Page images
PDF
EPUB

Senator KENNEDY. I'm interested in the way you are proceeding, the kinds of people who provided an input and the range of different disciplines that have been involved in their development.

Dr. MARSTON. All right, sir.

Senator KENNEDY. And also what you envisage in the future in terms of these questions.

Dr. MARSTON. And we would hope we would have an opportunity, Senator, to continue to work with the committee along these lines. As you have heard, my particular concern is that one have a mechanism periodically surveying these fields, because they are moving so rapidly, and we want to have our activities along these lines coincide with whatever actions the Congress may take.

Senator KENNEDY. Who takes the responsibility for deciding the role of the theologians or philosophers or ethicists in terms of developing the guidelines. How is that resolved?

Dr. MARSTON. To the extent that a given meeting is set up, and the recent ones have been in the Fogarty Center, which has worked closely with my immediate office and with me personally in looking at the importance of some of these questions, in our advisory council at NIH, which have a significant number of lay people, who are secretarial appointees, and many members of those advisory members are not chosen so much by their field as by their broad competence and experience.

On the local level, we set up the guidelines that they must include nonprofessional individuals and the choice of whether these include

Senator KENNEDY. That is pretty broad, though.

Dr. MARSTON. Yes, it is a local decision.

Senator KENNEDY. If you would give us a chance to see how you decide that who decides that-we would have a clearer idea of the whole matter.

Dr. MARSTON. All right.

Senator DOMINICK. Would you let me ask one more question?

I am trying to find out something, Doctor, and I am not quite sure I found it out from either of you.

Are you for, or against this bill?

Senator KENNEDY. I can tell you they are against it.
Senator DOMINICK. I mean actively, or passively?

Dr. DUVAL. Senator, we believe that the original reolution that called for the establishment of this Commission in, I believe, 1968, was well placed. We feel the purposes for which this Commission is to stand are very desirable, and we share those as objectives for the Department.

We think that as a consequence of the efforts this committee and others have put out, in terms of achieving the objectives of the Commission, they are being well served in the community, and at the moment, we are taking the position at this time that legislation isn't necessary. Senator DOMINICK. Thank you. [Laughter.]

Senator KENNEDY. Doctor, we want to thank you. You are always very helpful to this committee, and we appreciate your and Dr. Marston's appearances here this morning and we value your comments. Thank you very, very much.

(The prepared statement of Dr. Duval follows:)

[blocks in formation]

TESTIMONY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH

OF THE COMMITTEE ON LABOR AND PUBLIC WELFARE

November 9, 1971

Mr. Chairman, and members of the Subcommittee on Health, I am pleased

to appear before you today to participate in your consideration of S. J. Resolution 75, which would provide for a study and evaluation of the ethical, social, and legal implications of advances in biomedical research and technology.

As proposed, the Resolution would establish a National Advisory Commission on Health Science and Society,which would analyze and evaluate current and projected scientific and technological advances in the biomedical sciences. the implications of such advances for individuals and society, public understanding and attitudes toward these implications, and related public policy aspects.

The Commission would be composed of 15 representatives of medicine, law, theology, biological science, physical science, social science, philosophy, humanities, health administration, government, and public affairs; and its members would be appointed by the President.

-2

The Commission would utilize the many already completed studies in the field made by public and private agencies and any future studies that become available, It would have the power to hold hearings, take sworn testimony, receive information from Government agencies, and enter into contracts for the conduct of research or surveys, the preparation of reports, or other necessary activities. The Commission would make one or more interim reports and a final report to the President and Congress not later than two years after their initial meeting. Such reports would contain detailed statements of the Commission's findings and conclusions, together with its recommendations, including any recommendations for action by public and private bodies and individuals.

Funding authorizations would

be $1 million for fiscal year 1972 and a like amount for 1973.

Ninety days after it wakes its final report, the Commission would cease

to exist.

Mr. Chairman, in considering this proposed legislation, the first question to ask ourselves is, Does this bill deal with matters significant enough to warrant national attention and co tcern? This century, beyond question, has witnessed a revolution in the biological and medical sciences-a revolution that raises a whole spectrum of critical problems, which at least in some instances appear to transcend the inherent capabilities of science and scientists alone to deal with them, and present acute challenges to both existing law and conventional wisdom. Some of the more important, and provocative, of these problems might be mentioned:

3

• Population growth, accelerated by advances in medicine and socioeconomic conditions, has brought the world in just a short time to within sight of what most experts believe to be the maximum population density that this finite globe can sustain. A host of ethical and legal problems have emerged in connection with control of birth rates through contraceptives and abortion. What, for instance, is the measure of safety for contraceptive drugs that have a potential market of many hundreds of millions of normal women--and soon perhaps, men--in the prime of life? Can society rely on the voluntary behavior of individuals to prevent absolute overpopulation? If

not, what are the alternatives, and what implications would their adoption carry for the governance of society.

• New techniques for obtaining cells from the fetus (amniocentesis)
almost from the start of pregnancy, and for determining many of
the characteristics of that fetus from a study of these cells, give
a physician and a parent unequivocal answers to questions such as the
sex of the unborn child or its freedom from many genetically deter-
mined diseases. The potential availability of such knowledge coupled
with rapidly changing societal attitudes toward abortion raise
interesting problems. Will the interests of individuals and of

society always be congruent? What would be the impact on the

human race if the preferences of a generation were to affect significent 15

« PreviousContinue »