Who is the parent in cloning?

In July 1996, a sheep named Dolly was born in Scotland. What makes Dolly's birth noteworthy is that she is the result of the first successful cloning attempt using the nucleus of an adult cell. The technique that led to Dolly's birth involved transferring the nucleus of a mammary cell from an adult sheep to the enucleated egg cell of an unrelated sheep with gestation occurring in a third sheep. The possibility of applying this technique to human reproduction raised concerns worldwide with several countries moving for an immediate bans on human cloning. In the United States, President Clinton requested that the National Bioethics Advisory Commission ("NBAC"), a multidisciplinary group composed of scientists, lawyers, educators, theologians, and ethicists study the implications of cloning and issue recommendations. The Commission consulted other scientists, ethicists, theologians, lawyers, and citizens with interests in this advancing technology and concluded that, "at this time it is morally unacceptable for anyone in the public or private sector, whether in a research or clinical setting, to attempt to create a child using somatic cell nuclear transfer cloning." This Article was included in a larger work prepared at the request of, and submitted to the Commission by, law professor Lori B. Andrews. Cloning through nuclear transfer will change the way we create and define families. This Article explores how existing law relating to parentage, surrogacy, egg donation, and artificial insemination may apply in the cloning context to clarify the parent-child relationship established through cloning.     

Who is the Author of Halakhah?

The Jewish Law (Halakahh) is probably the older legal system working in our time. It is established on a hierarchy of different texts. The oldest and more authoritative is the Torah (the five books of Moshe), then come the Mishnah, the Talmud, the compilation as Maimonide’s Mishne Torah and Caro’s Shulchan Arukh, then the responsa of the rabbis. While the authorship of the later texts is more or less clear, the one of the Torah is highly problematic, also in the self-understanding of Jewish hermeneutics. This question is discussed in the present paper not from a philological-historical point of view, but from a semiotic one, trying to understand what devices and regimes of enunciation are enacted by the text in order to establish its semiotic-juridical effects. A special double enunciation frame is proposed as the mark of the legislative power in the text, in correlation with another textual device, a sort of divine “signature”. The further evolution of the authorship of the Jewish Law is discussed in its relation with the question of the autonomy in the interpretation of the sacred text.     

Who shall lead: is there a future for population health?

Despite renewed interest in population health concerns, elevation of this field in policy considerations faces many challenges. At present there is much concern about disparities and meeting improved population health objectives, but interest waxes and wanes with scientific developments and especially with dominant political alignments and ideologies. If the field of population health is to have sustained policy influence, it requires a persistent constituency, a strong organizational base both within and outside of government, and academic respectability. Population health faces many issues in seeking to become legitimized as both a unique field of study and as a significant force in public policy. Among these are a clear definition of the boundaries of the field, a continuing flow of resources for development, and attractive career structures for new recruits and future leaders.     

Who is Presumed Innocent of What by Whom?

The article analyses the components of the presumption of innocence and tries to clarify some of the conceptual and logical difficulties surrounding the notion of ‘innocence’ and the structure of legal presumptions. It is argued that all conceivable literal interpretations of the maxim make little or no sense, and that the presumptions form is, as such, devoid of original content: presumptions do not explain nor justify anything but are auxiliary norms which refer to the legal consequences spelled out in other norms. Therefore, the presumption of innocence can be used to express any kind of requirement and standard for the criminal process and the treatment of suspect citizens only in a tautological, albeit rhetorically forceful, way. This instrumental use of the presumption of innocence is theoretically without merit but can be practically beneficial as long as there is no developed system of fundamental rights and protections of individual freedoms in a given legal order. Finally, a functional understanding of the presumption of innocence is proposed which gives it an original, though limited field of application as a guarantee of the procedure itself, in particular of the openness of the outcome.     

Female owners versus female managers: Who is better at introducing innovations?

The Journal of Technology Transfer - This paper uses firm-level survey for more than 100 countries to examine whether firms’ female managers or female owners were better at bringing...     

People We Hire as Executioners: Who Are They? Who Are We?

