Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T10:36:51.440Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Local Control of Recombinant DNA Research — Only for Accidents?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Ken Christensen
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Proposed federal legislation concerning recombinant DNA research attempts to restrict the ability of local governments to regulate the research. In March of 1978, the House Commerce Committee approved a bill that would “bar states and localities from setting their own standards over gene transplant technology.” Two weeks later, the House of Representatives Science, Research, and Technology Subcommittee approved a bill which would permit a state to regulate such researchonly when it is “necessary” to protect local health. The “necessary” standard usually requires strict proof that a regulated substance or activity will cause significant harm to public health. Under this standard a locality might have to wait for significant harm to occur before it could adopt regulations that are stricter than federal requirements.

This anomaly presents the basic question of this article: Who should decide whether recombinant DNA research is a health hazard — the local or the federal government? This article will utilize a legal approach to answer the question, analyzing and weighing the issues presented by pertinent cases.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 6 , Issue 2 , Summer 1978 , pp. 4 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1978

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Boston Globe, March 15, 1978, at 1, col. 4Google Scholar
Boston Globe, April 3, 1978, at 20, col. 1; H.R. 11192, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., sec. 106(6), 1978.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. art. I, §8.Google Scholar
U.S. Const. art. I, §8, cl.2; see, e.g., 42 U.S.C. 264 (Surgeon General authorized to make and enforce regulations necessary to prevent spread of communicable disease from one State into any other State).Google Scholar
See United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 118 (1941) (power of Congress over interstate commerce extends to intrastate activities which affect interstate commerce).Google Scholar
Virtually any research facility capable of performing recombinant DNA investigations must utilize interstate commerce to bring in personnel, money, and materials, and ship out information and research results. State control over such activity is predicated upon their potential threat to local health or welfare. While some have contended that such state regulation constitutes an infringement upon First Amendment privileges, DNA research regulations are health-related in both purpose and effect. They are strictly related to conduct which potentially threatens public safety, and do not impermissibly limit a researcher's scientific inquiry. See Robertson, , The Scientist's Right to Research: A Constitutional Analysis, U. So. Cal. L. Rev., Fall 1978.Google Scholar
Boston Globe, March 26, 1978, at 48, col. 1; and April 21, 1978, at 40, col. 5. See also, Harvard Gazette, April 21, 1978, pp. 10–14.Google Scholar
Compagnie Francaise De Navigation A Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) [hereinafter cited as Compagnie Francaise].Google Scholar
Compagnie Francaise, 186 U.S. 380 (1902).Google Scholar
Compagnie Francaise, 186 U.S. 380, 392 (1902).Google Scholar
Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890).Google Scholar
Dean Milk Co. v. City of Madison, 340 U.S. 349, 356 (1951) (where reasonable non-discriminatory alternatives exist, municipal ordinance which discriminates against extra-state commerce, even if intended to protect health and safety of citizens, is violative of commerce clause).Google Scholar
For a review of different local attempts to regulate recombinant DNA research, see Wade, , Gene Splicing: At Grass Roots Level A Hundred Flowers Bloom, 195 Science 558 (1977).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 U.S.C. §264, 42 C.F.R. §72.25.Google Scholar
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1971); aff'd per curiam, 405 U.S. 1035 (1972).Google Scholar
Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143, 1145–47 (8th Cir, 1971).Google Scholar
For a brief discussion of the political concerns over the growth of federally funded research since World War II, See Graves American Intergovernmental Relations, 864–87 (1964).Google Scholar
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 380 F. Supp. 11; inj. den. 498 F. 2d 1073 (8th Cir.); stay den., 419 U.S. 802 (1974); Ethyl Corp. v. E.P.A., No. 73–2205, D.C. Cir., Jan. 28, 1975.Google Scholar
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 380 F. Supp. 11, 55–56, 59–64 (1974).Google Scholar
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 498 F. 2d 1073, 1084 (8th Cir. 1974).Google Scholar
Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 419 U.S. 802, 803 (1974).Google Scholar
Ethyl Corp. v. E.P.A., No. 73–2205, D.C. Cir., Jan. 28, 1975.Google Scholar
See Note, Pre-emption As a Preferential Ground: A New Canon of Construction, 12 Stan. L. Rev. 208 (1959); Gunther, G. Dowling, N.T., Constitutional Law 617 (8th ed. 1970).Google Scholar