Legal Issues

Date In addressing this scenario it is interesting to note that a patent was requested for the new technology versus a license, grant, or fellowship to continue experimental research in genetics. A patent is simply used to protect first rights to a new design or invention (USPTO.gov, 2010). The true intent of the doctor would be in question at this point. However, the case also points out that the doctor plans to continue research regardless of obtaining a patent license or not. Which also is an intriguing response since it shows the spirit of a true research scientist in this case in the field of medical science.

Discussion Questions
Why is the doctors activity a deviant act
A deviant act is defined as straying or moving away from what is considered normal in a society (Keel, 2007). Is this a deviant act I would not hasten to agree. All engineers, scientists, and inventors initially are attempting to invent, design, produce something new that did not before exists. Their main objective is to push beyond the boundaries of existing parameters in the area they are pursuing. That is the purpose of obtaining a patent, to protect that new technology, invention, or design. If they did not continue their research, nothing would ever be invented or available to patent. However, being this is the medical field and the use of technology to create a new living organism. There is a slight marrying of two otherwise non-threatening fields. It appears the true question here is who has the authority to regulate the type of research a doctor does in the field of genetics Another question is can technology be used to create life If these are the real questions then a number of deviant and moral theories come into play.

Returning to this scenario however, legally the request of this doctor to use advanced technologies would not be a problem until the doctor decides to involve humans or animals in testing her research. Authorization to conduct research in genetics is under the oversight of the Institutional  Review Board for Health Sciences Research (IRB-HSR, 2008). If this doctor has applied IRB approval then her research would not be considered deviant behavior up to the time of testing. At this point it may be necessary to gain more approvals from the IRB. Therefore this would not be a deviant act prior to this next step since it is simply research using advanced technology. At the point of testing on living beings, it may be considered a deviant act if such steps are considered outside the norm based on IRB guidelines.

Is the doctors research an abuse of technologyReturning to the opening statements, the combining of advanced technology and genetics could be overstepping the boundaries of morality, ethics, and even security of personal information. Depending on the types of organisms being developed or tested upon, there could be considerations as to the rights of these organisms to live, as in the case of them being human embryos taken from donors. To answer the question using new technology is not considered abuse unless it goes into a deviant status or moves away from the norms of society. As in affecting the life of a living being. At this point the technology could become a co-conspirator.

Does such research have any victims
In the scenario there are no victims in conducting the research by using the technology.
The question of victim would be addressed once the doctor has achieved her objective and created an organism. It could then be argued that the organism is a victim of her research. The technology could be considered a co-conspirator if it results in a crime. A crime is any offense of a public law.

When the doctor starts the testing on living beings, again they could be considered victims as the effects of introducing genetic changes could cause adverse reactions that are beyond the doctors control to reverse. At this point the IRB would most likely step in to monitor the research and ensure proper consent and licensing channels are being followed (IRB-HSR, 2008).

Some of the general guidelines and protocol expected for a doctor in researching genetics
especially when it comes to genetic testing on a human subject to avoid victimization
are as follows (IRB-HSR, 2008). The genetic laboratory analysis on the subjects being
studied must be reported. Also a description of each test and its purpose. The expected
information to be gained from testing.  The types of organisms are being designed and
why. When testing, determining if this genetic data be tied to the subject.

What are the known consequences that may affect the insurability, employment or social
status of the subject. Personal security and identity disclosures will need to be addressed.

How will this information be transferred to the test subjects genetic makeup. What types
of information will be shared with the test subject. If adverse reactions occur, who is
liable, what recourse or rights does the test subject have for example. What type of
consents must be signed off by the test subject. Who owns the genetic product once
introduced to the subject is it still the property of the doctor or does the genetic product
now belong to the test host. Lastly, disclosure of the resulting research and areas of
confidentiality (IRB-HSR, 2008).

These are just some of the required legalities for the IRB to approve such research as
prescribed by this doctor in ensuring compliance against a violation or victimization while conducting genetic research and testing.