Selective Hearing: Communication Barriers in the Court System for Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Victims of Rape or Sexual Assault

On August 2, 2017, genetic engineering once again burst into the world. On that date, a team of international researchers published their latest experiment. These researchers used CRISPR/Cas9, the newest and most controversial genetic engineering technology, to edit a portion of a human embryo. They succeeded in removing a genetic heart disease, known as hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, from the embryo’s DNA. Not only was this the first time researchers created a genetically modified embryo in the United States, it was the first time researchers successfully edited the DNA of an embryo, ever. The experiment had groundbreaking consequences. This breakthrough sheds light not only on a future of cheap and safe genetic engineering, but also a future that morphs and modifies our conception of humanity. Even before CRISPR/Cas9, scientists and public figures warned against allowing such technology in fear of dystopia and the advent of “designer babies.” CRISPR/Cas9 has made that prospect a foreseeable reality. CRISPR/Cas9 capabilities in gene editing deserve a constitutional conversation. Because of the novel nature of this technology, scholarship concerning the legal implications and constitutional dimensions of gene editing is scarce. Now that the technology is at the doorstep of the United States, courts and legal scholars should

/pdf/a-cleaner-crispr-constitution-germline-editing-and-bajwz5c97k.pdf

Andrew Cunningham

Papers

A Cleaner, CRISPR Constitution: Germline Editing and Fundamental Rights