Currently, there are at least five bases for recognizing parentage: biology, genetics, intent, marriage, and functional or de facto parentage. These many bases for parentage, combined with the realities of reproduction, cohabitation, and family interaction, are the reason why children can have more than two parents. In many states, however, to have three instead of two parents is legally impossible. For example, statutory restrictions may require the demonstration of one or two legal parents' unfitness as parents before a third party can be granted parental rights; these restrictions also prevent the assertion of de facto parenthood. Limiting the number of parents a child can have is noticeably disadvantageous for a child with three fit, putative parents, as the child would be deprived of a parent-child relationship. Indeed, without the legal recognition of full parentage, children may be deprived of important sources of financial support and contact with their perceived parents, which may be traumatic to them. Drawing from the best interests of the child standard, this article introduces a new doctrine for parental recognition, “parentage in praxi,” which requires (1) that a putative parent complete statutorily delineated requirements that culminate in them standing “in the shoes of a parent,” and (2) that state law operate to allow a child to have more than two parents -- if doing so would be in the best interests of the child. A parent in praxi would have the same rights and obligations as a legal parent. By recognizing parentage in praxi, states can protect the relationships that children have formed with putative parents who may not be currently recognized as legal parents, regardless of the parents' legal status in any sphere not concerning the well-being of the child (e.g., marital status, familial status, or gender).

Improvement of man's genetic endowment by direct ac tions aimed at striving for the positive propagation of those with a superior genetic profile (an element of which is commonly recognized as a high intelligence quotient) or-conversely-delimitation of those with negative genetic inheritance has always remained a pri mary concern of the geneticist and the social engineer. Genetic integrity, eugenic advancement, and a strong genetic pool designed to eliminate illness and suffering have been the benchmarks of the "Genetic Movement" and the challenge of Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four. If the quality of life can in some way be either im proved or advanced by use of the law, then this policy must be developed and pursued. No longer does the Dostoyevskian quest to give life meaning through suf fering become an inescapable given. By and through the development and application of new scientific advances in the field of genetics (and especially genetic engi neering), the real potential exists to prevent, to a very vii Preface viii real extent, most human suffering before it ever mani fests itself in or through life. Freedom to undertake re search in the exciting and fertile frontiers of the "New Biology" and to master the Genetic Code must be nur tured and maintained. The search for the truth inevi tably prevents intellectual, social, and economic stag nation, as well as-ideally-frees all from anxiety and fright. Yet, there is a very real potential for this quest to confuse and confound.

The law is a mandate and a mirror; it both commands and reflects. It should not come as a shock that scientists and physicians often prefer the mirror at times when society seems to be demanding a mandate. This may be especially true in the rapidly advancing field of medical genetics, where recent discoveries leading to potentially startling applications have raised old questions of law in a new light. Nevertheless, we believe that in general the conflict between the law and science, as illustrated in the field of genetics, is embroi dered with exaggeration. The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, Warren Burger, has noted that "the prime function of the law is to protect basic human values--individual human values--sometimes even at the expense of scientific progress"; and that "it is not the function of the law to keep pace with science." While both of these statements are true as far as they go, we believe the law must make an affirmative effort to anticipate scientific developments so that those beneficial to society can be nurtured rather than stultified. It was to nurture cooperation and understanding that we brought together a distinguished faculty of internationally known experts on law and genetics to discuss their fields in 1975.

This book will look at behavior in a different way. Have you heard of the phrase nature vs nurture? Simply, it asks what influences our behavior? This has been a debated topic since early man. Nature is usually defined as what is given to us before we are born, specifically, as discussed in this text, genetics. Nurture means learning that we acquire from our environment–parents, friends, and other influences. In this book, we will look at the newest scientific work, how both genetics and environment effect how we behave. Science, specifically genetics, is now finding its way into all areas of everyday life, criminal law, politics, and how our brain is involved in our actions.

Using evidence from a broad array of scientific fields (including biology, psychology, and economics), this book provides cutting-edge information about the flexibility of genetic expression that derives from the interplay of genes with environments from

This book provides an analysis of the nature vs. nuture debate, arguing for an end to the 'either/or' nature of the discussions in favor of a recognition that environmental and genetic factors interact throughout life to form human traits.

The Exposome: A Primer is the first book dedicated to exposomics, detailing the purpose and scope of this emerging field of study, its practical applications and how it complements a broad range of disciplines. Genetic causes account for up to a third of all complex diseases. (As genomic approaches improve, this is likely to rise.) Environmental factors also influence human disease but, unlike with genetics, there is no standard or systematic way to measure the influence of environmental exposures. The exposome is an emerging concept that hopes to address this, measuring the effects of life-long environmental exposures on health and how these exposures can influence disease. This systematic introduction considers topics of managing and integrating exposome data (including maps, models, computation, and systems biology), "-omics"-based technologies, and more. Both students and scientists in disciplines including toxicology, environmental health, epidemiology, and public health will benefit from this rigorous yet readable overview.