Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Lex genetica: The law and ethics of programming biological code

  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • 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 

  • Randy E. Barnett. A Consent Theory of Contract. Columbia Law Review, 86: 269–321, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Julie E. Cohen. Copyright and the Jurisprudence of Self-Help. Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 13(3): 1090–1143, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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)

  • Cruzanv. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261 (1990).

  • Kenneth W. Dam. Self-Help in the Digital Jungle. The Journal of Legal Studies, 28: 393–412, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • 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 

  • Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972).

  • Niva Elkin-Koren. The Privitazation of Information Policy. Ethics and Information Technology, 2: 201–209, 2000.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Ruth Faden and Thomas Beauchamp. A History and Theory of Informed Consent. Oxford University Press, New York, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  • E. Allen Farnsworth. Farnsworth on Contracts. §§ 2.11, 4.28, 4.29a, 2000.

  • Gary L. Francione, Experimentation and the Marketplace Theory of the First Amendment. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 136: 417–512, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harold P. Green, Constitutional Implications of Federal Restrictions on Scientific Researcha nd Communication. UMKC Law Review, 60: 619–643 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  • Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965).

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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.

  • Deborah Kemp. Mass Marketed Software: The Legality of the Form License Agreement. Louisiana Law Review, 48: 87–128, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • William M. Landes and Richard A. Posner. An Economic Analysis of Copyright Law. Journal of Legal Studies, 18: 325–363, 1989.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Mark Lemley. Beyond Preemption: The Law and Policy of Intellectual Property Licensing. California Law Review, 87: 111–172, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark Lemley. Shrinkwraps in Cyberspace. Jurimetrics Journal, 35: 311–323, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mark Lemley. Intellectual Property and Shrinkwrap Licenses. Southern California Law Review, 68(5): 1239–1294, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lawrence Lessig. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace, Basic Books, 1999.

  • Charles R. McManis. The Privatization (or 'shrink-Wrapping') of American Copyright Law. California Law Review, 87: 173–190, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Michael J. Madison. Legal-Ware: Contract and Copyright in the Digital Age. Fordham Law Review, 67(3): 1025–1143, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jerry L. Mashaw and David L. Harfst. The Struggle for Auto Safety. Harvard University Press, 1990.

  • Robert P. Merges, Intellectual Property in Higher Life Forms: The Patent System and Controversial Technologies. Maryland Law Review 47: 1051–1075, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • David W. Maher. The Shrink-Wrap License: Old Problems in a NewWrapper. Journal of the Copyright Society, 34: 292–312, 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jeffrie Murphy and Jules Coleman. Philosophy of Law: An Introduction to Juris prudence, 2nd ed. Westview Press, 1990.

  • Richard Posner. The Ethical and Political Basis of the Efficiency Norm in Common Law Adjudication. Hofstra Law Review, 8: 487–507, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richard Posner. Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory. Journal of Legal Studies, 8: 103–140, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Joel Reidenberg. Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules Through Technology. Texas Law Review, 76: 553–593, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • P.D. Robbins. Retroviral Vectors. In Thomas Blankenstein editor, Gene Therapy, Principles and Applications, page 18. Birkhauser, Basel, 1999.

  • John A. Robertson, The Scientist's Right to Research: A Constitutional Analysis. California Law Review, 51: 1203–1281, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165 (1952).

  • Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

  • Skinner v. Oklahoma, 319 U.S. 535 (1942).

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • 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 

  • Stenberg v. Carhart, 120 S.Ct. 2597 (2000).

  • Carl Schneider. The Practice of Autonomy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  • Restatement (Second) of Contracts, §§ 12, 79, 153, 164, 283.

  • Restatement (Third) of Torts: Products Liability § 2(c). Uniform Commercial Code § 2-316(2).

  • United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. A New Technological Era for American Agriculture. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1992.

  • United States Congress Office of Technology Assessment. New Developments in Biotechnology: Patenting Life. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C., 1989, p. 121.

  • U.S. Patent No. 5,723,765 (Mar. 3 1998).

  • LeRoy Walters and Julie Gage Palmer. The Ethics of Human Gene Therapy. Oxford University Press, New York, 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U.S. 707 (1997).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Minnesota Law School, 229 19th Avenue South, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA

    Dan L. Burk

Authors
  1. Dan L. Burk
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Burk, D.L. Lex genetica: The law and ethics of programming biological code. Ethics and Information Technology 4, 109–121 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019996311122

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1019996311122

Search

Navigation