The 1973 Supreme Court case Roe v. Wade was a significant event in the story of fetal personhood—the story of whether embryos and fetuses are legal persons. Roe legalized abortion care in the United States (US). However, the story of fetal personhood began long before the 1970s. People have been talking about embryos, fetuses, and their status in science, the law, and society for centuries. I studied the history of fetal personhood in the United States, tracing its origins from Ancient Rome and Medieval England to its first appearance in a US courtroom in 1884 and then to the Supreme Court’s decision in 1973.

But this isn’t a history of events—of names and dates and typical details. This is a history of words. In the twenty-first century, words used to discuss embryos and fetuses are split. Some people use humanizing language like “unborn children” and “human life.” Others use technical words like “embryos” and “fetuses.” I studied what words people used historically. I charted how words moved from science to the public to the law, and how they impacted court rulings on fetal personhood.

The use of certain words nudged courts to grant additional rights to embryos and fetuses. In the 1960s, writers began describing the science of development, using words like “unborn child” and humanizing descriptions to make embryos and fetuses seem like people already born. That helped build an idea of embryos and fetuses as having “life” before birth. When people began asking courts to legalize abortion care in the 1970s, attorneys on the opposite side argued that embryos and fetuses were “human life,” and that that “life” began at conception.

In those cases, “life” was biologically defined as when sperm fertilized egg, but it was on that biological definition “life” that judges improperly rested their legal rulings that embryos and fetuses were “potential human life” states had a duty to protect. It wasn’t legal personhood, but it was a legal status that let states pass laws restricting abortion care and punishing pregnant people for their behavior, trends that threaten people’s lives and autonomy in the twenty-first century.

Many researchers have seen the value blockchain can add to the field of voting and many protocols have been proposed to allow voting to be conducted in a way that takes advantage of blockchains distributed and immutable structure. While blockchains immutable structure can take the place of paper records in preventing tampering it by itself is insufficient to construct a trustworthy voting system with eligibility, privacy, verifiability, and fairness requirements. Many of the protocols which strive to keep voters votes confidential, but also allow for verifiability and eligibility requirements rely on either a blind signature provided by a central authority to provide compliance with these requirements or ring signatures to prove membership in the set of voters. A blind signature issued by a central authority introduces a potential vulnerability as it allows a corrupt central authority to pass a large number of forged ballots into the mix without any detection. Ring signatures on the other hand tend to be overly resource intensive to allow for practical usage in large voting sets. The research in this thesis focuses on improving the trustworthiness of electronic voting systems by providing possible ways of avoiding or detecting corrupt central authorities while still relying upon the benefits of efficiency the blind signature provides.

Data has quickly become a cornerstone of society. Across our daily lives, industry, policy, and more, we are experiencing what can only be called a “data revolution” igniting ferociously. While data is gaining more and more importance, consumers do not fully understand the extent of its use and subsequent capitalization by companies. This paper explores the current climate relating to data security and data privacy. It aims to start a conversation regarding the culture around the sharing and collection of data. We explore aspects of data privacy in four tiers: the current cultural and social perception of data privacy, its relevance in our daily lives, its importance in society’s dialogue. Next, we look at current policy and legislature in place today, focusing primarily on Europe’s established GDPR and the incoming California Consumer Privacy Act, to see what measures are already in place and what measures need to be adopted to mold more of a culture of transparency. Next, we analyze current data privacy regulations and power of regulators like the FTC and SEC to see what tools they have at their disposal to ensure accountability in the tech industry when it comes to how our data is used. Lastly, we look at the potential act of treating and viewing data as an asset, and the implications of doing so in the scope of possible valuation and depreciation techniques. The goal of this paper is to outline initial steps to better understand and regulate data privacy and collection practices. Our goal is to bring this issue to the forefront of conversation in society, so that we may start the first step in the metaphorical marathon of data privacy, with the goal of establishing better data privacy controls and become a more data-conscious society.

A novel clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats/CRISPR-associated (CRISPR/Cas) tool for simultaneous gene editing and regulation was designed and tested. This study used the CRISPR-associated protein 9 (Cas9) endonuclease in complex with a 14-nucleotide (nt) guide RNA (gRNA) to repress a gene of interest using the Krüppel associated box (KRAB) domain, while also performing a separate gene modification using a 20-nt gRNA targeted to a reporter vector. DNA Ligase IV (LIGIV) was chosen as the target for gene repression, given its role in nonhomologous end joining, a common DNA repair process that competes with the more precise homology-directed repair (HDR).

To test for gene editing, a 20-nt gRNA was designed to target a disrupted enhanced green fluorescent protein (EGFP) gene present in a reporter vector. After the gRNA introduced a double-stranded break, cells attempted to repair the cut site via HDR using a DNA template within the reporter vector. In the event of successful gene editing, the EGFP sequence was restored to a functional state and green fluorescence was detectable by flow cytometry. To achieve gene repression, a 14-nt gRNA was designed to target LIGIV. The gRNA included a com protein recruitment domain, which recruited a Com-KRAB fusion protein to facilitate gene repression via chromatin modification of LIGIV. Quantitative polymerase chain reaction was used to quantify repression.

This study expanded upon earlier advancements, offering a novel and versatile approach to genetic modification and transcriptional regulation using CRISPR/Cas9. The overall results show that both gene editing and repression were occurring, thereby providing support for a novel CRISPR/Cas system capable of simultaneous gene modification and regulation. Such a system may enhance the genome engineering capabilities of researchers, benefit disease research, and improve the precision with which gene editing is performed.

This paper details the regulations and the history behind the new federal mandatory GMO labeling law that was enacted in the United States on July 29, 2016. In addition, it will analyze a similar bill, House of Representatives Bill 1599, that was in committee (in the House and Senate) around the same time as this new law. Furthermore, this paper will discuss the reasons this new GMO labeling law is controversial, highlighting both the opposing and supporting arguments for the bill, and in turn analyzing the arguments behind both. This article will go into depth about the regulations of each of these bills, and will highlight the stark differences between the two, as well as analyze the possible affects we may see occur in U.S. law and corporate transparency as a result. Using foreign precedent as well as U.S. precedent, this paper will discuss whether the new GMO labeling law might be challenged in Court, and if so, whether or not the Courts would validate the law or hold it unconstitutional based on the Supremacy Clause, First Amendment Protection of Commercial Speech and the Commerce Clause.

In 2004, the South Korean geneticist Woo-Suk Hwang published what was widely regarded as the most important research result in biotechnology of the year. In the prestigious American journal Science, he claimed that he had succeeded in cloning a human blastocyst, an embryo in its early stages (Hwang et al. 2004). A year later, in a second Science article, he made the earth-shattering announcement that he had derived eleven embryonic stem cell lines using his cloning technique (Hwang et al. 2005). The international scientific community was stunned. American scientists publicly fretted that President George W. Bush‘s 2001 executive order limiting federal funding for stem-cell research in the United States had put American bioscience behind the Koreans‘ (Paarlberg 2005). These breakthroughs offered potential solutions to immune system rejection of transplanted organs and possible cures for diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, Parkinson‘s, Down‘s syndrome, and paralysis (Svenaeus 2007). However, within a year, Hwang was exposed as a fraud who had faked his results and pressured his female colleagues to donate eggs without informed consent. Despite protests against his methods from Korean religious and nongovernmental organizations, Hwang had used his prestige to ignore his ethical obligations. The Korean government, too, was slow to investigate Hwang and to subject his work to appropriate regulation.