Although it seems like we just returned from the last annual meeting in Atlanta, it is time to start thinking about the next annual meeting in 2000. In July there will be a joint annual meeting starting in New York City and continuing in London. The New York meeting dates are July 6-12 and the London meeting is July 15-20.

Registration Fees. Registration information is available from the ABA Meetings and Travel Department by calling 312/988-5870. The registration fees will go up on December 1, 1999. Please make sure to register before this date to get the advance purchase discount. Also, keep in mind that in order to register for London, you must also register for New York.

Hotels. Due to the large number of registrants anticipated for the New York sessions, it is important to register early to get your choice of hotels. The room blocks at London hotels are smaller than the ABA would normally get in the U.S. This means that some of the hotels in London are already sold out. So, it is important to register and select your hotel as soon as you can.

Programs in London. The ABA is sponsoring 16 plenary programs, all of which sound fascinating. Our Section has an excellent program "Biotechnology in the New Millennium" scheduled for Thursday, July 20.

Events in London. The Section will have a reception in London on Tuesday, July 18. The President's Reception will be at the Tower of London on Thursday, July 20. In addition, ticketed ABA events include a reception at the American Ambassador's residence and an Inns of Court Reception. You must be registered for London in order to get tickets for these events. Information about these events will be mailed in March to those registered for the London meeting, and tickets will be issued on a first come-first served basis.

Helpful websites are:

• Calendar for NYC and London
• London Plenary Programs & Luncheons
• London Tours (pre and post conference)

COMMITTEE PRIORITIES FOR 1999-2000

Various committees and subcommittees within the Section of Science and Technology have announced key issues for this year. In no particular order, here are the hot topics for Science and Technology:

Administration of the Internet (Maher)
The Administration of the Internet Committee will be studying current proposals for a private non-governmental organization to administer certain technical functions of the Internet: the IP address system, the technical protocols, and the domain name system. A California based not-for-profit corporation, ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) is facing difficult political and financial issues that may prevent it from acting as the global consensus based replacement for IANA (the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority). The committee will study the role of NSI (Network Solutions, Inc.) in the administration of .com, .net and .org as well as the two letter country code top level domains.

Biotech Committee (Fleming)

1. We'll be putting together web pages to serve as a reference for our committee and practitioners generally on a wide variety of biotechnology issues.
2. We'll be exploring the issue of embryological stem cell research.

Behavioral Science Committee (Drogin)
We will address two key issues: "Jurisprudent Therapy" and "Mental Health Courts." See notice in this issue of BLAST.

Information Security Committee Key Recovery Working Group (Frye)
We will be addressing global initiatives regarding mandatory key recovery.

Information Security Committee, Subcommittee on Consumer Issues (Frye)
During the next year, we will hold meetings on, and address the consumer issues implicated by public key infrastructures. The outcome of our work is expected to be documented, both as part of the ISC's larger work product on accrediting public key infrastructures, and as its own document for distribution to interested parties to inform them of relevant issues, whether simply identified or also to some extent resolved.

Jurimetrics (Kaye)
We plan to publish more articles of high quality on topics in law and science. Some of the forthcoming contents include:

• a symposium on privacy and the use of genetic information
• an article on the liability of on-line service providers for defamation
• an article on problems with statistical sampling in the coming census
• a note on the Supreme Court's decision in Carmichael v. Kumho Tire
• a note on creating a "DNA exception" to statutes of limitations for sexual assault
• a book review of A Probabilistic Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti Evidence

Communications Law Division (Baker)
We will address legal and regulatory issues relating to the deployment of broadband communications capabilities

Multimedia & Interactive Technology Law Committee (Byassee)
The Committee will investigate and report on existing requirements of the various federal circuits for accepting filings on CD-ROM, with an ultimate goal of developing a set of proposed standard local rules to govern filings on CR-ROM.

Internet and Cyberspace Committee (Rafter and Spelman)
The Internet and Cyberspace Committee will focus this year on using the internet to communicate with its members and to provide substantive information of interest to its membership. The Committee will accomplish this goal in two ways. First, the Committee will set up several moderated discussions via the Internet where its members can learn about and discuss current developments in the area of Internet law. Second, the Committee will use the Section's web site to publicize the work of the Committee and to post articles, case law updates, and other information of interest to its members.

Privacy and Computer Crime Committee (Trubow & Johnson)
The Subcommittee will focus on measures to prevent theft of personal and financial information from the internet and its use to establish unauthorized credit accounts. Broadly, this pattern of activity is known as "theft of identity" and is made easier with information readily available to anyone with a modem.

