Advertisement

From Biolaw to Technological Innovation in Law

  • Amedeo SantosuossoEmail author
Chapter
Part of the International Library of Ethics, Law, and the New Medicine book series (LIME, volume 78)

Abstract

This chapter is not about biolaw and what it will be in the 21st century. It is rather the story of the personal involvement of the author in biolaw, of his activity in the field and of his recent coming back to law, in general terms, having in mind his fascinating and enriching background at the intersection between science, technology and law. Having spent more than three decades working on the relationship between law and biomedicine, first, and, then, between law and life sciences, and then between law and science and technologies, the author reaches the conclusion that it does not make a lot of sense to create and cultivate discrete fields of law according to specific scientific fields and neither for the all area of technology and law.

References

  1. Article 29 Data Protection Working Party. (2004). Working Document on Genetic Data.Google Scholar
  2. Bernstein, G. (2007). Toward a general theory on law and technology: Introduction. Minnesota Journal of Law, Science & Technology, 8, 441–447.Google Scholar
  3. Calo, R. (2015). Robotics and the lessons of Cyberlaw. California Law Review, 103, 513–531.Google Scholar
  4. Franssen, M., Lokhorst, G.J., & van de Poel, I. (2010). Philosophy of technology. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/technology/. Accessed March 26, 2018.
  5. Glannon, W. (2007). Defining right and wrong in brain science. Essential readings in neuroethics. New York: Dana Press.Google Scholar
  6. Goodenough, O. R., & Tucker, M. (2010). Law and cognitive neuroscience. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 61–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hobbes, T. (1982). Leviathan (4th ed.). London: Penguin Classics.Google Scholar
  8. Kelsen, H. (1945). General theory of law and state. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Knoppers, B. M., & Saginur, M. (2005). The babel of genetic data terminology. Nature Biotechnology, 23(8), 925–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kolber, A. J. (2011). The experiential future of the law. Emory Law Journal, 60, 585–652.Google Scholar
  11. Lunshof, J. E., Chadwick, R., Vorhaus, D. B., & Church, G. M. (2008). From genetic privacy to open consent. Nature Reviews Genetics, 9, 406–411.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mill, J. S. (1859). On liberty. Bath: Paragon Books.Google Scholar
  13. Nordmann, A. (2004). Converging technologies—shaping the future of European societies. HLEG Foresighting the New Technology Wave, European Commission Report.Google Scholar
  14. Pollack, J. B. (2014). Mindless intelligence: Reflections on the future of AI. In P. A. Vargas, E. A. Di Paolo, I. Harvey, & P. Husbands (Eds.), The horizons of evolutionary robotics (pp. 279–294). Cambridge MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  15. Roco, M. C., & Bainbridge, W. S. (Eds.). (2002). Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science. Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar
  16. Santosuosso, A. (1987). I tuoi diritti. Milano: Hoepli.Google Scholar
  17. Santosuosso, A. (1996). Diritti dei pazienti e doveri dei medici nel caso dell’eutanasia. In C. Viafora (Ed.), Quando morire? Bioetica e diritto nel dibattito sull’eutanasia (pp. 207–244). Padova: Fondazione Lanza- Gregoriana Libreria editrice.Google Scholar
  18. Santosuosso, A. (2001). Corpo e libertà. Una storia tra diritto e scienza. Milano: Raffaello Cortina.Google Scholar
  19. Santosuosso, A. (2002). Persone fisiche e confini biologici: chi determina chi. Politica del diritto, 3, 525–547.Google Scholar
  20. Santosuosso, A. (2013). Should privacy be abolished in genetics and biobanking? In G. Pascuzzi, U. Izzo, & M. Macilotti (Eds.), Comparative issues in the governance of research biobanks. Property, privacy, intellectual property and the role of technology (pp. 105–130). Berlin: Springer.Google Scholar
  21. Santosuosso, A. (2014). The human rights of nonhuman artificial entities: an oxymoron? Jahrbuch für Wissenschaft Und Ethik, 18(1), 203–237.Google Scholar
  22. Santosuosso, A. (Ed.). (2009). Le neuroscienze e il diritto. Como-Pavia: Ibis.Google Scholar
  23. Santosuosso, A., & Bottalico, B. (2009). Neuroscience, accountability and individual boundaries. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 3, 45.Google Scholar
  24. Santosuosso, A., Sellaroli, V., & Pavone, I. (2007). Drawing the boundary lines of humans. Derecho y Religión, 2, 11–36.Google Scholar
  25. Santosuosso, A., & Turri, G. C. (2006). La trincea dell’inammissibilità, dopo tredici anni di stato vegetativo permanente di Eluana Englaro. La Nuova Giurisprudenza Civile Commentata, 1, 477–485.Google Scholar
  26. Santosuosso, A., & Malerba, A. (2015). Legal interoperability as a comprehensive concept in transnational law. Law, Innovation and Technology, 6(1), 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Santosuosso, A., & Tamburini, M. (Eds.). (1999). Malati di rischio. Implicazione etiche, legali e psicosociali dei test genetici in oncologia. Milano: Masson.Google Scholar
  28. Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Searle, J. (1995). The construction of social reality. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  30. Spohrer, J. (2002). Convergence to improve human performance: Opportunities and challenges. In M. C. Roco & W. S. Bainbridge (Eds.), Converging technologies for improving human performance. Nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology and cognitive science (pp. 101–116). Arlington VA: National Science Foundation.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of PaviaPaviaItaly

Personalised recommendations