Evans Barbara J
Center for Biotechnology & Law, University of Houston Law Center.
Univ Pa J Const Law. 2014 Feb 1;16(3):549-636.
This article explores whether laws that restrict the communication of genetic test results may, under certain circumstances, violate the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The focus is whether investigators have a right to return results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories in situations where a research participant requests the results and the investigator is willing to share them but is concerned that doing so may violate regulations under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988 ("CLIA"). This article takes no position on whether investigators can be compelled to return results when they do not wish to do so. It examines only whether investigators may, not whether they must, return results to a willing research participant. The article: (1) surveys state and federal laws that block communication of genetic test results to research participants; (2) examines the historical use of speech restrictions as a tool for protecting human research subjects; (3) traces how First Amendment doctrine has evolved since the 1970s when foundations of modern research bioethics were laid; (4) inquires whether recent bioethical and policy debate has accorded due weight to the First Amendment. The article applies two common methods of legal analysis, textual and constitutional analysis. It concludes that the CLIA regulations, when properly construed, do not treat the return of results as an event that triggers CLIA's certification requirements. Moreover, there is a potential First Amendment problem in construing CLIA's research exception in a way that bans the return of results from non-CLIA-certified laboratories.
本文探讨了限制基因检测结果交流的法律在某些情况下是否可能违反美国宪法第一修正案。重点在于,在研究参与者要求获取结果且研究者愿意分享,但担心这样做可能违反1988年《临床实验室改进修正案》(“CLIA”)相关规定的情况下,研究者是否有权返还来自非CLIA认证实验室的检测结果。本文对于研究者在不愿返还结果时是否会被强制要求返还不持立场。它仅考察研究者是否可以(而非是否必须)将结果返还给愿意接收的研究参与者。本文:(1)调查了禁止向研究参与者传达基因检测结果的州法和联邦法;(2)审视了将言论限制作为保护人体研究对象工具的历史用法;(3)追溯了自20世纪70年代现代研究生物伦理学基础奠定以来第一修正案原则的演变;(4)探究近期生物伦理学和政策辩论是否对第一修正案给予了应有的重视。本文运用了两种常见的法律分析方法,即文本分析和宪法分析。结论是,CLIA法规若得到恰当解释,并不将结果返还视为触发CLIA认证要求的事件。此外,以禁止返还非CLIA认证实验室结果的方式来解释CLIA的研究例外规定,可能存在第一修正案方面的问题。