Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T10:24:14.988Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Freedom of Scientific Research and its Restrictions in German Constitutional Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2014

Christian Starck
Get access

Abstract

The German Constitution guarantees freedom of scientific research. This guarantee raises questions, such as its legal definition and scope, as well as possible conflicts with other constitutional rights. This Article suggests that in order to have normative legal consequences, the constitutional concept of science must have an ethical dimension—the importance of the value of research and research for nonbiased “truth.” Such an ethically-loaded definition of science gives rise to internal restrictions, by placing forgery, manipulation, plagiarism and other forms of improper scientific practice outside the scope of constitutional protection. Restrictions to constitutional protection can also be derived from other constitutional rights, such as the right to privacy, environmental protection, and the life and health of others. Another arguably important restriction is derived from the right to human dignity, particularly as it touches upon biomedical questions of human cloning and embryo research. This paper argues that the Kantian proscription of treating human beings as a means to an end, which lies at the heart of the right to human dignity, imposes significant restrictions on current trends in biomedicine. These restrictions warn against an implicit utilitarianism that devalues the rights of vulnerable human beings.

Type
Research Article
Information
Israel Law Review , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , Summer 2006 , pp. 110 - 126
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press and The Faculty of Law, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Professor, University of Göttingen. I am grateful to Dr. Julian Rivers, Senior Lecturer at the University of Bristol, for translating this Article into English.

References

1 Compare also Weimar Imperial Constitution, Article 142.

2 Compare the following constitutions: Verf. Baden-Württemberg, Article 20; Verf. Bayern, Article 108; Verf. Berlin, Article 21; Verf. Brandenburg, Article 31; Verf. Bremen, Article 11; Verf. Hessen, Article 10, Verf. Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Article 7; Verf. Rheinland-Pfalz, Article 9; Verf. Abs. 2 Saarland, Article 5; Verf. Sachsen, Article 21; Verf. Abs. 3 Sachsen-Anhalt, Article 10; Verf. Thüringen, Article 27.

3 Compare the following Constitutions: Finland, Article 16, §3; Greece, Article 16 §1; Italy, Article 33, §1; State Basic Law, Article 17, §1 together with Austria, Article 149, Portugal, Article 42; Switzerland, Article 20; Spain, Article 20, §1(b); see on this Groß, Thomas, Die Autonomie der Wissenschaft im europäischen Rechtsvergleich (Baden-Baden, Nomos, 1992)Google Scholar.

4 994 BVerfGE (equals the collection of the decisions of the Federal Constitutional Court) 90, 1 at 12; BVerfG, Neue Zeitschrift für Strafrecht, 2000, 363 et seq.

5 Hans-Heinrich, Trute, Die Forschung zwischen grundrechtlicher Freiheit und staatlicher Institutionalisierung 54 et seq (1994)Google Scholar.

6 1994 BVerfGE, supra note 4.

7 Smend, Rudolf, Das Recht der freien Meinungsäußerung, Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der Deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer (Vol. 4, Berlin, de Gruyter, 1928), 44, 61 et seqGoogle Scholar.

8 BVerfGE 35, 79, 113 (1973); BVerfGE 90, supra note 4.

9 Kuhn, Thomas S., Die Struktur wissenschaftlicher Revolutionen 49 et seq., 76 et seq., 96 et seq., 155 et seq. (2nd ed. 1976)Google Scholar.

10 This is stressed by Denninger, Erhard, Kommentar zum Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland (Series Alternativkommentare) Article 5 §3 I, 18. (3rd ed. 2001)Google Scholar.

11 BVerfGE 90, supra note 4.

12 Kirchhof, Paul, Wissenschaft in verfasster Freiheit 23 (1986)Google Scholar.

13 Heckel, Martin, Die theologischen Fakultäten im weltlichen Verfassungsstaat 19 et seq (1986)Google Scholar;. III Das Bonner Grundgesetz (Axel von Campenhausen, in Mangoldt, Hermann von, Klein, Friedrich, Starck, Christian ed., 4th ed. 1991)Google Scholar; Basic Law, Article 140, Weimar Imperial Constitution, Article 137, Number 119 et seq.

14 Heckel, Martin, Organisationsstrukturen der Theologie in der Universität (1987) 31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Fehling, in Kommentar zum Bonner Grundgesetz (Bonner Kommentar) (Hamburg, Hansischer Gildenverl, (March 2004)), Basic Law, Article 5, §3 (Freedom of Science), Number 81 with further references.

16 See Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis Denkschrift 7 (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ed., 1998)Google Scholar (Recommendation 1); Kommission der Europäischen Gemeinschaften. Die Europäische Charta für Forscher v. 11.3.2005, K (2005) 576 (available at http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:i8b8yXWwGkEJ:europa.eu.int/eracareers/pdf/Recommendation_code_charter_DE_final.pdf+Kommission+der+Europ%C3%A4ischen+Gemeinschaften.+Die+Europ%C3%A4ische+Charta+f%C3%BCr+Forscher+v.+11.3.2005,+K+(2005)+576+&hl=iw) (last visited May 15, 2006).