Information Security Committee (Schwartz)
The ISC will publish online "RFC" its Public Key Infrastructure Assessment Guidelines ("PAG"). We expect to release the RFC version late '99 or early '00. For other information, please see our website and working groups at http://www.abanet.org/scitech/ec/isc

Information Security Committee (Baum) We will, of course, focus on Public Key Infrastructure evaluation and quality assessment. See article in this issue of BLAST.

GROWING INTEREST IN BODY PARTS
by Julie A. Fleming

"Can You Grow That Body Part? Legal and Ethical Issues in Tissue Engineering" was held at the ABA Annual Meeting, organized by the Biotechnology Committee. Co-sponsors included the Intellectual Property Law Section, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Coordinating Group on Bioethics and the Law, the Health Law Section, and the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities. The program drew a large crowd and was covered in a Financial Times article, published in the UK on August 10 and distributed worldwide. The program's keynote speaker was Dr. Robert Nerem, Director of the Georgia Tech/Emory Center for the Engineering of Living Tissues, who introduced the concept of tissue engineering and discussed some of its applications, such as bioartificial cartilage, bone, blood vessels, and eventually, vital organs. Dr. Gail Naughton, President and Chief Operating Officer of Advanced Tissue Sciences, Inc., followed with a discussion of new technologies, including the production of bioartificial skin grafts, which are becoming widely used in treating seriously injured burn victims, often with miraculous results. David Smith, Esq., who practices with the Pittsburgh law firm Reed, Smith, Shaw & McClay, LLC identified and explained some of the ethical issues such as those surrounding source materials used in preparing bioartificial structures. John North, Esq., who practices with Atlanta's Sutherland, Asbill & Brennan, dealt with the emerging intellectual property issues concerning protection of tissues engineered using natural biological materials.

The "hot issue" to be discussed by the Biotechnology Committee this year will be human embryological stem cell research. We'll also be establishing a web page that will serve as a reference for our members as well as other practitioners who encounter biotech issues or who may simply have an interest in the subject. David Smith has agreed to join us as Vice Chair, and we will benefit from his experience and expertise. The Biotechnology Commit-tee will be meeting at the Midyear ABA Meeting in Dallas, on Saturday, February 13. More information will follow soon.

COMMUNICATIONS LAW DIVISION FEATURES SCINTILLATING PROGRAM
by William B. Baker

What do Bell South's inability to offer long distance services in Atlanta, @Home's ability to bundle cable modem transport and Internet access services, and the differing regulatory treatment of local exchange carriers and their rivals have in common? All were among the "Hot Topics In Telecommunications Law" discussed at the Communications Law Division's Saturday program during the Atlanta Annual Meeting. Subtitled "What Every Technology and Communi-cations Lawyer Needs To Know," the program lived up to its name as more than 100 lawyers attended a wide-ranging and informative program.

Rapid changes in technology have spawned entirely new industries and placed significant strains on traditional legal and regulatory policies. At the same time, as formerly separate industries "converge" by offering similar services in competition with one another, questions arise as to whether the traditional incumbents and their new rivals should be subject to similar regulatory regimes. These and other subjects were addressed by the panel, which was moderated and introduced by Division Co-Chair Bill Baker of Wiley, Rein & Fielding, Washington, D.C., and Section Council Member Lee Tiedrich, of the Washington and San Francisco offices of Covington & Burling.

Speaking first was Bill Barfield, Associate General Counsel of BellSouth, who described his company's perspective on the landmark Telecom-munications Act of 1996. Mr. Barfield devoted particular attention to BellSouth's continued inability to enter the long distance market in its regions because regulators believe that BellSouth has not sufficiently opened its network to competitors. Disputing that view, Mr. Barfield declared that local exchange competition is flourishing, noting that competitive local exchange carriers now serve one million access lines in BellSouth's region. At the same time, he expressed concern that the "14 point checklist" established in 1996 to govern Bell company entry into the long distance business has grown vastly more complicated, thereby making BellSouth's entry even more difficult.

Rick Whitt of MCI WorldCom began his remarks by disputing the concept of "convergence," calling it "overused and underanalyzed." He prefers the term "divergence," reflecting the fact that companies are "diverging" from their traditional roles to compete in new markets. One hallmark of these diverging companies, he noted, is a wide range of different business plans and service platforms, which suggests that different regulatory approaches may be appropriate. In this vein, he contrasted the "open platform" characteristic of the long distance and local exchange markets with the "closed network" model of cable modem broadband services. Mr. Whitt predicted that the "closed network" cable modem plan favored by companies such as AT&T, MediaOne, At Home, and RoadRunner would ultimately fail.

