If the Constitution was written today, given what we now know about science and technology, particularly chemistry (and even more specifically biochemistry and molecular biology), what do you think it would include/not include, and why? How would it be different? Would there be a rewording based on what we know now? If so, how and wherein? There are lots of things to think about here, but just for a few examples…(1) Does a scientist have a constitutional right to do research on any subject? Or are there topics that should be “forbidden knowledge”? [1st amendment] (2) Does freedom of the press apply to scientific publications? Electronic publications distributed over the internet? Even if it is something related to genetic reconstitution of potentially lethal viruses or development of biochemicals that could lead to mass destruction if misused? [1st amendment] (3) Do you have a privacy interest or a property interest in your own biochemistry (i.e. your DNA)? Does it belong to you, or to nature? [4th amendment] (4) Would life-long quarantine of AIDS sufferers be unconstitutional? What about mandatory AIDS testing (it is a biochemical test)? (5) If a violent, mentally ill murderer could be reliably cured with modern pharmaceutical chemistry or genetic (biochemical) therapy, would he or she have a constitutional right to refuse treatment?1

What do these authors mean when they talk about masculinities and feminities? How do you make sense of the concepts of sexual identities, biology and desire? We all live in sexual bodies though our experience of what that means is incredibly varied. Why does sex cause so much trouble? How do masculinities and feminities work for and against the status quo to ensure that those in power stay in power? What is hegemonic masculinity and why is it so important that we understand it? Are some bodies less sex-worthy? Who should decide what kind of people are allowed to have sex?