17 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft ed., id. at Recommendation 11.

18 Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Verfahrensordnung zum Umgang mit wissenschaftlichem Fehlverhalten, DFG-Vordruck 80.01-2/02-I1.4.

19 1997 Deutsches Verwaltungsblatt [DBV1], 1173, 1174 et seq.

20 A solution by way of “borrowing” limits form other fundamental rights is not recognized because the limits of fundamental rights in the Basic Law are specifically formulated for each right. See on this, with further references, Christian Starck, Article 5, Number 414, in 1 Kommentar zum Grundgesetz (von Mangoldt, Hermann, Klein, Friedrich, Starck, Christian ed., 5th ed. 2005)Google Scholar.

21 1978 BVerfGE 47, 327, 369.

22 Thus, Verf. Brandenburg, Article 31, §2; Verf. Mecklenburg-Vorpommem, Article 7, §2.

23 Spain C.E., Article 20, §1, §4;, Swiss Cons. Article 20, Article 36, Constitutional Treaty for the European Union, Article II-73, Article II-112, available at http://europa.eu.int/constitution/en/lstoc1_en.htm (last visited May 15, 2006).

24 Bizer, Johann, Forschungsfreiheit und informationelle Selbstbestimmung 151 et Seq (1992)Google Scholar.

25 Compare the following constitutions: Belgium, Article 23(4); Finland, Article 20; Greece, Article 24; Netherlands, Article 21; Portugal, Article 66; Spain, Article 45.

26 The Gene Technology Act of 1993, v. 16.12.1993 (BGBI. I, S. 2066), most recently amended by statute of 22.6.2004 (BGBI. I, S. 1248).

27 The Animal Protection Act of 1998, v. 25.5.1998 (BGBI. I, S. 1105), most recently amended by statute of 6.8.2002 (BGBI. I, S. 3082).

28 Brief report by Küppers, Mechthild, Die Schuld der Wissenschaft, 63 Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung 16.3.2005, at 3 Google Scholar; more comprehensively, Orzessek, Arno, 66 Süddeutsche Zeitung, 21.3.2005, 16 Google Scholar.

29 Id.

30 Belgium, Article 23, §1; Finland, sec. 1; Greece, Article 2; Italy, Article 41; Portugal, Article 1; Sweden, Chapter I, Article 2; Spain C.E. Article 10, Switzerland Cons. Article 7.

31 Constitutional Treaty for the European Union, Article 61..

32 This description is from “Bericht zur Frage eines gesetzgeberischen Handlungsbedarfs beim Embryonenschutz auf Grund der beim Klonen von Tieren angewandten Techniken und der sich abzeichnenden weiteren Entwicklung,” German Parliament, Printed Matter(Bundestagsdrucksache) no. 13/11263, p. 8(26.06.1998).

33 On therapeutic cloning and the remaining scientific, technical obstacles, see Müller-Terpitz, Ralf, “Die Empfehlungen der DFG zur Forschung mit menschlichen Stammzellen” (2001) 34(3) Wissenschaftsrecht 271 at 273 et seq.Google Scholar; Hans-Georg Dederer, Menschenwürde des Embryos, in vitro? Der Kristallisationspunkt der Bioethik-Debatte am Beispiel des therapeutischen Klonens, in Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 127 (2002), 2 et seq.

34 Pschyrembel, , Wörterbuch der Sexualität (Berlin, De Gruyter, 2003) 277 Google Scholar.

33 BVerfGE 39, 1 at 41 (1975); BVerfGE 88, 203 at 252 (1993).

36 For this reason, the Swiss Federal Court expressly affirmed the constitutionality of the ban on exploitative research. See BGE 119 Ia 460, 499 et seq., 503.

37 BVerfGE 88, 203 at 270 ff. (1993) [JZ 1993, Anhang nach S. 1172, S. 22 f.]

38 Kant, Immanuel, The Metaphysics of Morals 28 (Gregor, Mary, trans., 1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; emphasis in original.

39 Starck, Christian, Verfassungsrechtliche Grenzen der Biowissenschaft und Fortpflanzungsmedizin 22 Juristenzeitung 1065, 1069 et seq (2002)Google Scholar.

40 Id., at 1072; see also supra note 8.

41 Id. at 1065, 1069 et seq.

42 See Iliadou, Ekaterini, Forschungsfreiheit und Embryonenschutz 218 ff., 221 ff. (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Taupitz, Jochen, Biomedizinische Forschung zwischen Freiheit und Verantwortung 1 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schweizer, Rainer J., Verfassungs—und völkerrechtliche Vorgaben für den Umgang mit Embryonen, Föten sowie Zellen und Geweben 25 (2002)Google Scholar.

43 Neue Zürcher Zeitung of 2.9.2001/No. 211, p. 16.

44 Bentham, Jeremy, Anarchical Fallacies; Being an Examination of the Declaration of Rights Issued During the French Revolution, in Nonsense upon Stilts: Bentham, Burke, and Marx on the Rights of Man 46, 53 (Waldron, Jeremy ed., 1987)Google Scholar.