We have a thriving biotechnology industry in the United States. There are over 1,450 biotechnology companies developing diagnostic and treatment technologies in medicine, creating more nutritional foods, and innovating new industrial processes. Yet this $28.5 billion sector of the economy is not without controversy. The “bio” in biotechnology comes from living, biological entities - people, plants, animals, and even bacteria. In the realm of biobanking, people are the source of the raw material for the discovery of genes for research, diagnosis, and therapy, raising a host of issues about rights and responsibilities, fiduciary duties and societal obligations.

We humans tend to worry first about our own happiness, then about our families, then about our communities. In times of great stress, such as war or natural disaster, we may focus temporarily on our country but we rarely think about Earth as a whole or the human species as a whole. This narrow perspective, perhaps best exemplified by the American consumer, has led to the environmental degradation of our planet, a grossly widening gap in living standards between rich and poor people and nations and a scientific research agenda that focuses almost exclusively on the needs and desires of the wealthy few. Reversing the worldwide trends toward market-based atomization and increasing indifference to the suffering of others will require a human rights focus, forged by the development of what Vaclav Havel has termed a “species consciousness.”

On 5 July 1996 a sheep named Dolly was born in Scotland, the result of the transfer of the nucleus of an adult mammary tissue cell to the enucleated egg cell of an unrelated sheep, and gestation in a third, surrogate mother sheep. Although for the past ten years scientists have routinely cloned sheep and cows from embryo cells, this was the first cloning experiment that apparently succeeded using the nucleus of an adult cell.

This Article analyzes existing legal protections for the confidentiality of information collected through genetic screening or genetic monitoring in the workplace. It notes that there are a variety of protections, such as ethical codes for occupational physicians, statutes protecting health care information in the hands of the employers, and tort, contract and constitutional principles. It describes defenses to suits based on improper disclosure of medical information. The Article then analyzes legal bases for employee and third party access to the employee's genetic information. In response to gaps in existing legal protections, it suggests parameters for a model law protecting the confidentiality of genetic information collected in the workplace.

Surrogate motherhood presents an enormous challenge for feminists. During the course of the Baby M trial, the New Jersey chapter of the National Organization of Women met and could not reach consensus on the issue. The feelings ranged the gamut, the head of the chapter, Linda Bowker, told the New York Time. We did feel that it should not be made illegal, because we don't want to turn women into criminals. But other than that, what you may feel about the Baby M case may not be what you feel about another.

We do believe that women ought to control their own bodies, and we don't want to play big brother or big sister and tell them what to do, Ms. Bowker continued. But on the other hand, we don't want to see the day when women are turned into breeding machines.

A current Supreme Court case concerning lawyer advertising, In re R.M.J., is analyzed in the context of a discussion of the diverse state regulations governing lawyer advertising and solicitation. The article considers the regulations in terms of their constitutionality, their tendency to impede effective advertising, and the effect they have on the legal profession's provision of information to potential clients about the nature, availability, and cost of legal services. Analysis of the major commercial speech cases, from Virginia State Board of Pharmacy to Central Hudson, indicates that many state rules infringe on attorneys' First Amendment rights.