A Constitutional Defence of the Federal Ban on Human Cloning for Research Purposes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parliament's prohibition on cloning in the Assisted Human Reproduction Act has led to divergent views on the validity of the legislation. This article responds to an article in volume 29, no. 2 of this journal by Barbara Billingsley and Timothy Caulfield, who suggested that the federal ban would likely not survive a Charter challenge. Billingsley and Caulfield argued that scientific experiments are expressive acts, deserving of protection under section 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees freedom of expression. In their view, both the breadth of the legislative objective and the proportionality of the measure would preclude the courts from finding the ban to be saved under section 1. Downie, Llewellyn and Baylis challenge Billingsley and Caufield's thesis on a number of grounds. The first is the classification of scientific experiments as expressive acts. Using the criteria for a section 2(b) challenge outlined in Irwin Toy, the authors argue first that the act of experimentation is not an act of expression, and the fact that it produces potentially expressive results is not sufficient to bring it within the protection of the Charter. The authors then argue that even if the ban is a violation of section 2(b) rights, it is demonstrably justified within the meaning of section 1 of the Charter. The objective of the ban -- to protect the health and safety of the public and to prevent unethical activity -- is pressing and substantial. There is a rational connection between the legislative objective and the ban, such that a ban is necessary to achieve that objective, and the ban impairs freedom of expression as little as is reasonably possible. Finally, the authors argue that the deleterious effects of the ban are balanced by its salutary effects.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.025 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".