Christopher Bennett has introduced a new inquiry into the capital punishment debate by looking at whether the role of executioner is one in which it is possible and proper to take pride. He argues that this will depend on the kind of justifications that an executioner can offer in defense of his role and takes as an example the English executioner Albert Pierrepoint as portrayed in the film Pierrepoint: The Last Hangman. Bennett claims that none of the justifications available to Pierrepoint are adequate, that his pride in his role was unjustified, and that this gives us reason to doubt those justifications for capital punishment. I am unpersuaded by Bennett’s arguments and give reasons for thinking that the role of executioner can under certain circumstances be an honorable vocation in which one may legitimately take pride.     

The legitimacy of vaccine critics: what is left after the autism hypothesis?

The last dozen years have seen a massive transnational mobilization of the legal, political, and research communities in response to the worrisome hypothesis that vaccines could have a link to childhood autism and other developmental conditions. Vaccine critics, some already organized and some composed of newly galvanized parents, developed an alternate world of internally legitimating studies, blogs, conferences, publications, and spokespeople to affirm a connection. When the consensus turned against the autism hypothesis, these structures and a committed membership base unified all the organizations in resistance. This article examines the relationship between mobilization based on science and the trajectory of legitimacy vaccine criticism has taken. I argue that vaccine critics have run up against the limits of legitimate scientific argument and are now in the curious position of both doubling down on credibility-depleting stances and innovating new and possibly resonant formulations.     

Who is Afraid of Punishing Aggressors?: On the Double-Track Approach to International Criminal Justice

Since 1947, no alleged crime of aggression has ever been prosecuted,in spite of the many instances in which states have committedacts of aggression with the Security Council sometimes deemingan act to be such. A dual system of international criminal justicehas taken shape slowly. Crimes consisting of serious violationsof jus in bello, that is, war crimes, usually considered lessegregious than the crime of aggression, have been severely prosecutedand punished, in particular by the International Criminal Tribunalfor the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Yet, the ‘supreme internationalcrime’ — aggressive war — mostly committedby political and military authorities of major powers, has beenignored and its perpetrators still occupy the summit of internationalpower undisturbed.     

Strasbourg,the House of Lords or Elected Politicians: Who decides about rights after Re P?

In Re P , the House of Lords decided that art 14 of the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987 which prohibited unmarried couples from being eligible to adopt, violated articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Apart from its significance for adoption law and anti-discrimination law, Re P is also important in understanding the constitutional role of the courts under the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). Re P recognizes that if Strasbourg has determined that an issue falls within states' margin of appreciation, this does not prevent municipal courts from enforcing those rights. This comment will discuss the meaning and scope of the courts' obligation under section 2 of the HRA, the status of the rights protected by the HRA and the appropriate role of the courts in a rights dispute which is subject to moral, social, religious or political controversy.     

Motorcyclists’ fatalities in multiple crashes: Who is responsible for death? (three cases)

In Italy in 2007, 26% of two-wheeled motor vehicle injury/fatalities concerned motorcyclists. However, it is rare (4%) that a motorcycle (MC) crashes with two other road users and even more exceptional is a crash between a MC and three other vehicles. In general, in MC–vehicle crashes, the vehicle driver is at fault in more than 50% of the cases and the motorcyclist in 37%. The study concerns three MC lethal road accidents in which the culpability of the motorcyclist's death was questioned by the prosecutor because it was supposed that one or more vehicles ran over the motorcyclist after a fall. The crucial question in these three cases was if it was possible to assign injuries to a specific crash-aetiology and to assign/exclude the responsibility of motorcyclist's death to a defined subject (motorcyclist himself and/or car drivers) after a crash-dynamics study made by an engineer consultant or by the police authority. Case (1) A 56-year-old motorcyclist on a highway had a front–rear end collision with a car that suddenly stopped; he was therefore projected against a concrete traffic island, thrown on the soil and run over by another car. Case (2) A 29-year-old motorcyclist on the East ring road fell on the soil, perhaps by a supposed front–rear end contact with a car and was run over by two cars in rapid succession. Case (3) A 34-year-old motorcyclist on the North ring road fell suddenly on the soil for unknown reasons; during first aid, the medical team around him was run over by the ambulance which pushed after a rear-end collision with a car. A stepwise analysis of the indicated crash dynamics and an evaluation of all the injuries revealed at autopsy, the study proposed, when possible, injury aetiology for each case and the related responsibility assignments and exclusions.