Regulation of biotechnology by executive orders: questions about constitutionality, legality and overall fairness to the American public.
In the biotechnology field, researchers often face complex moral and social issues while pursuing their scientific goals. Congress may regulate much of that research by debating the issues and placing restraints on funding granted by the government. In modern times, our presidents have also made some of those funding decisions through the issuance of executive orders. Presidents may issue executive orders with binding legal effect, despite having little constitutional authority to do so. Unless a new president takes office, only Congress or the courts can invalidate an executive order. In the regulation-sensitive biotechnology industry, presidents may exert profound influence by announcing executive orders. Former President Clinton and President George W. Bush are just the latest presidents who have used such orders to influence biotechnology as they have deemed appropriate. In doing so, those presidents have assumed a degree of unilateral lawmaking power over an industry that is fundamentally important to every citizen. This article stresses the need for the other branches of our government to discontinue granting unconstitutional legislative power to the president, and bring more social and scientific balance to important biotechnology policy decisions.
Peter
P
Cuomo
D001709:Biotechnology / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D033041:Embryo Research / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D035082:Federal Government; D005380:Financing, Government; D033161:Government Regulation; D006801:Humans; D007221:Industry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D007603:Jurisprudence; D011050:Policy Making; D011057:Politics; D012109:Research Support as Topic; D012586:Science / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D013234:Stem Cells; D014481:United States