網頁圖片
PDF
ePub 版

son, e.g., the capacity to be conscious, self-aware, develop and absorb culture that defines an individual. Although a fetus may have a potential for these, it has no more than any other collection of cells and certainly has not these capacities. Incidentally, equal difficulties attend the definition of death, which also requires the interaction and evaluation of non-scientific agencies such as the law and various religious groups.

An even more difficult question relates to the issue of the appearance of consciousness and individuality in terms of information and self-awareness. There is no generally accepted scientific proof that a fetus has consciousness in the sense of self-awareness. If that is what is presumed to be there a priori according to some non-scientific belief, then of course we can extrapolate to value judgments as we wish, and say that in an abortion something dies that we think is "human." But that would be no more scientifically valid than the assertion that a fertilized egg is the first occasion that all the requisite information for a human being is brought together and is therefore on that basis, somehow sacred. In any case, even non-scientists differ in their views on these questions depending on their prior beliefs.

The fact is that people had a full spectrum of such beliefs even before scientists found out the structural details of DNA, spermatozoa, eggs, fetuses, and human development. It is likely that this spectrum of beliefs will exist even after much more is known scientifically about these things. It is debatable that abortions will play a role in whether the human race survives or not. Whatever one's position in this debate, it is a scientifically inaccurate position to contend that "a fertilized egg' represents a unique privileged biological state or that there is a uniquely definable "moment of conception." No amount of personal scientific credentials can justify this assertion as scientific in the face of so many factual counter examples of the kind that I have mentioned, and in the face of questions of value with which science cannot deal.

Having said this much, and particularly because I have taken this position, I must express my opinion as an individual citizen. I believe that it is an infringement upon the rights of a woman to tell her what to do with her eggs, fertilized or not. I believe that the development of a humane and lawful position and example on this matter in every nation is a good thing and a hope for less privileged nations. Finally, I believe the dignity and freedom and individuality of persons does not rest on arbitrary pseudo-scientific definitions but on the consideration of all facts and values in a pluralistic manner. This evaluation involves legal precedent and religious beliefs and must be settled by law for it cannot be settled by scientific experiment. The role of scientists in such an issue is to tell people what scientists know, what science can do and what science cannot do. The decision must then be made on larger grounds, not by some simple appeal to scientific technology nor according to the dogmas of any single group, however sincere its beliefs.

STATEMENT OF
OF NORTON ZINDER, PH. D., PROFESSOR OF
GENETICS, ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY

Dr. ZINDER. Senator Bayh and distinguished committee members, it is an honor for me to be present today to testify before this committee.

However, if I am here as a scientist-expert, I must confess that it is with a certain sense of incongruity, for I do not feel that the issue before this committee is a scientific one but rather one of dogma. The major area where science enters the issue of abortion is in the medical practice relating to the technology of the procedures used. Having said this, I should identify myself. I was trained as a geneticist-microbiologist. With Joshua Lederberg Nobel laureate, I was responsible for the discovery of bacterial transduction-the ability of certain bacterial viruses to carry genetic material from one bacterium to another-a special form of sexuality.

I have also been deeply involved in studying the nature of the genetic code, the details of protein synthesis and the elements that

regulate gene function. This work has all been done with microorganisms, and yet it is our essential belief in the unity of living processes that allows us to extrapolate from such creatures to man. Thus the genetic code as we know it is universal and with only elaboration of detail, the fundamental genetic mechanisms are also universal.

I am an elected member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences, and have been a member of a numbr of Government advisory bodies including one in which I just completed my role as chairman of a committee to review a large area of research under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute. I have been privileged to receive several awards and honors from my colleagues. I am currently professor of genetics at the Rockefeller University.

Now to the matter at hand. To the biological scientist, life can only be defined as a capacity to grow and reproduce. It is a con

tinuum.

What I mean by this is that no living form arises spontaneously and that only living forms can give rise to living forms. Thus in every sense that we might understand it, an unfertilized ovum and the spermatozoa which might fertilize it must be considered alive. They are as alive as any bacterial culture growing in my laboratory or every bit of tissue growing in flask.

Viruses, the simplest of living creatures, can almost indefinitely await the arrival of an appropriate host cell, and then in a brief period of time multiply to give rise to hundreds or thousands of progeny. Spores and seeds of many organisms await the appropriate environment to germinate and give rise to organisms like their progenitors. One could go on indefinitely describing the different reproductive modes of the manifold species that inhabit this earth, but this would add nothing to the matter before you.

I know that it has been argued that the individual and unique genetic identity of a conceptus occurs at the moment of fertilization or shortly thereafter. Indeed, barring certain genetic accidents, as far as we know now this is true, but is no more true for humans than for any other sexually reproducing species, from animals to plants. Scientifically speaking, there is no evidence of any qualitative difference between fertilization in humans and fertilization in any other organism. Since you are not here discussing the issue of abortion in any organism other than man, it is clear that there must be something else involved; some special property ascribed to humans which makes this question so difficult.

