This article examines the fundamental tension between adaptive management and conventional administrative law. Adaptive management requires regulatory agencies to respond deftly to new information about the effects of their decisions, whereas administrative law erects substantial barriers to agency change of decision. Yet a nearly uniform consensus has emerged that large-scale, complex problems in the regulatory state, such as environmental degradation, demand an adaptive management approach. Using the Habitat Conservation Program administered under the Endangered Species Act, the article explores the need for evolving the standard models of legislative delegation, citizen participation, and judicial review.

This article reflects upon the interface between technological innovation and the American health care system. The author discusses three “frontier policy issues at this intersection – access to care, health care costs, and the value of care.

This Article proposes that the Supreme Court’s 2005 decision in Bates v. Dow Agrosciences LLC, which significantly limits the scope of federal preemption of common law tort claims against pesticide manufacturers, creates a significant opportunity for such claims to play an increasing role in pesticide policy with regard to children’s health. Such claims can do so by spurring the collection and effective use of scientific data in this area. In order to realize this opportunity, courts should apply a modified scientific evidence standard and then shift the burden of proof to pesticide manufacturer defendants in cases in which the plaintiff can establish that the defendant failed to conduct reasonably available testing to gather currently unavailable scientific evidence on the issue of causation. This Article posits that such a modification of current evidentiary standards under the common law can be justified not only by the precautionary principle inherent in the FQPA itself, but by the power of common law courts to shape tort law to reflect the complexities of risk in today’s society.

There is ongoing legal challenge in the European Union regarding a number of human gene patents held by a U.S. corporation for sequences of two genes, BRCA1 and BRCA2, mutations in which indicate a predisposition to breast cancer. Specifically, the most recent oppositions challenge the patents as not fulfilling relevant provisions in the European patent law, as well as impeding heath care and scientific discovery. This Article discusses the European controversy over the BRCA gene patents and recent opposition decisions of the European Patent Office and also advocates the creation of a similar third party opposition procedure in the U.S. to address similar legal and policy concerns.

Pharmacist's conscientious objection clauses are a new focus of debate in state legislatures. While the issue has thus far been framed in the context of access to oral contraceptives, the ramifications of new state legislation potentially extends beyond access to reproductive health services. Whether a pharmacist may refuse to fill a prescription for moral or religious reasons largely defines the role of the pharmacist in the health care system. While physicians have traditionally possessed a right to refuse services, the role of the physician differs from that of the pharmacist. Physicians collaborate with patients to establish treatment plans; pharmacists help effectuate these plans. This distinction is crucial, and state legislatures must consider it while debating the validity of pharmacist conscientious objection legislation. The distinction rightly suggests that a pharmacist's refusal interferes with patient expectations and threatens access to health care services. For this reason, conscience clause legislation must be tailored to ensure access to the full spectrum of health care services. Legislation that does not guarantee access is contrary to achieving provider goals and establishing patient rights. As state legislature address this issue in upcoming legislative sessions, it is imperative that the debate is not cloaked in abortion politics. The importance of defining the pharmacist's role extends far beyond access to oral contraceptives.