Breyer called Tuesday for an "ongoing conversation" - new seminars, working groups and permanent research bodies - in which lawyers, economists, scientists and the biotechnology industry can advise judges not just on how science works but on the likely impact of court decisions.

"Rapid developments in genetic research have led to calls for legal change, namely (in) patent law," Breyer said during a conference at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.

"But what about granting patents on a mere gene fragment (or) for the isolation of cell membrane receptors? I'm frightened to death as I approach words like that."

Breyer called Tuesday for an "ongoing conversation" - new seminars, working groups and permanent research bodies - in which lawyers, economists, scientists and the biotechnology industry can advise judges not just on how science works but on the likely impact of court decisions.

He identified three areas where the need is greatest: the patenting of genes, genetic testing to predict disease and storing genetic information on databases to convict criminals and free the innocent.

"Traditionally, some have believed that we need not know science but only law to make decisions," Breyer said. "This view is increasingly unrealistic. Since the implications of our decisions in the real world often can and should play a role in our legal decisions, the clearer our understanding of the relevant science, the better."

The Supreme Court is the quietest of the federal government's three branches, and it is rare for court members to speak out on public issues. But Breyer's Kennedy School appearance marked at least the third time this year that he has given a speech or written a magazine article on the need to educate science-innocent judges.

"Our court consists of nine judges, seven men and two women, appointed for life," he explained to the Kennedy School audience. "Four of us were law teachers, eight of us were appellate court judges, six of us previously practiced law. None of us has a background in the natural sciences."

Observers such as Christopher Asplen, director of the Justice Department's National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence, called Breyer's speech remarkable. "It's great that he has engaged on the issue and that he has showed such concern for how what the (Supreme) Court does plays out in the real world," Asplen said.

The Supreme Court has decided only one major genetics case, issuing a decision in 1980 that permitted the patenting of human and non-human genes. But that is likely to change, Breyer noted.

One likely issue: privacy questions raised by genetic tests that can predict disease risks not only for the person tested but for other family members.

"There is a sense that some people should have a chance to get at the private medical records (of others)," Breyer said. "But on the other hand, when the results of genetic testing can mean so much, people want more than ever to keep that private.''

** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed for research and educational purposes only. **