Page 27 - HLPI 2022 Brochure

Hank Greely, the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law and Director of the Center for Law and the
Biosciences at Stanford Law School, brought his unique authorial voice to the question of the 14-day rule in embryo research.
In his piece entitled The 14-Day Embryo Rule: A Modest Proposal, he interrogates the new ISSCR position and proposes what he
believes is a reasonable alternative.

Myrisha S. Lewis, associate professor of law at William & Mary Law School,
turned to the issue of advanced assistive reproductive technologies like
mitochondrial transfer. Instead of looking within like Professor Greely,
Professor Hank Greely, Stanford Law School she looked abroad. In her essay, Segmented Innovation in the Legalization of
Mitochondrial Transfer: Lessons from the U.S. Common Law Neighbors in Australia
and the United Kingdom, she uses a comparative analysis of international approaches to help us tackle these difficult
issues at home.
Professor Myrisha S. Lewis, William & Mary Law School

Radhika Rao, professor of law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, pushed back on the idea that
all advances in reproductive technologies can be disruptive or groundbreaking. In Egg-Freezing, Uterine Transplants, and
In Vitro Gametogenesis: Disruptive or Normalizing Reproductive Technologies, she asks the provocative questions: Do these
technologies live up to the hype? And are we revolutionizing reproduction or just doubling down on the status quo?

Sonia Suter, the Kahan Family Research Professor of Law and Founding
Director of the Health Law Initiative at the George Washington University
Law School, took a step back and looked at the state of reproductive
technologies in the context of broader societal shifts. In Eroding Lines in
Professor Radhika Rao, University of California Embryo Research and Abortion—Contradictory Slippery Slopes, she observes that
Hastings College of the Law
the ISSCR’s new position comes at a unique point in history when long-
standing legal precedents on abortion are being challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States.
With Roe v. Wade gone, technological advancements allowing scientists to keep embryos alive longer in a lab may mean
little if the state’s interest in fetal life could begin as early as fertilization.
Professor Sonia Suter, George Washington
University Law School
During the symposium, the authors benefitted from in-depth discussion with renowned experts like June Carbone of
the University of Minnesota Law School, Dov Fox of the University of San Diego School of Law, and Claire Horner of Baylor College of Medicine.

Read together and apart, the four authors’ pieces are important scholarly contributions as the courts and legislators grapple with complicated questions in research,
reproductive technologies, and abortion. The Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy has published their work, along with a foreword by Valerie Gutmann Koch,
assistant professor and Co-Director of HLPI.

27