• Archive for January, 2016

    Lori Andrews at i3

    by  • January 22, 2016 • Faculty Workshops/ Conferences • 0 Comments

    Lori Andrews and Hoda Kotb

    Lori Andrews (right) and Hoda Kotb

    Last week, Professor Lori Andrews spoke in New York City at “i3 – Insight, Innovation, Impact – A Summit for Women.” Sponsored by the UJA-Federation, the Summit brought together female thought leaders to share their stories of impact and change. In a five-hour program kicked off by Hoda Kotb of The Today Show, Professor Andrews shared the spotlight with women who had excelled in their fields—including women in law, science, journalism, innovation, and philanthropy. Andrews spoke on the issue of “Civil Liberties and National Security.” She fielded questions on whether the government should have a key to unlock all encryption on the web, how data aggregators collect personal information about people and what they do with it, how businesses might use facial recognition software, and the extent to which European laws can be applied against US-based social media companies.

    Read more about the conference here.

    Professor Koch on Updates to the Common Rule

    by  • January 6, 2016 • Faculty Scholarship • 0 Comments

    By Valerie Gutmann Koch


    On January 5, I submitted, along with Jessica Roberts, Associate Professor of Law and Director, Health Law & Policy Institute at the University of Houston Law Center, comments on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for revisions to the Common Rule (45 CFR 46), the regulations that govern the majority of human subjects research in the United States. These revisions will be the first since the Common Rule was promulgated in 1991. Our letter to Jerry Menikoff, the Director of the Office for Human Research Protections (OHRP), focused on three primary deficiencies in the proposed revisions. We therefore encouraged the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to: (1) encourage Congress to provide a statutory private right of action for the Common Rule; (2) clarify whether research subjects have a potential commercial interest in the research done on their biospecimens; and (3) eliminate the distinction between biospecimens and personal information and data. The letter is available here.

    Our letter was also featured on the blog for the Yale Journal of Law and Technology (YJOLT).