As science increasingly pushes forward the frontiers of knowledge and enables the development of technologies with the capacity to alter or destroy life, more and more calls are being heard to prohibit or regulate different areas of scientific research. As government responds to these demands, others warn that such regulations threaten to substantially impede the progress of science and the benefits it has bestowed on humankind while doing little to address the alleged harms from certain areas of research. Ever present (...) in these debates are arguments, concerns and assumptions that are voiced about the constitutional status of scientific research that have never been addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court - but promise to be in the near future. This Article contends that the surprisingly small amount of legal literature that has seriously addressed this important issue, has focused primarily on a narrow doctrinal debate that does not come close to resolving this complex problem. Employing several different modes of constitutional interpretation that are recognized today as being key to analyzing such important questions, including a more comprehensive and updated analysis of arguments from precedent and doctrine, this Article concludes that the most viable source of constitutional protection for scientific inquiry - the freedoms of speech and press guaranteed by the First Amendment - does not protect a right of research per se. However, those clauses do provide protection against restrictions on scientific expression, of both a direct and incidental nature, that frequently will provide a basis for the constitutional review of regulations alleged to unduly interfere with the research process. This analysis has important implications for the conduct of science in this country, and especially for the dominant portion of that research which is performed by scientists in private industry and other non-academic environments who do not ordinarily publish their findings. To the extent scientists and those that enable their research seek constitutional review of restrictions that allegedly interfere with it in an unreasonable manner, those claims will be correspondingly weakened or strengthened depending on the extent those parties can show their research efforts cohere with a central purpose of the First Amendment - to facilitate the free flow of ideas and information in society, including those of a scientific nature. (shrink)

The JSTOR Archive is a trusted digital repository providing for long-term preservation and access to leading academic journals and scholarly literature from around the world. The Archive is supported by libraries, scholarly societies, publishers, and foundations. It is an initiative of JSTOR, a not-for-profit organization with a mission to help the scholarly community take advantage of advances in technology. For more information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

"The Constitution is America's moral sail, and we must hold to the courage of the conviction that fills it, a conviction that we can all be equal citizens of a moral republic. That is a noble faith, and only optimism can redeem it." So writes Ronald Dworkin in the introduction to this characteristically robust and provocative new book in which Dworkin argues the fidelity to the constitution and to law demands that judges make contemporary judgements backed on political morality, and (...) why it encourages, or ought to encourage, an open display of the true grounds of judgement. The book discusses almost all of the great constitutional issues of the last two decades including abortion, affirmative action, pornography, race, homosexuality, euthanasia and free-speech and in doing so consistently offers a liberal view of the American Constitution. Dworkin's "moral reading" proposes that we all, judges, lawyers, citizens - interpret and apply the abstract language of the Constitution on the understanding that they invoke moral principles about political decency and justice. The "moral reading" therefore brings political morality into the heart of constitutional law. The various chapters of this book were first published seperately; now drawn together they bear all the hallmarks of Dworkin's legal and philosophical sophistication, his acute understanding of political process and his understanding of history. principles. (shrink)

Written by the world's best-known political and legal theorist, Freedom's Law: The Moral Reading of the American Constitution is a collection of essays that discuss almost all of the great constitutional issues of the last two decades, including abortion, euthanasia, capital punishment, homosexuality, pornography, and free speech. Professor Dworkin offers a consistently liberal view of the Constitution and argues that fidelity to it and to law demands that judges make moral judgments. He proposes that we all interpret the abstract language (...) of the Constitution by reference to moral principles about political decency and justice. His `moral reading therefore brings political morality into the heart of constitutional law. The various chapters of this book were originally published separately and are now drawn together to provide the reader with a rich, full-length treatment of Dworkin's general theory of law. (shrink)

Growing powers to manipulate human bodies and minds, not merely to heal disease but to satisfy desires, control deviant behavior, and to change human nature, make urgent questions of whether and how to regulate their use, not merely to assure safety and efficacy but also to safeguard our humanity. Oversight in democratic societies rightly belongs to the polity, not merely to self-appointed experts, scientific or ethical. Yet the task of governing the uses of dangerous knowledge is daunting, and there is (...) little evidence that we have the will or the wisdom to do it well. (shrink)