Covert and “accidental” releases of these technologies – as in Monsanto – are well documented, however the legal system behaves as if corrupted by the corporations who manufacture and release these biohazards into the natural environment.
This paper on BIOTRESSPASS is an important look into the dark and murky legal world of corporate protection above public interest.
The consequences are clear that Environmental Protection Agencies have no effective “legal” means to protect public health and welfare from “technologies gone rogue”.
Biotrespass – Bulletin of Science, Technology and Society, Vol. 27, No. 4, August 2007 by Jeremy de Beer – University of Ottawa – Common Law Section
Abstract: As the sciences of biotechnology, synthetic biology and nanotechnology develop, questions about liability for harms caused by self-replicating inventions will arise increasingly often.
Although negligence, nuisance and other torts may be relevant in suchcirumstances, trespass may be the more appropriate cause of action. In the first section of this paper, I explore doctrinal hurdles facing plaintiffs alleging biotrespass.
To overcome concerns about the meta-physicality of molecular biotrespass, I draw analogies to “cybertrespass.” To confront the problem of suing patent licensors for the actions of their licensees, I make reference to principles of landlord-tenant law.
Wellestablished laws concerning wandering animals shed light on the policies underlying biotrespass.
In the second part, I examine such policies in further detail, and consider the purpose of transporting property metaphors into bio/nanospace. The paper concludes that biotrespass can be a viable cause of action, if crafted carefully and understood properly. — Complete PDF Here
CLIFF CARNICOM – Morgellons: A Working Hypothesis