Penn Undergraduate Law Journal
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs
  • Home
  • About
    • Mission
    • Masthead
    • Faculty Advisory Board
    • Partner Journals
    • Sponsors
  • Submissions
  • Full Issues
  • The Roundtable
    • Pre-Law Corner
  • Events
  • Contact
    • Contact
    • Apply
    • FAQs

The Roundtable


Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.


INTERESTED IN wRITING FOR tHE rOUNDTABLE?

A Disconnect: Science and the Supreme Court 

7/10/2015

1 Comment

 
Picture
By Rachel Pomerantz

Rachel Pomerantz is a rising freshman at the University of Pennsylvania.

Monumental judicial decisions aside, perhaps the most entertaining news coming out of the final days of the Supreme Court’s session was the annual spectacle of the running of the interns. [1] The Supreme Court does not allow audio recording while the justices read their opinions, so even though the decisions are eventually posted online, the quickest way for networks to break the news is to have their interns race paper copies of the opinions from the Supreme Court’s press office to the area where the networks are allowed to broadcast. While this event does result in some delightful pictures, it is also indicative of a larger problem in the Supreme Court: its struggle to keep up with the rapidly evolving scientific understanding of the world and technological advancements.

Now, to be clear, it is not the Supreme Court’s job to determine what is or is not scientific fact. In civil and criminal matters, juries answer disputed questions of fact, such as whether or not a suspect was present at the time of the crime, while judges and bodies such as the Supreme Court resolve questions of law, such as whether or not a police search of a suspect’s car is constitutional. Even though theoretically the Supreme Court’s only purview is the Constitution and other laws, it needs a thorough understanding of the scientific and technical issues at hand to accurately interpret those laws.
This has always been a burden placed on the Supreme Court, but recent rulings suggest that the justices have only partially absorbed the requisite body of knowledge.

The Court’s dearth of information is neatly summed up in Justice Antonin Scalia’s assertion at his granddaughter’s high school graduation that “humanity has been around for at least some 5,000 years or so.” [2] In case there is any confusion, humans were around over 6 million years ago, and even by more conservative standards, Homo sapiens appeared around 200,000 years ago. Of course, a factual error during a high school graduation speech is not the core of this problem, though the degree of inaccuracy is not that far off from those in actual Supreme Court cases.

In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled against Myriad Genetics, which had discovered the “precise location and sequence of” two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, “mutations of which can substantially increase the risks of breast and ovarian cancer.” [3] The Court’s 9-0 decision found that naturally occurring segments of DNA are not eligible for patents because they violate the Patent Act’s stipulation that eligible material cannot be “products of nature.” However, the court also found that complementary DNA (cDNA), a derivative of DNA that can be used to grow in bacteria, is patentable.

This case was important, not only due to its immediate consequences for those hoping to run tests related to the BRCA genes but also for the broader field of genetics, which impacts everything from medical treatments to our understanding of human behavior. For such a significant undertaking, it is worrisome that the Court displayed a “sketchy understanding of molecular biology.” [4] This led to the judicial opinion trying to draw technical distinctions between DNA and cDNA while missing the larger picture that the information that these types of DNA convey should be the primary focus.

A more recent case literally put lives at stake. On June 29th, the Court announced a 5-4 decision in favor of Oklahoma and its use of midazolam as the first part of a three-drug cocktail in a death penalty execution by lethal injection. Midazolam is a sedative that Oklahoma uses as a substitute for barbiturates such as thiopental and pentobarbital, since drug manufacturers will no longer sell the barbiturates to states. [5] The purpose of midazolam is to make the person unable to feel the pain of the next two drugs, which actually paralyze and then kill him or her.

In the majority opinion, Justice Alito wrote, “Testimony from both sides supports the District Court’s conclusion that midazolam can render a person insensate to pain.” [6] While midazolam can act as an anesthetic, it is markedly different than the barbiturates that it is supposed to replace, which calls into question the constitutionality of the drug. A neutral amicus brief filed by sixteen professors of pharmacology explains that while the barbiturates are capable of inducing a deep unconscious state, midazolam will not work for long enough, regardless of the dose, or produce a deep enough depression of the central nervous system to be an effective first drug in the lethal injection cocktail. [7] There is a huge difference between a drug being able to accomplish the generic task of stopping someone from feeling pain and rendering that person unable to feel the pain of two lethal injection drugs. While this distinction should play into the Court’s determination of whether or not the use of midazolam is cruel and unusual under the 8th Amendment, it apparently did not. As a result, a drug that experts in the field believe will fail to stop someone from feeling excruciating pain will now continue to be used in lethal injections.

Unfortunately, there is no simple fix to this issue. Still, it deserves acknowledgment and at least the beginning of a public discussion about the Supreme Court’s disconnections from science and technology that are far more serious than its insistence that network interns act as carrier pigeons.