What constitutes this special property is a matter of opinion and religious belief, and not a matter of science. There is nothing uniquely human about the union of sperm and egg. Scientifically we cannot answer the question of when life begins. To answer the question thus becomes purely a rhetorical ploy. It is a matter whose definition. can be exploited by any partisan who wishes to impress his views upon his follows.

The more focused and rational question is, when can the fetus live independently of the mother? On this question I have no special competence, not being a physician, but it is generally accepted that

this occurs late during the third trimester of pregnancy. Until that time, the fetus depends totally on the mother for nutrition, oxygen, the removal of waste products of metabolism and perhaps unknown developmental signals; contributions which are required for the full realization of its potential.

Thus if we use the word "living" as applied to humans, to decide what may not be done, we come to the absurdity of having to save every ovum that each mature female produces every month and the billions of spermatozoa continuously produced by the mature male. What are the consequences of restricting abortion?

The pregnant woman is forced to have a child which she does not desire her health, mental and physical, can be put in jeopardy.

I will not touch on the issues of the effects of illegal abortion and the special hardships imposed upon the poor and underprivileged. Others, I am sure, have testified on these matters. However, as a geneticist, I am concerned about the matters. However, as a geneticist, I am concerned about the restriction that it would impose on abortion for those genetic diseases for which we have no treatment and for which diagnosis can now be made in utero.

The option of the family to decide whether or not to bring a defective child into the world would be lost. Each year as our understanding grows, it becomes possible to diagnosis more and more specific genetic diseases before the birth of a defective child, particularly those involving chromosomal and enzymatic abnormalities. This is accomplished by removing a little of the amniotic fluid from the pregnant woman's uterus and examining the cells it contains.

Thus today, Down's syndrome or Mongolism, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, as first described by Dr. Lejune. could be essentially eliminated by such testing and abortion of the affected fetus. A number of other genetic diseases can be circumvented in this way, thereby preventing untold misery for parents and heavy burdens on society.

As a scientist, but even more as a concerned human being, I can only appeal to the members of this committee not to impose the beliefs and opinions of particular groups on society as a whole. There is not-nor need there ever be-a requirement that any individual have, or participate in performing, an abortion. Such decisions in a free and democratic society are best left to the discretion of the parties directly concerned.

Thank you.

STATEMENT OF NORTON D. ZINDER, PH.D.

Senator Bayh and distinguished Committee Members. It is an honor for me to be present today to testify before this committee. However, if I am here as a scientist-expert, I must confess that is is with a certain sense of incongruity, for I do not feel that the issue before this committee is a scientific one but rather one of dogma. The major area where science enters the issue of abortion is in the medical practice relating to the technology of the procedures used. Having said this, I should identify myself. I was trained as a geneticistmicrobiologist. With Joshua Lederberg (Nobel laureate), I was responsible for the discovery of bacterial transduction-the ability of certain bacterial viruses to carry genetic material from one bacterium to another-a special form of sexuality. I have also been deeply involved in studying the nature of the genetic code, the details of protein synthesis and the elements that regulate gene function. This work has all been done with microorganisms and yet it is our essential belief in the unity of living processes that allows us to extrapo

late from such creatures to man. Thus the genetic code as we know it is universal and with only elaboration of detail, the fundamental genetic mechanisms are also universal.

I am an elected member of the Academy of Arts and Sciences and the National Academy of Sciences and have been a member of a number of government advisory bodies including one in which I just completed my role as Chairman of a Committee to review a large area of research under the auspices of the National Cancer Institute. I have been privileged to receive several awards and honors from my colleagues. I am currently Professor of Genetics at the Rockefeller University.

Now to the matter at hand. To the biological scientist, life can only be defined as a capacity to grow and reproduce. It is a continuum. What I mean by that is that no living form arises spontaneously and that only living forms can give rise to living forms. Thus in every sense that we can understand it, an unfertilized ovum and the spermatozoa which might fertilize it must be considered alive. They are as alive as any bacterial culture growing in my laboratory or every bit of tissue growing in a flask.

Viruses, the simplest of living creatures, can almost indefinitely await the arrival of an appropriate host cell and then in a brief period of time multiply to give rise to hundreds or thousands of progeny. Spores and seeds of many organisms await the appropriate environment to germinate and give rise to organisms like their progenitors. One could go on indefinitely describing the different reproductive modes of the manifold species that inhabit this earth, but this would add nothing to the matter before you.

