Medicolegal Update

Boston Globe, March 15, 1978, at 1, col. 4

Boston Globe, April 3, 1978, at 20, col. 1; H.R. 11192, 95th Cong., 2d Sess., sec. 106(6), 1978.

U.S. Const. art. I, §8.

U.S. Const. art. I, §8, ci.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).

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).

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 treat 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.

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.

Compagnie Francaise De Navigation A Vapeur v. Louisiana State Board of Health, 186 U.S. 380 (1902) [hereinafter cited as Compagnie Francaise].

Compagnie Francaise, 186 U.S. 380 (1902).

Compagnie Francaise, 186 U.S. 380, 392 (1902).

Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U.S. 313 (1890).

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).

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).

42 U.S.C. §264, 42 C.F.R. §72.25.

Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143 (8th Cir. 1971); aff'd per curiam, 405 U.S. 1035 (1972).

Northern States Power Co. v. Minnesota, 447 F. 2d 1143, 1145–47 (8th Cir, 1971).

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).

Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 380 F. Supp. 11; inj. dean. 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.

Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 380 F. Supp. 11, 55–56, 59–64 (1974).

Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 498 F. 2d 1073, 1084 (8th Cir. 1974).

Reserve Mining Co. v. Minnesota, 419 U.S. 802, 803 (1974).

Ethyl Corp. v. E.P.A., No. 73–2205, D.C. Cir., Jan. 28, 1975.

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).