rendering of luminous DNA with gene being removed with forceps.

Mainstreaming Reproductive Genetic Innovation

By Myrisha S. Lewis

Despite religious and ethical objections, assisted reproductive technology (ART), including in vitro fertilization and egg freezing, manages to flourish in the United States, with some states and companies even creating regimes for its insurance coverage. However, reproductive genetic innovation — a term I use to refer to the combination of assisted reproduction with genetic modification or substitution — has yet to receive the same acceptance. Examples of reproductive genetic innovation include mitochondrial transfer, cytoplasmic transfer, and germline gene editing.

Moreover, while many scientists, regulators, and members of the public have called for societal discourse or consensus related to individual reproductive genetic innovation techniques, these calls rarely include an explanation as to how these discourses would be conducted. In a recent article, Normalizing Reproductive Genetic Innovation, I offer four potential avenues for structuring a societal discourse in the U.S. on the topic.

Read More

U.S. Capitol Building at Night

Is Preemption the Cure for Healthcare Federalism’s Restrictions on Medication Abortion?

This post is an adaptation of an article published in the Harvard Social Impact Review.

By Allison M. Whelan

On June 24, 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overruling almost fifty years of precedent established by Roe v. Wade and reaffirmed by Planned Parenthood v. Casey. The tragic consequences of Dobbs are many, and all require urgent attention.

Post-Dobbs, states have complete control over the regulation of abortion, including medication abortion. Now more than ever, a person’s access to abortion and other essential reproductive health care services depends on their state of residence and whether they have the means to travel to a state that protects access to abortion care. As a result, the question of whether states can restrict or ban pharmaceuticals approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is now top of mind for lawyers, scholars, policymakers, and the public

The consequences that result from state bans and restrictions on medication abortion reverberate across the U.S. healthcare system, representing just one example of “healthcare federalism” — the division of power between the federal and state governments in the regulation of health care.

Read More

Student fellows 2022-2023 cohort.

Petrie-Flom Welcomes 2022-2023 Student Fellows

(Clockwise from top left: Matt Chun, Sarah Gabriele, Katie Gu, Sanjay Reddy, Aparajita Lath)

We are excited to welcome a new group of Student Fellows to the Petrie-Flom Center family. These five students are a fantastic cohort of health law policy, biotechnology, and bioethics scholars who join us from across Harvard.

They each will undertake a year-long research project with mentorship from Center faculty and affiliates, and also will blog here at Bill of Health regularly. Keep an eye out for their bylines!

Read More

LISBON, PORTUGAL - 7 NOVEMBER 2017: Dr. Oz, heart surgeon & television personality speaks at the Web Summit, Lisbon.

The Dr. Oz Paradox

By Claudia E. Haupt

Why does the law sanction giving bad advice to one patient, while it permits giving bad advice to millions of YouTube or television viewers, which may result in significant physical harm?

We might call this the “Dr. Oz paradox.” Dr. Mehmet Oz, the Republican candidate in Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate race, is a famous television personality as well as a licensed physician. But, according to one study, half of his publicly disseminated medical advice is wrong. Yet, his sizable audience may very well follow it anyway, and perhaps suffer harm as a result. Such bad advice, which could get any doctor in legal trouble if disseminated to their patients, may be given to the public at large without fear of sanction. The consequences of this sharp doctrinal distinction can be quite jarring.

Read More

Gavel and stethoscope.

The Journal of Law and the Biosciences’ Growing Impact

The Journal of Law and Biosciences, a co-venture between Duke University, Harvard Law School, and Stanford University, offers high-quality, open-access scholarship at the intersection of the biosciences and law. The Journal, which is published by Oxford University Press, is the first fully open-access, peer-reviewed legal journal to focus on these issues.

Recently, the Journal of Law and the Biosciences received exciting news in the form of an updated impact factor score. The journal now has an impact factor of 6.066, a substantial increase from the year prior. It ranks third out of 56 ethics journals, second out of sixteen journals in the medical ethics category, second out of 154 law journals, and first out of seventeen journals in the legal medicine category.

The following excerpts highlight the cutting-edge scholarship published in the Journal‘s most recent issue, which closed in June 2022.

Read More

GHRP affiliated researchers.

Introducing the Global Health and Rights Project’s New Affiliated Researchers

(Clockwise from top left: Alma Beltrán y Puga, Luciano Bottini Filho, Ana Lorena Ruano, María Natalia Echegoyemberry)

By Alicia Ely Yamin and Chloe Reichel

Leer en español.

In the years before the pandemic, and especially since the pandemic began, there have been increasing calls to decolonize global health. Setting aside what Ṣẹ̀yẹ Abímbọ́lá rightly characterizes as the slipperiness of both the terms “decolonizing” and “global health,” these calls speak to the need to reimagine governance structures, knowledge discourses, and legal frameworks — from intellectual property to international financial regulation.

Global health law itself, anchored in the International Health Regulations (2005), purports to present a universal perspective, but arguably rigidifies colonialist assumptions about the sources of disease, national security imperatives, priorities in monitoring “emergencies,” and governance at a distance. The diverse tapestry of international human rights scholarship related to health is often not reflected in analyses of the field from the economic North. In turn, that narrow vision of human rights has also increasingly faced critiques from TWAIL, Law & Political Economy, and other scholars, for blinkered analyses that fail to challenge the structural violence in our global institutional order — which the pandemic both laid bare and exacerbated.

In an attempt to enlarge discussion of these important topics and amplify diverse voices, the Petrie-Flom Center is welcoming four new affiliated researchers to the Global Health and Rights Project (GHRP).

Read More

POPLAR affiliated reseachers

Introducing Affiliated Researchers for the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation

(Clockwise from top left: Kwasi Adusei, Ismail Lourido Ali, Jonathan Perez-Reyzin, Dustin Marlan.)

We are excited to welcome our inaugural group of affiliated researchers for the Project on Psychedelics Law and Regulation (POPLAR). Through regular contributions to Bill of Health, as well as workshops and other projects, POPLAR affiliated researchers will share their expertise and perspectives on developments in psychedelics law and policy. We look forward to learning from and sharing their insights with our audiences. Keep an eye out for their bylines!

Read More

Black and white photograph of the front of the Supreme Court. Pro-abortion protestors stand holding signs, one of which reads "I stand with Whole Woman's Health"

Call for Submissions: Journal of Law and the Biosciences Special Issue on Abortion Law

American law on reproduction seems likely to change, perhaps radically, in 2022, as the U.S. Supreme Court considers challenges to state laws limiting abortion. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the Court is considering a substantive Mississippi ban on almost all abortions after 15 weeks; in Whole Woman’s Health v. Jackson and United States v. Texas, the Court is considering the more procedural Texas “bounty hunter” statute for enforcing a ban on abortions after about five weeks.

In anticipation of the Court rulings on these cases, the Journal of Law and the Biosciences will publish a limited number of submissions as a two-part special issue on this general topic. The issue will focus on abortion law, but also include near-future issues for other human reproductive practices and technologies.

Read More