About

Henry T. Greely is the Deane F. and Kate Edelman Johnson Professor of Law at Stanford University, where he also holds a courtesy professorship in Genetics. He serves as the Director of the Stanford Center for Law and the Biosciences and the Stanford Program in Neuroscience and Society. Greely's academic training includes an A.B. in Political Science from Stanford University (1974) and a J.D. from Yale Law School (1977). His early career involved prestigious clerkships with Judge John Minor Wisdom of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and Justice Potter Stewart of the U.S. Supreme Court, followed by legal practice and government service. He joined Stanford University as an Associate Professor of Law in 1985 and has been a full Professor since 1992, holding named professorships since 1998. Greely's work focuses on the intersection of law, genetics, neuroscience, and bioethics, addressing the legal and ethical implications of advances in biosciences and technology. He has played significant leadership roles in various advisory committees and organizations related to stem cell research, neuroethics, genomics, and biotechnology policy. His contributions include directing interdisciplinary programs at Stanford, participating in national and international ethics committees, and influencing policy on human subjects research, genetic testing, and neuroscience. Greely is recognized for his scholarship on the ethical, legal, and social issues arising from developments in genetics and neuroscience, and he has been honored as a Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and received the Richard W. Lyman Award from Stanford University.

Research topics

• Computer Science
• Political Science
• Biology
• Neuroscience
• Artificial Intelligence
• Psychology
• Cognitive science
• Engineering ethics
• Environmental ethics
• Genetics
• Nanotechnology
• Cell biology
• Epistemology
• Materials science
• Environmental science
• Environmental resource management
• Philosophy
• Engineering
• Public relations
• Ecology
• Law

Selected publications

• Alabama’s <i>LePage</i> decision, the future of <i>ex vivo</i> embryos, and more

  Journal of Law and the Biosciences · 2026-01-01

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract In February 2024 the Alabama Supreme Court held that the destruction of frozen embryos stored at an in vitro fertilization (IVF) center could be the basis of a wrongful death suit by the prospective parents under Alabama law. The opinion caused a bipartisan uproar that led to its effective overturning by the Alabama legislature and governor 19 days after it was issued. The Alabama Supreme Court’s unexpected intervention in IVF shows the surprising ways a mishap in a clinic can trigger a collision of originalist jurisprudence, judicial rhetoric, political mobilization, and media amplification in our post-Dobbs world. A closer look reminds us of how variable court systems and laws are across the USA, as well as the complex motivations of patients and others involved in assisted reproduction. It also shows how state court decisions, perhaps through intentional provocations, can reverberate in the national debate, leading to overreactions, some far beyond their jurisdictions’ borders. Plus, in context, beyond the online quips, the political soundbites, and the media articles, it is a fascinating tale and all of that from a case that could easily have been decided, in either direction, as a low-key interpretation of a unique Alabama statute, without broad consequences.

  PublisherDOI

• The need for a global effort to attend to human neural organoid and assembloid research

  Science · 2025-11-06 · 4 citations

  articleSenior author

  A continuing international process is needed to monitor and advise this rapidly progressing field.

  PublisherDOI

• Human embryo editing against disease is unsafe and unproven — despite rosy predictions

  Nature · 2025-01-08 · 4 citations

  articleCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• Referee report. For: Human brain organoid research: An analysis of public attitudes and ethical concerns in Japan [version 1; peer review: 1 approved with reservations, 1 not approved]

  Faculty of 1000 Research Ltd · 2025-01-01

  peer-reviewOpen access1st authorCorresponding
  PublisherDOI

• The Control of Genetic Research: Involving the “Groups Between”

  2024-10-18 · 15 citations

  book-chapter1st authorCorresponding

  For twenty years, one paradigm for the control of biomedical research has ruled the United States. 1 The federal government has controlled that research in two ways, to one end. It has used both its power of the purse, as the main source of funding of research, 2 and its regulatory power, as the approver of new drugs and devices, 3 to require that almost all biomedical research be governed by federal regulations, enforced through Institutional Review Boards (IRB). 4 In addition, those federal regulations, supported both by international declarations 5 and the domestic growth of patient autonomy, 6 insisted almost always on the consent, properly informed, of the individual subjects of the research. 7 This American paradigm rules not only the United States, but, through the spread of ideas, the international flow of federal money, and the universal interest of commercial firms in selling products to the American market, it has come to dominate the entire research world. 8

