RECENT ARTICLES:
PROGRAMMERS AND FORENSIC ANALYSES: ACCUSERS UNDER THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE
2011 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 010
Health & Biotechnology
11/13/11
Recent Supreme Court cases involving the Confrontation Clause have strengthened defendants’ right to face their accusers. Bullcoming v. New Mexico explored the question of whether the testimony of the technician who performs a forensic analysis may be substituted by that of another analyst, and the Court held that producing a surrogate witness who was not sufficiently involved in the analysis violates the confrontation right. The presumption of infallible technology is fading, and courts may soon realize programmers have greater influence over the ultimate outcome of forensic tests than do the technicians who rely on such analytical tools. The confrontation right, so bolstered by recent cases, may encompass defendants’ right to demand testimony from the programmers of machines performing forensic analyses. The Bullcoming decision is certain to affect whether the right to confront the programmer will be recognized.
SHERLEY V. SEBELIUS: STEM CELLS AND THE UNEASY INTERPLAY BETWEEN THE FEDERAL BENCH AND THE LAB BENCH
2011 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 001
Health & Biotechnology
3/26/2011
After Barack Obama’s election to the presidency, he promised that one of his top priorities in office would be to relieve the restrictions initiated by President George W. Bush on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. President Obama followed through on his promise, but the celebrations in the nation’s research labs were short-lived. Anti-abortion advocates and other scientists working in the field that would allegedly be out-competed in the federal funding arena brought a legal challenge to the new government position. The struggle culminated in August 2010 with a federal district court issuing a preliminary injunction to halt the new funding initiative. Although the government successfully appealed for a stay on the injunction pending arguments in the Court of Appeals, the decision has paralyzed research in the field. This iBrief argues that the injunction was wrongly granted, predicts how higher courts might treat the case, and suggests that the proper forum for addressing this controversy lies within the scientific community, not the judiciary.
Archived Articles
| Title: |
|
Date Posted: |
| JUVENILE JUSTICE, SULLIVAN, AND GRAHAM: HOW THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISION WILL CHANGE THE NEUROSCIENCE DEBATE |
|
05/18/2010 |
| THE FUTURE OF GENERIC BIOLOGICS: SHOULD THE UNITED STATES “FOLLOW-ON” THE EUROPEAN PATHWAY? |
|
11/06/2008 |
| MCKITHEN V. BROWN: DUE PROCESS AND POST-CONVICTION DNA TESTING |
|
09/30/2008 |
| REGULATING NANOTECHNOLOGY:A PRIVATE-PUBLIC INSURANCE SOLUTION |
|
02/13/2008 |
| ENCOURAGING CORPORATE INNOVATION FOR OUR HOMELAND DURING THE BEST OF TIMES FOR THE WORST OF TIMES: EXTENDING SAFETY ACT PROTECTIONS TO NATURAL DISASTERS |
|
11/2/2006 |
| WHY TECHNOLOGY PROVIDES COMPELLING REASONS TO APPLY A DAUBERT ANALYSIS TO THE LEGAL STANDARD OF CARE IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES |
|
11/2/2006 |
| WHAT, IF ANY, ARE THE ETHICAL OBLIGATIONS OF THE U.S. PATENT OFFICE?: A CLOSER LOOK AT THE BIOLOGICAL SAMPLING OFINDIGENOUS GROUPS |
|
5/17/2006 |
| ATTACK OF THE CLONES: LEGISLATIVE APPROACHES TO HUMAN CLONING IN THE UNITED STATES |
|
12/7/2005 |
| WHEN THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW: HOW THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT IS DETERRING BIOSCIENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT |
|
10/18/2005 |
| TAKING BIOLOGICS FOR GRANTED? TAKINGS, TRADE SECRETS, AND OFF-PATENT BIOLOGICAL PRODUCTS |
|
3/1/2005 |
| DISCLOSURE OF CLINICAL TRIAL DATA: WHY EXEMPTION 4 OF THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT SHOULD BE RESTORED |
|
2/17/2005 |
| REGULATING INNOVATIVE MEDICINE: FITTING SQUARE PEGS IN ROUND HOLES |
|
1/13/2005 |
| THE MEDICARE PRESCRIPTION DRUG, IMPROVEMENT, & MODERNIZATION ACT OF 2003: ARE WE PLAYING THE LOTTERY WITH HEALTHCARE REFORM? |
|
10/1/2004 |
| ARE BIOTECH CROPS AND CONVENTIONAL CROPS LIKE PRODUCTS? AN ANALYSIS UNDER GATT |
|
10/29/2003 |
| HATCH-WAXMAN REFORM AND ACCELERATED MARKET ENTRY OF GENERIC DRUGS: IS FASTER NECESSARILY BETTER? |
|
8/13/2003 |
| REVIVING INFORMED CONSENT: USING RISK PERCEPTION IN CLINICAL TRIALS |
|
6/9/2003 |
| THE CASE FOR NATIONAL DNA IDENTIFICATION CARDS |
|
1/31/2003 |
| DEFINING A NEW ETHICAL STANDARD FOR HUMAN IN VITRO EMBRYOS IN THE CONTEXT OF STEM CELL RESEARCH |
|
12/10/2002 |
| REGULATING FUNCTIONAL FOODS: PRE- AND POST-MARKET STRATEGY |
|
11/25/2002 |
| GENETIC TESTING IN THE WORKPLACE: THE EMPLOYER’S COIN TOSS |
|
9/5/2002 |
| CUSTOMIZING CONCEPTION: A SURVEY OF PREIMPLANTATION GENETIC DIAGNOSIS AND THE RESULTING SOCIAL, ETHICAL, AND LEGAL DILEMMAS |
|
7/23/2002 |
| APPROPRIATE AIMS: SETTING BOUNDARIES FOR REPROGENETIC TECHNOLOGY |
|
7/17/2002 |
| EGREGIOUS ERROR OR ADMIRABLE ADVANCE: THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THAT ENABLES FED ERALLY FUNDED BASIC HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELL RESEARCH |
|
10/16/2001 |
| A RECONSIDERATION OF THE PHYSICIANS’ IMMUNITY STATUTE |
|
8/6/2001 |
| THE CLONE WARS: THE GROWING DEBATE OVER FEDERAL CLONING LEGISLATION |
|
6/20/2001 |
| WHERE THE WILD WIND BLOWS: GENETICALLY ALTERED SEED AND NEIGHBORING FARMERS |
|
5/3/2001 |
| THE FATE OF GENE PATENTS UNDER THE NEW UTILITY GUIDELINES |
|
2/28/2001 |
