Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Steven Jacobs’ 5-year fight and when mammalian life begins

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

According to The College Fix:

UChicago scholar proves biologists believe life begins at conception. It took five years and cost him a career.
Daniel Payne – Assistant Editor •July 10, 2019


‘I’m doing this for the sake of the research’
Steven Jacobs has described some of his time in the academy as “agony.”
The University of Chicago PhD spent the last half-decade in a grueling fight to gather and publish research related to the American abortion debate. During that time he was ridiculed, mocked and defamed; accused of committing academic dishonesty, politicizing science and conducting his work with personal bias; compared to the Ku Klux Klan; and in general painted as an unprofessional radical who was, in one academic’s words, “not deserving of a PhD degree.”
All of this came about simply because Jacobs asked thousands of scientists several questions about when they believe human life begins – questions one respondent referred to as a “trap” and another called “horribly manipulative.”
The results of Jacobs’ work would eventually reveal a stunning fact about American academia in the field of biology: professors overwhelmingly agree with the pro-life position that human lives begin at conception. Gathering that data, arguing it, and getting it published, however, was a crushing and drawn-out affair.

This suggests, there may be yet another guilty secret lurking behind the dominant, widely promoted views. A clip of the results of his survey may give a clue:

Breitbart adds to our understanding of what seems to be a troubling case:

A study found 80 percent of Americans say biologists should decide the question of when life begins, and, when more than 5,500 biologists were then asked that question, 96 percent affirmed life begins at fertilization.
Steven Jacobs, Ph.D. completed his doctoral dissertation research (final publication pending, but an earlier version can be read here) recently at the University of Chicago, but only after a decade of investigation that ultimately led to his final study titled “Balancing Abortion Rights and Fetal Rights.”
In his research, Jacobs focused on studying Americans’ beliefs and values, attitudes toward abortion, and beliefs about when life begins.
One of the quotes he included in his study comes from an anonymous academic biologist, who said, “[The abortion debate] comes down to the question of whether we think personal autonomy is more important than the life of a human being.”
For the first part of his research, Jacobs went to the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade decision itself for a list of experts who might be considered most qualified to determine when life begins. He then presented this list to participants in one of his surveys.
Jacobs surveyed a sample of 3,883 Americans who were given the choice of biologists, religious leaders, voters, philosophers, or Supreme Court justices as the group of experts most qualified to determine when life begins.
According to the study, the sample was predominantly pro-choice (62 percent), liberal (63 percent), socialist (54 percent), and Democrat (66 percent.) Of the participants, 63 percent were college graduates, 57 percent were female, 43 percent were male.
Results showed 80 percent of Americans selected biologists (95 percent confidence interval [79-81 percent]) as the group to answer the question of when life begins.
Pro-choice participants (86 percent) were more likely to select biologists than pro-life participants (69 percent).
“I followed that up with an open-ended question: ‘Why did you select that group?” and 92 percent said they selected biologists because they are experts in science and they are objective scientists,” Jacobs told Breitbart News in an interview.
The researcher then took survey questions to 5,577 biologists from over a thousand academic institutions in 86 countries. According to the study, the sample of biologists was predominantly non-religious (63 percent), with more liberals (89 percent) than conservatives (11 percent), Democrats (92 percent) than Republicans (8 percent), and pro-choice supporters (85 percent) than pro-life supporters (15 percent).
While the study focused on the biological view of when a human’s life begins, the surveys also included questions about other scientific concepts related to genetics, etc. Participants were asked to respond “Correct” or Incorrect” to statements describing the biological view that “a human’s life begins at fertilization.” An open-ended question on the participants’ biological view of “when a human’s life begins” was also presented.
Overall, the study found 96 percent of biologists affirmed the view that a human’s life begins at fertilization (95 percent confidence interval [95-97 percent]).

The College Fix gives some troubling points of concern:

One respondent to Jacobs’ survey “accused me of nefarious intentions and threatened to sabotage my work by telling other biologists to not participate in my study,” the scholar said. That professor “ultimately reported me to my school’s ethics committee.” Jacobs’ advisor told him to halt his data-gathering, though eventually that advisor would defend Jacobs before the school’s ethics committee, after which the research was allowed to continue.
Further troubles
However, after beginning the survey again, this time in September 2016, “my study was once again canceled within a week.” Jacobs’ advisor was beleaguered with accusations that he himself “had no integrity for even approving [the] research.”
“I was told that my survey seemed like it was developed by the Ku Klux Klan; I was told that my work could expedite the extinction of the human race; I was told that I should be ashamed of myself since I was damaging the reputation of the University of Chicago,” Jacobs said.
He provided The Fix with a staggering number of responses from the survey respondents. Those emails range from the affirmative to the immaterial to the aggressively vituperative.
“A VERY poorly designed questionnaire. I doubt that ANY serious conclusions can be drawn from it,” one response reads. “Abortion has been legal for over 40 years. It’s time for all the religious nuts to get over it,” said another. “Abortion is a woman’s right; the state has no role in the decision to abort whatever the reason (medical, cultural, economic),” a third reads.
“Abortion is not about biology. Please don’t use this survey to say ‘Look, even biologists are pro-life’ because that is absolutely not what my answers mean,” another respondent said.
Others equivocated on the relevance of the questions. “Biology deals with facts. When a life, with value, begins or ends is best decided by philosophers and ethicists,” said a respondent.
Another wrote: “As a scientist, I agree that life begins at fertilization. But, as a citizen of this democracy, I support a woman’s right to choose. From that perspective, I adopt the opinion that life begins at first heartbeat.”
Another criticized Jacobs for referring to the two sides of the abortion debate as “choice” and “pro-life.” That professor requested that the terms be classified as “choice” and “anti-choice.”