  PublisherDOI

• Human Diversity, Equity, and Bartha Maria Knoppers

  2024-11-04

  book-chapterOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Professor Knoppers has had a long and varied, but always important, career working at the intersections of law, ethics, and the biosciences. This chapter focuses on her involvement with human genetic diversity and the ways that studying it raise important issues of equity. The chapter goes back nearly 30 years to her work for HUGO on the Human Genome Diversity Project, and the tensions between the goal of a universally accessible genomic databases and the rights of local, and particularly indigenous populations. But it then flips to a different side of that tension and the ways that equity demands that all populations have access to scientific advances from genomics. Next, the chapter explores the tensions between her internationalism and an arguably more realistic view of the potential for global agreements and international law, in light of the (non-genetic) diversity of human cultures, beliefs, and political systems. It specifically examines her advocacy for the international human right to science and the strengths and weaknesses of such a tool. Finally, along the way, it tries to provide some glimpses of Bartha Maria Knoppers, the person and the friend.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Implementing the human right to science in neuroscience

  Journal of Law and the Biosciences · 2024-05-14 · 1 citations

  articleOpen access1st authorCorresponding

  Abstract This article considers the implications of the international Human Right to Science for advances in neuroscience. First, it provides background information on both the Human Right to Science and on likely challenges arising from neuroscience in five categories: prediction, mind-reading, mind-control, mental enhancement, and “humanness.” Second, it examines the Human Right to Science, analyzing its internal contradictions in general, discussing those contradictions in reference to neuroscience, and then analyzing some practical limitations it would have. Third, it considers how human rights law might better approach neuroscience, first through strengthening the Human Right to Science and then by finding neuroscience-relevant rights in existing or novel Human Rights. The article concludes that the Human Right to Science may play a small part in neuroscience, especially in promoting freedom to do neuroscience research, but that its overall role is likely to be minor.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• The Myriad Decision at 10

  Annual Review of Genomics and Human Genetics · 2024-02-29 · 3 citations

  reviewOpen accessSenior author

  A decade ago, the US Supreme Court decided Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. , concluding that isolated genes were not patentable subject matter. Beyond being a mere patent dispute, the case was a political and cultural phenomenon, viewed as a harbinger for the health of the biotechnology industry. With a decade of perspective, though, Myriad 's impact seems much narrower. The law surrounding patentable subject matter—while greatly transformed—only centered on Myriad in small part. The case had only a modest impact on patenting practices both in and outside the United States. And persistent efforts to legislatively overturn the decision have not borne fruit. The significance of Myriad thus remains, even a decade later, hidden by larger developments in science and law that have occurred since the case was decided.

  PublisherDOI

• The commitment of the human cell atlas to humanity

  Nature Communications · 2024-11-20 · 19 citations

  reviewOpen access

  The Human Cell Atlas (HCA) is a global partnership “to create comprehensive reference maps of all human cells—the fundamental units of life – as a basis for both understanding human health and diagnosing, monitoring, and treating disease.” ( https://www.humancellatlas.org/ ) The atlas shall characterize cells from diverse individuals across the globe to better understand human biology. HCA proactively considers the priorities of, and benefits accrued to, contributing communities. Here, we lay out principles and action items that have been adopted to affirm HCA’s commitment to equity so that the atlas is beneficial to all of humanity. The Human Cell Atlas (HCA) aims to characterize cells from diverse individuals across the globe to better understand human biology. Here, the authors lay out principles and action items that have been adopted to affirm HCA’s commitment to equity so that the atlas is beneficial to all of humanity.

  PublisherOA PDFDOI

• Toward a framework for risk mitigation of potential misuse of artificial intelligence in biomedical research

  Nature Machine Intelligence · 2024-11-26 · 14 citations

  articleOpen access
  PublisherOA PDFDOI

Frequent coauthors

• Jacob S. Sherkow

  University of Copenhagen

  30 shared

• Debra Mathews

  25 shared

• Jeremy Sugarman

  24 shared

• Mildred K. Cho

  Stanford University

  23 shared

• Jeffrey Kahn

  22 shared

• Ruth Faden

  Johns Hopkins University

  21 shared

• Hilary Bok

  Johns Hopkins University

  21 shared

• Andrew W. Siegel

  21 shared

Education

• JD, Law

  Yale University

  1977

• AB, Political Science

  Stanford University

  1974