Podcast appearances and mentions of James A Attwood

Since Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, state courts and legislatures have grappled with its legal and policy implications, especially as they pertain to abortion and IVF. In LePage v. Center for Reproductive Medicine, for example, the Alabama Supreme Court held that frozen embryos should be regarded as “children” for the purposes of Alabama’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act. And in Planned Parenthood v. Mayes, the Arizona Supreme Court upheld an 1864 law that bans all abortions in the state except those deemed necessary to save the life of the mother.These recent rulings have been highly criticized by commentators on both sides of the aisle, and they raise important questions about the legal status of IVF and abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. For example, in both cases, the courts interpreted the law in accordance with textualist principles, and the state legislatures swiftly enacted measures to address the state supreme court decisions afterward. Are these cases therefore examples of the proper allocation of powers, where the judiciary says what the law is, and the legislature is tasked with implementing policy? With the question of abortion being returned to the legislative process post-Dobbs, do these cases invite more thoughtful dialogue about abortion and IVF policy, or do they sow further acrimony? Were these cases rightly decided? Can we articulate a legal standard vis-à-vis abortion and IVF that is both thoughtful and conceptually consistent? In what ways do abortion and IVF interact, both philosophically and legally? Please join us as we discuss these issues and others with some of the leading scholars in this space.Featuring:Prof. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law & Deputy Dean; Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics; Harvard University Law SchoolProf. O. Carter Snead, Director, de Nicola Center for Ethics and Culture and Professor of Law, University of Notre Dame Law School(Moderator) Jennie Bradley Lichter, Deputy General Counsel, The Catholic University of America

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

In this episode we head into the future to learn about a controversial technology that could change the face of reproduction. Researchers are developing a technology called in vitro gametogenesis (IVG), which can reprogram human cells–like a skin cell–to become eggs or sperm. With IVG we could reach a future where anyone could produce either eggs or sperm, in potentially limitless quantities. This could open up a whole world of new options for how humans reproduce. Startup companies are working to bring this science to the public in ways that bypass the usual research routes for new reproductive technologies. When would it be ethically acceptable to try IVG to make a baby? How can we ensure the technology will be used ethically, including how it should be regulated?  Show Notes: This episode features interviews with: Amander Clark, Professor, Molecular, Cell and Developmental Biology,  University of California, Los Angeles I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law School In 2023, the National Academies held a meeting to discuss the scientific, ethical, and legal implications of IVG. You can watch this meeting and learn more about IVG here.  To learn more about the ethics issues raised in this episode, visit the Berman Institute's episode guide.  The Greenwall Foundation seeks to make bioethics integral to decisions in health care, policy, and research. Learn more at greenwall.org.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The 2021 National Lawyers Convention took place November 11-13, 2021 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. The topic of the conference was "Public and Private Power: Preserving Freedom or Preventing Harm?". The final showcase panel explored "Law, Science, and Public Policy.""Science" as a concept enjoys the trust of the public. Indeed, some make "I trust the Science" a centerpiece for their appeal to the voting public, and this evidently has had some success. By contrast, others in the scientific community stress that scientific methods explicitly exclude "trust". The noted physicist Richard Feynman remarked that "science begins with the distrust of experts". Instead, process in science relies on an "ethic" of impersonal objectivity, respect for data, self-questioning, a willingness to stand corrected, and open discourse. Its methods involve constructing models for reality that best fit objective assessments of available data, followed by a search for data that might contradict those models. Scientists are therefore (supposed to be) anti-advocates, willing to concede when their models were wrong; the most successful scientists even enjoy conceding, as it means that knowledge has advanced.However, scientists, being human, are inherently imperfect practitioners of scientific methods. Historians document many examples where scientists have advocated their own (wrong) ideas over others simply because they were their own, obstructed opposing points of view, and otherwise behaved as 'politically' as in any other field of human endeavor. However, the process and its "ethic" has historically allowed models for reality to improve, and those improvements are known by the technology that has emerged based on them. As one example without science, improvements in civilized transport advanced haltingly over millennia. With science, citizens may now buy tickets to suborbital space flight.Consequently, public policy decision-makers often rely on science (or at least they say they do) when making laws and regulations in many areas, including economics, criminal law, environmental regulations technology and bioethics. However, the law is in many ways anti-science. Scientists, practicing their methods, commit to seeking out and weighting more heavily data that oppose their theory; they are (supposed to be) anti-advocates. In contrast, clients hire lawyers expressly to be their advocates.This creates a natural tension when scientists are called upon to advise public policy. Many who call themselves "scientists" are willing to participate as advocates in public policy. This has been shown clearly in fields like anthropogenic climate change, economic stimulus packages and, most recently, in the management of the COVID-19 pandemic. How should we as lawyers assure that science is used properly in the public space, to make policy conform to reality, and not for political goals?The panel will address two areas with this as background: The FDA, CDC, and public health regulation. The COVID pandemic uncovered many problems in the way medical science is used to manage public health crises. with public policy.Should scientific presentations be paternalistic? Is it ever justified to withhold, distort, or misrepresent science for fear that the truth will do damage by being misunderstood or misused? Featuring:Dr. Steven Benner, Distinguished Fellow, The Westheimer Institute at the Foundation for Applied State Room Molecular EvolutionProf. I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law, Deputy Dean, and Faculty Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics, Harvard Law SchoolMs. Christina Sandefur, Executive Vice President, Goldwater InstituteModerator: Hon. Kenneth Lee, U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Professor Glenn Cohen is a James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law at Harvard University. Professor Cohen is one of the world's leading experts on the intersection of bioethics and the law and is the author of more than 150 articles appearing in such places as New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, The American Journal of Bioethics, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. He also leads the Project on Precision Medicine, Artificial Intelligence, and the Law, which is part of the larger Centre for Advanced Studies in Biomedical Innovation Law. In this interview, we discuss a variety of legal and ethical topics like data privacy, liability and medical errors, and AI use disclosure in patient settings. Professor Cohen provides many examples of how AI is changing the face of our society from driverless cars to Target knowing us better than our own family members! He also makes a few great literature and media recommendations: "Exhalation" by Ted Chiang, "The Paper Menagerie" by Ken Liu, "The Three-Body Problem" by Liu Cixin, and of course, the Netflix original, "Black Mirror." P.S. Follow professor Cohen on Twitter (@CohenProf) for more nuggets of wisdom on legal and ethical issues in artificial intelligence (and in many other healthcare sectors)! 1:30 Professor Cohen's Journey 3:17 Project on Precision Medicine (PMAIL) 5:46 "Case-based" approach 8:57 Who takes the blame? 11:20 Driverless cars and healthcare 12:33 Medical errors 13:08 Big data, HIPPA 16:30 Where are we going? 18:40 Bias in AI + Healthcare 20:00 Advice to your past self! 22:30 Vital interprofessional collaboration Interviewer: Madeline Ahern Producer: Melanie Bussan Art: Saurin Kantesaria @saorange314 - Instagram

