Duke Law & Technology Review

By: Ben Quarmby Foes of the United States have demonstrated their ability to strike at the heart of this country. Fear of renewed attacks and a desire for greater national security have now prompted many to call for improvements in the national personal identification system. In particular, the possibility of a national identification card containing the carrier’s DNA information is being seriously considered. However, this raises difficult questions. Would such a card system, and the extraction of individuals’ DNA it entails, violate the 4th Amendment of the Constitution? This article will show that such a card system could in fact be found to be constitutional under the law of privacy as it stands today. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2003 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0002

By: Sina A. Muscati This iBrief discusses some of the social, ethical and legal considerations surrounding the use of unimplanted, in vitro embryos in stem cell research. It proposes that a new ethical standard be elucidated for these embryos. The iBrief gives an overview of two proposals for such a standard at opposite ends of the spectrum: treating the in vitro embryo as a legal person versus treating it as mere property. It argues against both approaches. The former can have undesirable social implications including undue interference with female reproductive autonomy, while the latter would objectify potential human life and reproductive potential. The iBrief proposes an intermediate approach that treats the embryo as a special entity. It warns against a model whereby the respect accorded to embryos is made dependent on the attainment of various qualitative or developmental criteria. The complexities surrounding human life, it argues, are too uncertain. What is certain is the embryo’s unique potential for human life, at any developmental stage. This, the iBrief proposes, should be the sole criterion for an embryo’s special status, a status that should be confined within constitutional limits. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0026

By: Dana Ziker As best we understand the government, its first argument runs along the following lines: that health claims lacking “significant scientific agreement” are inherently misleading because they have such an awesome impact on consumers as to make it virtually impossible for them to exercise any judgment at the point of sale. It would be as if the consumers were asked to buy something while hypnotized, and therefore they are bound to be misled. We think this contention is almost frivolous. Download Full Article (PDF) Cite: 2002 Duke L. & Tech. Rev. 0024