Kenneth Alpern, ed., The Ethics of Reproductive Technology (Oxford University Press, 1992)
Suzanne Holland, Karen Lebacqz and Laurie Zoloth, eds., The Human Embryonic Stem Cell
Debate: Science, Ethics, and Public Policy (MIT Press, 2001)
Leon R. Kass, et al., Human Cloning and Human Dignity: The Report of the President’s Council
on Bioethics (Public Affairs, 2002)
Arlene Klotzko, ed., The Cloning Sourcebook (Oxford University Press, 2001)
Robert Blank and Janna Merrick, Human Reproduction, Emerging Technologies, and
Conflicting Rights (CQ Press, 1995)
Gary Zweiger, Transducing the Genome: Information, Anarchy, and Revolution in the
Biomedical Sciences (McGraw-Hill, 2001)
Other readings available online or on reserve.
Format and Requirements
Students are expected to lead classes and to participate actively in discussions. Class sessions
will begin with a 30 minute student presentation on the assigned readings. Each student is
responsible to serve as a presenter and as a respondent for one presentation during the term and
to write a short paper (4-5 pages) on the reading the student presented. Presentations will
identify the points in the readings that the presenter found most interesting, problematic or
important, explain why these points were chosen, relate the readings to other material covered in
1
the course (where appropriate), and ask three questions raised in or by the reading. Respondents
will then offer the first answer to each question raised by the presenter. Presenters should meet
with me about, or e-mail me a brief outline of, the points that will be raised in the presentation
and the questions that will be posed. In addition to the in-class presentation and short paper,
there will be a take-home midterm exam and a research paper (20-25 pages) on a topic chosen by
the student (and approved by me). Failure to complete all assignments will result in a failing
grade for the course.
Final grades will be calculated as follows:
Presentation:
Presentation Paper:
Respondent Session:
Midterm Exam:
Research Paper:
Class Participation:
10%
10%
10%
20%
30%
20%
Course Schedule
I.
INTRODUCTION
January 23
II.
No reading
BEING A PARENT
January 25
The Desire To Be a Parent
Alpern, The Ethics of Reproductive Technology, 129-169
January 30
The Right To Be a Parent
Merrick and Blank, Human Reproduction, ch. 1
Skinner v. Oklahoma, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (online)
Mary Warnock, Making Babies: Is There a Right to Have Children
(Oxford University Press, 2002), 17-29, 32-37 (on reserve)
III.
BECOMING A PARENT: ASSISTED REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY
February 1
The Need for ART
Christopher J. de Jonge and Christopher L. Barratt, eds., Assisted
Reproductive Technology: Accomplishments and New Horizons
(Cambridge University Press, 2002), chs. 16-17 (on reserve)
Alpern, The Ethics of Reproductive Technology, 3-31, 247-258
2
February 6
In Vitro Fertilization
Alpern, The Ethics of Reproductive Technology, 71-82, 98-116, 299-305
February 8
Surrogate Motherhood I
Alpern, The Ethics of Reproductive Technology, 45-56, 203-219, 269-297
February 13
Surrogate Motherhood II
In re Baby M, 537 A.2d 1227 (N.J. 1988) (online)
Merrick and Blank, Human Reproduction, ch. 5
February 15
Frozen Embryos I
Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992) (online)
John A. Robertson, Prior Agreements for Disposition of Frozen Embryos,
Ohio State Law Journal (1990) 51:407-424 (online)
February 20
Frozen Embryos II
Kass v. Kass, 696 N.E.2d 174 (1998) (online)
A.Z. v. B.Z., 725 N.E.2d 1051 (Mass. 2000) (online)
February 22
The Regulation of ART
De Jonge and Barratt, Assisted Reproductive Technology, ch. 24
(on reserve)
Alpern, The Ethics of Reproductive Technology, 83-97
Merrick and Blank, Human Reproduction, 96-108, ch. 10
IV.