I know that it has been argued that the individual and unique genetic identity of a conceptus occurs at the moment of fertilization or shortly thereafter. Indeed, barring certain genetic accidents, as far as we know now, this is true, but is no more true for humans than for any other sexually reproducing species, from animals to plants. Scientifically speaking there is no evidence of any qualitative difference between fertilization in humans and fertilization in any other organism. Since you are not here discussing the issue of abortion in any organism other than man, it is clear that there must be something else involved; some special property ascribed to humans which makes this question so difficult. What constitutes this special property is a matter of opinion and religious belief and not a matter of science. There is nothing uniquely human about the union of sperm and egg. Scientifically we cannot answer the question of when life begins. To answer the question thus becomes purely a rhetorical ploy. It is a matter whose definition can be exploited by any partisan who wishes to impress his views upon his fellows.

The more focused and rational question is when can the fetus live independently of the mother? On this question I have no special competence not being a physician, but it is generally accepted that this occurs late during the third trimester of pregnancy. Until that time the fetus depends totally on the mother for nutrition, oxygen, the removal of waste products of metabolism and perhaps unknown developmental signals; contributions which are required for the full realization of its potential.

Thus if we use the word "living" as applied to humans, to decide what may and may not be done, we come to the absurdity of having to save every ovum that each mature female produces every month and the billions of spermatozoa continuously produced by the mature male.

What are the consequences of restricting abortion? The pregnant woman is forced to have a child which she doesn't desire-her health, mental and physical, can be put in jeopardy. I will not touch on the issue of the effects of illegal abortion and the special hardships imposed upon the poor and underprivileged. Others, I'm sure, have testified on these matters. However, as a geneticist I am concerned about the restriction that it would impose on abortion for those genetic diseases for which we have no treatment and for which diagnosis can be made in utero. The option of the family to decide whether or not to bring a defective child into the world would be lost. Each year as our understanding grows, it becomes possible to diagnose more and more specific genetic diseases before the birth of a defective child, particularly those involving chromosomal and enzymatic abnormalities. This is accomplished by removing a little of the amniotic fluid from the pregnant woman's uterus and examining the cells it contains. Thus today, Down's syndrome or Mongolism, which is caused by the presence of an extra chromosome, as first described by Dr. Lejeune, could be essentially eliminated by such testing and abortion of

the affected fetus. A number of other genetic diseases can be circumvented in this way, thereby preventing untold misery for parents and heavy burdens on society.

As a scientist but even more as a concerned human being, I can only appeal to the members of this Committee not to impose the beliefs and opinions of particular groups on society as a whole. There is not-nor need there ever be a requirement that any individual have, or participate in performing, an abortion. Such decisions in a free and democratic society are best left to the discretion of the parties directly concerned.

Senator BAYH. Thank you, Dr. Zinder.
Dr. Biggers?

STATEMENT OF JOHN D. BIGGERS, PROFESSOR OF PHYSIOLOGY, AND MEMBER OF THE LABORATORY OF HUMAN REPRODUCTION AND REPRODUCTIVE BIOLOGY, HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL Dr. BIGGERS. Senator Bayh, members of the committee, my name is John D. Biggers, professor of physiology and member of the laboratory of human reproduction and reproductive biology, Harvard Medical School. I was honored to receive an invitation to appear before the Senate Subcommittee on Constitutional Amendments to discuss the proposed amendments to the Constitution of the United States by Senator Buckley and Senator Helms.

First, let me establish my credentials. In 1952, the University of London awarded me the degree of doctor of philosophy, and in 1956, the degree of doctor of science in recognition of my contributions to the reproductive and developmental biology. I have been honored by being elected Commonwealth Fellow of St. John's College, University of Cambridge, England, for the year 1954-55, and in 1973, as the Upjohn lecturer of the American Fertility Society.

Before my appointment to the Harvard faculty, I was professor of population dynamics at the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, president of the society for the study of reproduction, and member of the reproductive biology study section of the National Institutes of Health.

Presently, I am a consultant to the expanded program in Human Reproduction of the World Health Organization, editor in chief of the scientific journal, "Biology of Reproduction", and director of a program-project awarded to Harvard University, supported by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Deevlopment, concerned with the physiological mechanisms involved in the establishment of pregnancy. I am also actively concerned with the problems of developing safe, acceptable, efficient methods of contraception. Mr. Chairman, in my testimony I wish to refer to some drawings in the presentation. I think you have these in front of you.

The alternative amendments proposed by Senators Buckley and Helms both have the aim of bringing abortion to an end under the law. Senator Helms is the spokesman of those who firmly believe in the principle that: "Abortion, the deliberate destruction of an unborn human being, is contrary to the law of God and is a morally evil act." If this principle is granted axiomatic status, it naturally follows that abortion cannot be tolerated under any circumstances. The direct approach available to those who wish to legalize their objections to abortion is to advocate specific antiabortion laws. The

« 上一頁繼續 »