Speaking next, David Baker, Vice President, Legal and Regulatory Affairs, of Mindspring Enter-prises (an Atlanta-based ISP), elaborated on the cable modem issue. Declaring that the Internet "will be the core communications of the future," he contrasted the different regulatory models of the two competing wireline-based broadband access alternatives. In particular, he contrasted the Digital Subscriber Line/local exchange carrier "open access" model with the unwillingness of the cable industry to unbundle transport from the Internet access function.

Atlanta lawyer and Division Co-Chair Walt Sapronov focused his remarks on local com-petition issues, reviewing the difficulties competitive local exchange carriers face in challenging incumbent carriers. After touching on the adequacy of current regulations designed to safeguard against cross-subsidy and discrimination, he discussed the applicability of the essential facilities doctrine as it applies to local exchange competition and the cable modem open access debate.

The program then moved into a wide-ranging discussion of other hot issues, including the appropriateness of "regulatory parity" between incumbent local exchange carriers and their cable and competitive local exchange rivals. Mr. Barfield, citing the growth of local competition, argued for equal "unregulation" of all market participants. Mr. Sapronov disagreed, claiming that there is no local exchange competition for residential customers today and that few large businesses would ever abandon the reliability of the incumbent local exchange carrier. Dave Baker contended that when cable systems upgrade to two-way capability, they should be regulated in the same fashion as telephone companies. The common theme throughout the discussion was "reaching the end user." The paramount "hot topics" discussed by the panel - both cable modem "open access" and local exchange competition - concern the regulations applicable to a network in which a single line connects the network system to the end user. As MCI WorldCom's Rick Whitt observed, we today have the "information super-highway," what we need is an "information driveway." The Division is pleased that program attendees received an entertaining and illuminating discussion of these major issues in telecommunications law.

PRESIDENTIAL SHOWCASE PROGRAM ON EXPERT WITNESS LAW
by Susan R. Poulter

For the second year in a row, the Section and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), through the National Conference of Lawyers and Scientists (NCLS), presented a Presidential Showcase Program on expert testimony at the ABA Annual Meeting. Entitled The New World of Expert Witness Law: Kumho Tire Completes the Trilogy, the program featured a wide-ranging discussion of Kumho Tire Co. vs. Carmichael, the Supreme Court's most recent opinion on the admissibility of expert testimony under Rule 702.

Moderator Bert Black, of Hughes and Luce, Dallas, Texas, ABA co-chair of the NCLS, began with a brief introduction to Kumho Tire, the first of the Court's three decisions to deal with a nonscientific technical expert. In Kumho, the Court held that an engineering expert's testimony could be scrutinized under the factors set forth for scientific experts in Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The two previous decisions, Daubert and General Electric Co. vs. Joiner, concerned the admissibility of scientific testimony on disease causation. In contrast, Kumho Tire concerned engineering testimony on the causes of a tire failure. Kumho now clearly extends the reach of Daubert, which expanded the scrutiny of scientific testimony, to all expert testimony, a point on which the circuit courts have not been uniform.

Susan Poulter, Professor of Law at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, discussed the significance of this latest decision, indicating that Kumho is likely to be particularly important in cases involving expertise based primarily on experience, rather than empirical scientific research. This includes disciplines such as clinical medicine, clinical psychology, and a number of fields of forensic science, such as handwriting analysis.

Professor William Gardner of the medical school at the University of Pittsburgh, who co-chairs the NCLS, elaborated on when expert opinion should be required to have empirical validation. Dr. Gardner stated that Kumho went a long way toward requiring empirical evidence for testimony based on facts about how the world (natural and otherwise) functions. What Kumho left unclear, however, is how to evaluate fields where experts have agreed on a common, but unvalidated procedure.

The discussion turned to forensic evidence with Dr. Donald Kerr, the Director of the FBI laboratory, who discussed a recent FBI study to validate fingerprint evidence. The study, which tested that likelihood of fingerprint "matches" between different individuals, was presented in a recent case where fingerprint identification was challenged by the defendant. Rounding out the panel was Judge Stanley Birch of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta, who wrote the circuit court opinion reversed in Kumho Tire and who was a member of the circuit panel that decided Joiner. Judge Birch provided some practical advice on meeting the Supreme Court's standards, as did commentator Dr. Rebecca Klemm, of Klemm and Associates, Washington, DC, an NCLS member for the AAAS, who has served as an expert witness on statistics.