I. Glenn Cohen, James A. Attwood and Leslie Williams Professor of Law and faculty director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology & Bioethics at Harvard Law School, delivers an interesting overview of the many and varied ethical issues that pertain to new and emerging technologies. Professor Cohen is a noted expert on the nexus of bioethics (often referred to as ‘medical ethics') and the law, inclusive of the health law. Cohen is also heavily involved in the education opportunities regarding the civil procedure. Cohen has spoken at countless legal, medical, and industry conferences at spots all across the globe. His celebrated work has been featuredin or covered by, numerous media outlets including PBS, ABC, NPR, CNN, MSNBC, The NewYork Times, Mother Jones, the New Republic, and many more. Cohen talks about his extensive background and training in law and medical ethics, as well as philosophy. Cohen's expertise covers a wide swath of subject matter, from artificial intelligence and healthcare to gene editing, organ transplantation, food and drug law, translational medicine, and others. Cohen talks about artificial intelligence, machine learning, and neural net applications as they relate to predictive medical applications and decision-making specifications for patient care. Cohen expands our understanding in the areas of pattern recognition as it relates to medical applications, and how algorithms must adapt to differing variables, for example, the differences between people such as racial makeup, citing a specific example about breast density and mammograms. He explains that the algorithm training data must accommodate all the options and variables in order to produce successful outcomes/results. And he discusses privacy issues as they relate to data. The Harvard professor details electronic health records, and how some physicians are experiencing burnout with the input of data, and how it is critical that data be input accurately and thoroughly in order for viable medical information to be helpful. He discusses reproduction, cloning, and some other issues related to genes within the context of technology. Cohen delves into gene editing further, discussing a particular case in China. Cohen explains that there was no real medical need for the gene edit and that caused quite a stir.Cohen talks about other use cases, and where things will go in the gene-editing world, and how regulations surrounding gene editing will perhaps become more relaxed if the benefits are justified. Cohen states that in the future we will probably see more debate about what is acceptable and what is not, in regard to gene editing. While there is clear prohibition right now, things could change as more scientists around the globe push the envelope.