[1] Dooley, Erin. "Running of the Interns: This Is What a Mad Dash Outside the Supreme Court Looks Like." ABC News. June 25, 2015. Accessed June 26, 2015. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/running-interns-mad-dash-supreme-court/story?id=32024853.
[2] King, Barbara. "Justice Scalia And The Age Of Humanity." NPR. June 19, 2015. Accessed June 28, 2015. http://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2015/06/19/415701069/justice-scalia-and-the-age-of-humanity.
[3] Liptak, Adam. "Justices, 9-0, Bar Patenting Human Genes." The New York Times. June 13, 2013. Accessed June 28, 2015. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/14/us/supreme-court-rules-human-genes-may-not-be-patented.html?_r=0.
[4] Prywes, Noam. "The Supreme Court Has a Disturbingly Sketchy Understanding of Molecular Biology." Slate Magazine. June 14, 2013. Accessed June 24, 2015. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/06/supreme_court_patent_case_science_the_justices_misunderstand_molecular_biology.htm
[5] Cara, Ed. "Why Do Doctors Want Midazolam To Stop Being Used For Lethal Injections?" Medical Daily. June 29, 2015. Accessed June 29, 2015. http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-midazolam-why-are-doctors-worried-lethal-injection-drug-wont-sedate-death-row-340468.
[6] Caspari, Sarah. "Supreme Court Allows Controversial Lethal Injection Drug." The Christian Science Monitor. June 29, 2015. Accessed June 29, 2015. http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/USA-Update/2015/0629/Supreme-Court-allows-controversial-lethal-injection-drug-video.
[7] Cara, Ed. "Why Do Doctors Want Midazolam To Stop Being Used For Lethal Injections?" Medical Daily. June 29, 2015. Accessed June 29, 2015. http://www.medicaldaily.com/what-midazolam-why-are-doctors-worried-lethal-injection-drug-wont-sedate-death-row-340468.

Photo Credit: Flickr User Randi Duero 

The opinions and views expressed through this publication are the opinions of the designated authors and do not reflect the opinions or views of the Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, our staff, or our clients.


1 Comment
Aunt Joanne, Uncle Eddie, TJ, Julia and Taz
7/12/2015 11:07:41 am

Rachael......Congratulations and Mazel Tov on your amazing achievement!!!!!!
I can't wait to vote for you for President of the United States.
Have a great summer.....Love you

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.


    Categories

    All
    Akshita Tiwary
    Alana Bess
    Alana Mattei
    Albert Manfredi
    Alexander Saeedy
    Alexandra Aaron
    Alexandra Kanan
    Alice Giannini
    Alicia Augustin
    Alicia Kysar
    Ally Kalishman
    Ally Margolis
    Alya Abbassian
    Anika Prakash
    Anna Schwartz
    Ashley Kim
    Astha Pandey
    Audrey Pan
    Benjamin Ng'aru
    Brónach Rafferty
    Bryce Klehm
    Cary Holley
    Christina Gunzenhauser
    Christine Mitchell
    Christopher Brown
    Clarissa Alvarez
    Cole Borlee
    Connor Gallagher
    Dan Spinelli
    Dan Zhang
    David Katz
    Davis Berlind
    Derek Willie
    Dhilan Lavu
    Edgar Palomino
    Edna Simbi
    Emma Davies
    Esther Lee
    Evelyn Bond
    Filzah Belal
    Frank Geng
    Gabriel Maliha
    Georgia Ray
    Graham Reynolds
    Habib Olapade
    Hailie Goldsmith
    Haley Son
    Harshit Rai
    Henry Lininger
    Hetal Doshi
    Iris Zhang
    Irtaza Ali
    Isabela Baghdady
    Ishita Chakrabarty
    Jack Burgess
    Jessica "Lulu" Lipman
    Joe Anderson
    Jonathan Lahdo
    Jonathan Stahl
    Joseph Squillaro
    Justin Yang
    Kaitlyn Rentala
    Kanishka Bhukya
    Katie Kaufman
    Kelly Liang
    Keshav Sharma
    Ketaki Gujar
    Lauren Pak
    Lavi Ben Dor
    Libby Rozbruch
    Lindsey Li
    Luis Bravo
    Lyndsey Reeve
    Madeline Decker
    Maja Cvjetanovic
    Maliha Farrooz
    Marco DiLeonardo
    Margaret Lu
    Matthew Caulfield
    Michael Keshmiri
    Mina Nur Basmaci
    Muskan Mumtaz
    Natalie Peelish
    Natasha Darlington
    Natasha Kang
    Nayeon Kim
    Nicholas Parsons
    Nicholas Williams
    Nicole Greenstein
    Nihal Sahu
    Omar Khoury
    Owen Voutsinas Klose
    Owen Voutsinas-Klose
    Pheby Liu
    Rachel Bina
    Rachel Gu
    Rachel Pomerantz
    Rebecca Heilweil
    Regina Salmons
    Sajan Srivastava
    Sandeep Suresh
    Sanjay Dureseti
    Sarah Simon
    Saranya Das Sharma
    Saranya Sharma
    Sasha Bryski
    Saxon Bryant
    Sean Foley
    Sebastian Bates
    Serena Camici
    Shahana Banerjee
    Shannon Alvino
    Shiven Sharma
    Siddarth Sethi
    Sneha Parthasarathy
    Sneha Sharma
    Sophie Lovering
    Steven Jacobson
    Suaida Firoze
    Suprateek Neogi
    Takane Shoji
    Tanner Bowen
    Taryn MacKinney
    Thomas Cribbins
    Todd Costa
    Tyler Larkworthy
    Vatsal Patel
    Vikram Balasubramanian
    Vishwajeet Deshmukh
    Wajeeha Ahmad
    Yeonhwa Lee

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    September 2022
    June 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    November 2014
    October 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013
    September 2013

Picture
Picture
​