The First Amendment Right to Speak About the Human Genome.

Barbara J Evans
{"title":"The First Amendment Right to Speak About the Human Genome.","authors":"Barbara J Evans","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article explores whether laws that restrict the communication of genetic test results may, under certain circumstances, violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The focus is whether investigators have a right to return results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories in situations where a research participant requests the results and the investigator is willing to share them but is concerned that doing so may violate regulations under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 (\"CLIA\"). This article takes no position on whether investigators can be compelled to return results when they do not wish to do so. It examines only whether investigators may, not whether they must, return results to a willing research participant. The article: (1) surveys state and federal laws that block communication of genetic test results to research participants; (2) examines the historical use of speech restrictions as a tool for protecting human research subjects; (3) traces how First Amendment doctrine has evolved since the 1970s when foundations of modern research bioethics were laid; (4) inquires whether recent bioethical and policy debate has accorded due weight to the First Amendment. The article applies two common methods of legal analysis, textual and constitutional analysis. It concludes that the CLIA regulations, when properly construed, do not treat the return of results as an event that triggers CLIA's certification requirements. Moreover, there is a potential First Amendment problem in construing CLIA's research exception in a way that bans the return of results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories.</p>","PeriodicalId":90761,"journal":{"name":"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law","volume":"16 3","pages":"549-636"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4249692/pdf/nihms617653.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"University of Pennsylvania journal of constitutional law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article explores whether laws that restrict the communication of genetic test results may, under certain circumstances, violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The focus is whether investigators have a right to return results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories in situations where a research participant requests the results and the investigator is willing to share them but is concerned that doing so may violate regulations under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 ("CLIA"). This article takes no position on whether investigators can be compelled to return results when they do not wish to do so. It examines only whether investigators may, not whether they must, return results to a willing research participant. The article: (1) surveys state and federal laws that block communication of genetic test results to research participants; (2) examines the historical use of speech restrictions as a tool for protecting human research subjects; (3) traces how First Amendment doctrine has evolved since the 1970s when foundations of modern research bioethics were laid; (4) inquires whether recent bioethical and policy debate has accorded due weight to the First Amendment. The article applies two common methods of legal analysis, textual and constitutional analysis. It concludes that the CLIA regulations, when properly construed, do not treat the return of results as an event that triggers CLIA's certification requirements. Moreover, there is a potential First Amendment problem in construing CLIA's research exception in a way that bans the return of results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories.

谈论人类基因组的第一修正案权利。
本文探讨了限制基因检测结果交流的法律在某些情况下是否会违反美国宪法第一修正案。本文的重点是,当研究参与者要求研究者提供非 CLIA 认证实验室的检测结果,而研究者也愿意分享这些结果,但担心这样做可能会违反 1988 年《临床实验室改进修正案》("CLIA")的规定时,研究者是否有权退还这些结果。本文对研究者是否可以在其不愿意的情况下被迫返还结果不持立场。本文仅探讨研究者是否可以而非必须向自愿的研究参与者返还结果。这篇文章(1) 调查了阻止向研究参与者告知基因检测结果的州法律和联邦法律;(2) 研究了历史上使用言论限制作为保护人类研究对象的工具的情况;(3) 追溯了自 20 世纪 70 年代奠定现代研究生物伦理学基础以来,第一修正案理论是如何演变的;(4) 探究了近期的生物伦理学和政策辩论是否对第一修正案给予了应有的重视。文章运用了两种常用的法律分析方法,即文本分析和宪法分析。文章得出结论认为,CLIA 法规经适当解释后,并未将结果返回视为触发 CLIA 认证要求的事件。此外,以禁止非 CLIA 认证实验室退回结果的方式解释 CLIA 的研究例外情况可能会产生第一修正案问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信