Regulating Scientific Inquiry.
INTRODUCTION
This article will explore the question as to whether or not there is a constitutional right to free scientific inquiry in the United States and if so: 1) is it a fundamental right resisting regulation by government; and 2) regardless of how that right is characterized by the courts, under what circumstances may it be curtailed?
In the United States of America during the past two decades, not only have laws have been passed that restricted federal funding for certain types of scientific research, but bills have been proposed at the national level and laws passed at the state level that attempted to curtail research or experimentation in certain controversial scientific fields, such as human reproductive cloning and stem cell research. Attempts have been made to restrict or suppress other activity relating to code breaking algorithms, bomb building (nuclear or other) and the creation of antibiotic or immune resistant natural or artificial pathogens1. Concern has also been expressed, both at scientific conferences as well as in popular films and literature, about the effects of untrammeled research in the areas of nanobots and artificial intelligent agents.2 [remainder of article omitted]
CONCLUSION
This paper argued that freedom of scientific inquiry was related both to the Constitutional right of freedom of speech and to freedom of religion. Certain communicative activity was protected under the doctrine of academic freedom, as it applied to individuals or to institutions, but although modern science is interactive both in theory and in practice, not all aspects of scientific inquiry can be easily subsumed under the concept of communication of ideas. In circumstances where the doctrine of academic freedom seems inapplicable and where actions connected with scientific activity cannot very directly be linked to protected communication, particularly with respect to experimentation, this paper argues that such action is inextricably linked to the pursuit of knowledge and freedom of thought, the protection of which is linked to some of the both the truth seeking and autonomy ideals and principles underpinning the First Amendment. In particular this paper argues that scientific experimentation is akin to the freedom to practice one’s own religion, which is separately protected under the first amendment, especially as informed by substantive due process analysis of claims of unexpressed liberties under the fourteenth amendment. Like other protected rights, this right of scientific experimentation is not absolute. Nevertheless, there is a standard of review articulated by the Supreme Court on the balance between permitting individual religious practice and pursuing the legitimate needs of society that can be usefully adapted in matters pertaining to the regulation of scientific experimentation.
Where there is no immediate threat of harm to other individuals or to the security or health of the broader general community, freedom scientific experimentation should be unconstrained by moral or offensiveness considerations enforced by criminal statutes or regulations of government. To the degree that other welfare desiderata suggest restrictions of individual autonomous actions, then strict scrutiny should be applied beyond the mere requirement that these restrictions are general in nature rather than directed at the type of experimentation.
Copyright 2010 Alan S. Ziegler