INFORMATION SECURITY COMMITTEE PAG MAKES PROGRESS
by Ruven Schwartz

The ISC met most recently in Ottawa, guests of the communication Security Establishment of the Canadian Government, on 26-28 August 1999. Over 60 lawyers and technologists participated, with a very strong showing from the Canadian side of the border. The meeting was sponsored by Certicom, Chrysalis-ITS, DOMUS Security LGS, Entrust, EWA, Labcal Technologies, SAIC, Spyrus, and the law firms of Baker & McKenzie, and Macleod Dixon. Presentations made at the meeting will be posted on the ISC homepage, where there also will be an update on the next ISC meeting, tentatively set for the week of 8 November in the DC area, site and exact dates as of this writing to be determined.

As is common with most ISC meetings, the bulk of the time was spent in breakout groups working on furthering the draft of the Public Key Infrastructure Assessment Guidelines, or PAG. Charles Merrill of the McCarter & English law firm, and Randy Sabett of Spyrus, are the reporters for the PAG. Before the meeting, individuals were approached and asked to carry specific sections of the PAG forward as " cham-pions." The response to these requests was overwhel-mingly favorable -- those champions who could not attend the meeting for the most part delivered their drafts by e-mail to the Reporters. In sum, the status of the PAG remains on course for a general release of at least some substantial portions for public comment around the end of the year. For further information about the PAG, or to contribute, please contact Chas, or Randy.

The committee devoted a great deal of time to the following issues:

• problems involved with "proving up" (as well as defending/attacking) the evidentiary issues underlying a pki-based transaction;
• relationship of the PAG to PKIX
• scheduling the next ISC meeting to coincide with the next PKIX meeting, which also be in DC the week of 8 November, so as to make it possible for the two groups to come together and chat through the issues in mapping the two documents to each other;
• next steps for the audit controls WG preparing the actual checklists and steps the auditors of trusted third-party providers should consider in evaluating them;
• text of sample agreements for use in PKI;
• review of the texts and authorities extant to which the PAG should cite;
• a glossary of the language of PKI, to help the legal community and the technical community and any other community with an interest in PKI speak a common language when using the same terms; and
• the possibility of re-working the PAG into a relational database to make it easier to work through the entire document when making changes.

THE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE COMMITTEE: A FORAY INTOI JURISPRUDENT THERAPY?
by Eric Y. Drogin, J.D., Ph.D., ABPP

I appreciate this opportunity to introduce myself and some initial plans for the Behavioral Science Committee.

As an Associate Clinical Professor of the University of Louisville School of Medicine, Depart-ment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, I currently serve on the staff of the University-affiliated Norton Hospital. A Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Psychology, and a Diplomate of the American Board of Professional Psychology and the American Board of Forensic Psychology, I am licensed as a psychologist in New Hampshire, Vermont, and Kentucky, having received my Doctor of Philosophy degree from Hahnemann University in 1991.

As an attorney, I serve as Chairperson of the Federal Bar Association's Health Law Section, as a Commissioner of ABA's Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law, and as an ABA Liaison to the American Psychological Association's Committee on Legal Issues (COLI). I am admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Kentucky (1990), U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky (1993), and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (1997). I received my Juris Doctor degree from Villanova University in 1990. My professional practice encompasses mental health law, expert witness testimony, and trial consultation.

When Steve Brunette brought me on board a year or two ago, I immediately became embroiled in what readers will recognize as one of the key sociolegal issues of our time: is it the Behavioral "Sciences" Committee, or the Behavioral "Science" Committee? I would like my tenure as Chairperson to be recalled, if nothing else, as the one during which this issue was settled once and for all (in favor of the latter designation, I hope).

Under the able leadership of Steve Brunette, the Committee has invested considerably in continuing legal education - a tradition I intend to uphold. With this in mind, I am seeking to have us co-sponsor a Presidential Showcase presentation for the ABA 2000 Annual Convention on "Mental Health Courts" with the Judiciary Division and with the Commission on Mental and Physical Disability Law.

With the growing influence of the Therapeutic Jurisprudence model of legal research and scholarship (in which substantive law, legal procedure, and legal roles are gauged in terms of their therapeutic effects), a mirroring perspective of Jurisprudent Therapy has begun to emerge (in which mental health science, mental health practice, and mental health roles are gauged in terms of their jurisprudent effects, or contributions to justice). More than anything else, I would like to direct the Committee's efforts toward projects that would emphasize the latter construct.

Finally, one of the most important concerns of any committee chair is that of stewardship: supple-menting membership and encouraging the succession of new leaders with fresh ideas. Please contact me directly to become more involved in the Committee's activities. I look forward to hearing from all of you in the coming year. You can reach me at: Voice: (877) 877-6692 Facsimile: (877) 877-6685 Email: EYD@DROGIN.NET.