Breakthroughs in genetics have often raised complex ethical and legal questions. Many regard their genetic testing and sequencing as revealing something intensely personal and private. The questions raised by these technologies loom even larger as genetic testing is becoming more commonplace, affordable, and comprehensive. At the same time, advances in CRISPR and other related technologies raise anxieties about the implications of editing our own DNA. One can imagine a future when gene editing may become as widespread as genetic testing is today. As genetic technologies become more accessible to individuals, the ethical and legal questions around the consumer use of these technologies become more pressing. This conference will examine some of these issues.
This post updates the ranking of health law scholars we posted last year (using 2010-2014 data), based on the latest law faculty citation analysis done by Greg Sisk (which covers 2013-2017). As before, we are following the steps Brian Leiter uses to compile “most-cited” rankings of tenured law faculty in a number of other subject areas.
Health law (as many people conceive it) is a broad field that includes bioethics, biotechnology, medical malpractice, health care finance and regulation, health policy, and public health. Therefore, to supplement the Sisk data, we include health law scholars beyond those based at law schools.
This is a companion post to Most-Cited Health Law Scholars in WestLaw, 2013-2017. As noted there, health law is a broad and fundamentally interdisciplinary field that spans bioethics, biotechnology, medical malpractice, health care finance and regulation, health policy, and public health. The Westlaw citation search partially accounted for this breadth by including leading health law scholars in schools of public health and medicine. However, two major limitations remain—both especially important in our field—which prompted this additional citation analysis.
Join the Harvard Global Health Institute and the Petrie-Flom Center for a week of events focused on discussing epidemic and pandemic preparedness, in commemoration of the 1918 influenza pandemic that took 50 million lives.
Panels, art installations, symposia, and a film screen will be held University-wide throughout the week.
At this reception, faculty, colleagues, and students with shared interests in health law policy, biotechnology, and bioethics gathered to learn about what the Petrie-Flom Center does and how to get involved.
Faculty Director I. Glenn Cohen and Executive Director Carmel Shachar reviewed our sponsored research portfolio, introduced our staff and fellows, and described various opportunities for students and others. We also discussed our work with partners around Harvard University, including the Center for Bioethics at Harvard Medical School. And of course we ate, drank, and made merry!
This event was free and open to the public.
We are so excited to welcome a new crop of Student Fellows to the Petrie-Flom Center family. These six students are a fantastic cohort of health law policy, biotechnology, and bioethics scholars who join us from Harvard Law School, the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Harvard Medical School, and the HMS Center for Bioethics.
They will each undertake a year-long research project with mentorship from Center faculty and affiliates, and will also regularly be blogging here at Bill of Health. Keep an eye out for their bylines!
When data from all aspects of our lives can be relevant to our health – from our habits at the grocery store and our Google searches to our FitBit data and our medical records – can we really differentiate between big data and health big data? Will health big data be used for good, such as to improve drug safety, or ill, as in insurance discrimination? Will it disrupt health care (and the health care system) as we know it? Will it be possible to protect our health privacy? What barriers will there be to collecting and utilizing health big data? What role should law play, and what ethical concerns may arise? A new timely, groundbreaking volume explores these questions and more from a variety of perspectives, examining how law promotes or discourages the use of big data in the health care sphere, and also what we can learn from other sectors.
By Valerie Gutmann Koch
23andMe announced its $300 million partnership with GlaxoSmithKline late last month, a move that will allow the drug behemoth to develop drugs based on “deidentified” DNA and other information collected from the direct-to-consumer (DTC) genetic testing company’s five million customers.
Over the last decade, 23andMe has confronted – and survived – various challenges and existential threats to its existence. However, this announcement, while representing an incredible success for 23andMe’s business, presents potential obstacles for informed consent and the research enterprise.
It may also undermine public trust in the company.
By J. Alexander Short
Pennsylvania is the latest state to enact legislation in reaction to the growing impact the opioid epidemic has on infants. Governor Tom Wolf signed H.B. 1232 in June, effectively requiring hospital officials to notify child protective services when children are born affected by the mother’s substance abuse or affected by withdrawal symptoms as a result of prenatal drug exposure.
Such outcomes generally fall within the parameters of neonatal abstinence syndrome (“NAS”), a group of health problems that occur in newborns who were exposed to drugs while in the mother’s womb. This legislation brings Pennsylvania into full compliance with the 2003 Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act.
This legislative response makes sense.