CHOOSING A CHILD: SELECTION OF OFFSPRING CHARACTERISTICS
February 27
Different Characteristics, Different Questions
Merrick and Blank, Human Reproduction, ch. 6
3
John A. Robertson, Genetic Selection of Offspring Characteristics,
Boston University Law Review (1996) 76:421-454, 463-468,
475-482 (online)
March 1
V.
Sex Selection
De Jonge and Barratt, Assisted Reproductive Technology, ch. 26
(on reserve)
Alpern, The Ethics of Reproductive Technology, 232-246
Jodi Danis, Sexism and the “Superfluous Female”: Arguments for
Regulating Pre-Implantation Sex Selection, Harvard Women’s
Law Journal (1995) 18:219-264 (online)
STEM CELL RESEARCH
March 6
Background to the Embryonic Stem Cell Debate
De Jonge and Barratt, Assisted Reproductive Technology, ch. 10
(on reserve)
Holland, Lebacqz and Zoloth, The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,
chs. 1-3
March 8
Ethical and Policy Issues Raised by Stem Cell Research
Holland, Lebacqz and Zoloth, The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,
chs. 4-7, 16
March 13
No class meeting
March 15
No class meeting
March 20
Religious and Secular Perspectives on Stem Cell Research
Holland, Lebacqz and Zoloth, The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,
chs. 9, 11-13, 15, 17
March 22
Policy Alternatives for Stem Cell Research
Holland, Lebacqz and Zoloth, The Human Embryonic Stem Cell Debate,
chs. 18-20
Merrick and Blank, Human Reproduction, ch. 8
March 27
Midterm Examination Review and Distribution of Exam
VI.
THERAPEUTIC AND REPRODUCTIVE CLONING
March 29
The Mythology and the Reality of Cloning
4
Klotzko, The Cloning Sourcebook, chs. 2-3, 7-8
Lori P. Knowles, Science Policy and the Law: Reproductive and
Therapeutic Cloning, New York University Journal of Legislation
and Public Policy (2000) 4:13-22 (online)
April 3
Midterm Examination Due
Cloning People and Animals
De Jonge and Barratt, Assisted Reproductive Technology, ch. 13
(on reserve)
Klotzko, The Cloning Sourcebook, chs. 18, 23-24, 27
April 5
The President’s Council: Cloning for Reproduction and for Research
Kass, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, 83-110, 143-150, 158-161,
167-194
April 10
The President’s Council: Legal and Policy Options
Kass, Human Cloning and Human Dignity, 195-256
April 12
The Regulation of Cloning
Klotzko, The Cloning Sourcebook, chs. 20-22
Andrea L. Bonnicksen, Crafting a Cloning Policy: From Dolly
to Stem Cells (Georgetown University Press, 2002), chs. 8, 10
(on reserve)
VII.
GENOMICS AND INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
April 17
Patent Law I
Janice M. Mueller, An Introduction to Patent Law
(Aspen Publishers, 2003), ch. 1, 37-42, 65-66, (on reserve)
April 19
Patent Law II
Mueller, An Introduction to Patent Law, 169-178, 185-198, 223-228,
237-246, 307-317 (on reserve)
April 24
Genetics
Zweiger, Transducing the Genome, Introduction and chs. 1, 3-4, 6-7
April 26
No Class Meeting
May 1
Genomics
Zweiger, Transducing the Genome, chs. 12, 15-16, 18-19
5
May 3
Genes and Patents
Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980) (online)
C. Thomas Caskey, Gene Patents – A Time to Balance Access
and Incentives, Bioinformatics (1996) 14:298-302 (on reserve)
Rebecca S. Eisenberg, Intellectual Property Issues in Genomics,
Bioinformatics (1996) 14:302-307 (on reserve)
Barbara Looney, Should Genes Be Patented? The Gene Patenting
Controversy: Legal, Ethical, and Policy Foundations of an
International Agreement, Law and Policy in International Business
(1994) 26:231 (on reserve)
May 10
Research Papers Due No Later Than 5 PM
6