This, in response to questions such as:

Asking biologists basic questions on human development
The survey questions were directed specifically at determining respondents’ beliefs about when individual lives begin. Respondents were asked to agree or disagree with two “implicit statements.”
The first read: “The end product of mammalian fertilization is a fertilized egg (‘zygote’), a new mammalian organism in the first stage of its species’ life cycle with its species’ genome.” The second declared: “The development of a mammal begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
A subsequent “explicit statement” asked recipients to respond to this premise: “In developmental biology, fertilization marks the beginning of a human’s life since that process produces an organism with a human genome that has begun to develop in the first stage of the human life cycle.”
An open-ended essay question asked respondents to answer “from a biological perspective” the question “When does a human’s life begin?’”
The questions are firmly couched in the premises and presumptions of biological science rather than any political ideology. And yet the backlash to the survey was relentless and viciously negative.

Jacobs has apparently been told that he is in effect blacklisted; something that sounds all to familiar to those who have argued, analysed and done research that warrants a design inference.

This sort of pattern suggests a guilty secret.

Food for thought. END

Comments
BB, Notice, Jefferson et al explicitly recognised that full humanity and rights extended to black Africans in Africa and the Americas, by context including men and women. In that context all clearly means all, and it was taken as a point where the Americans were, by dint of natural law caught up in a criminal enterprise of enslavement. This was a point that could not be fixed then, given balance of power but it was courageously and against personal circumstances acknowledged. The context is therefore clear, you are simply locking out what does not fit your preferred narrative. The side-track can be set aside as an empty distraction from our own grave wrong and guilty secret. KF PS: Note how abolitionist and sixth US President John Quincy Adams observed on July 4th 1837:
The inconsistency of the institution of domestic slavery with the principles of the Declaration of Independence was seen and lamented by all the southern patriots of the Revolution; by no one with deeper and more unalterable conviction than by the author of the Declaration himself. No charge of insincerity or hypocrisy can be fairly laid to their charge. Never from their lips was heard one syllable of attempt to justify the institution of slavery. They universally considered it as a reproach fastened upon them by the unnatural step-mother country and they saw that before the principles of the Declaration of Independence, slavery, in common with every other mode of oppression, was destined sooner or later to be banished from the earth. Such was the undoubting conviction of Jefferson to his dying day. In the Memoir of His Life, written at the age of seventy-seven, he gave to his countrymen the solemn and emphatic warning that the day was not distant when they must hear and adopt the general emancipation of their slaves. “Nothing is more certainly written,” said he, “in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free.”
kairosfocus
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
Brother Brian says that we aren't any better than the other animals.
There are two basic unalterable facts. 1) Young people are going to have sex. 2) you can’t change number one.
Losers can't.
In spite of these facts, there are those who want to deny young people the knowledge and tools necessary to reduce the risks associated with sex.
You are an ignorant troll. This is the 21st century and all the information is readily available. Ignorance and stupidity are not reasons to behave like uncontrollable animals. Yet Brian would have us believe that they are.ET
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
07:03 AM
7
07
03
AM
PDT
LoL! Being Created equal is not the same as having equal privileges in any given society. And bringing up corrected wrongs is just another desperate ploy by Brian. Not all woman make less than their male counterparts. And people can only be denied certain positions based on what gender they are attracted to because it matters.ET
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
06:57 AM
6
06
57
AM
PDT
There are two basic unalterable facts. 1) Young people are going to have sex. 2) you can’t change number one. In spite of these facts, there are those who want to deny young people the knowledge and tools necessary to reduce the risks associated with sex. For example, KF is on record as being opposed to these measures even though they have been proven to significantly reduce unwanted pregnancy and abortion. I would be interested to hear if everyone else feels the same way KF does.Brother Brian
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
06:54 AM
6
06
54
AM
PDT
KF
As for women etc, you full well know that despite what radicals may say, “all men are created equal” clearly embraces any member of the human species whatsoever.
Your naivety is showing. Women and blacks were denied the vote, with full support of government. Slave owners had the legal right to sell and beat their slaves, with full protection of the law. Men were allowed to strike and rape their wives, with full protection of the law. Natives were hunted and killed, under legal sanction. Homosexuals were jailed and/or castrated, under legal edict. Japanese Americans had their land stolen an placed in concentration camps under government order. So please mansplain to me again how the drafters of the constitution fully believed that all humans are equal under the law. Even in 2019, women make less than men, homosexuals are denied certain positions just because of the gender they are attracted to.Brother Brian
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
06:42 AM
6
06
42
AM
PDT
Folks, This is not rocket science. Here is the traditional Hippocratic Oath, credited to Hippocrates:
I swear by Apollo Physician, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the gods and goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture. To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else. I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein. Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets. Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I break it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.[7] – Translation by W.H.S. Jones.
There are acts against natural law that are criminal in themselves, unalterably. It is a mark of our debased times that under colour of law we indulge in the holocaust of the most innocent of all. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
04:38 AM
4
04
38
AM
PDT
Brother Brian:
Rather than criminalizing women and doctors, I prefer an approach that will reduce unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, abortions.
LoL! This is the 21st century. If people are choosing to remain ignorant of what happens when they have sex then there is nothing to left to do*. Seriously, it looks as if many humans prefer to be just like all the other animals and not care about any responsibilities beyond satisfying their own animal wants and desires. *perhaps someone will come up with a way to temporarily sterilize people so they cannot conceive until they are married and sign papers to the effect of no abortions.ET
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT
EMH, you are right, manifestly right. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
03:16 AM
3
03
16
AM
PDT
CH, long time no see. You are of course substantially right and that an investigation on the views of those the public has seen as having relevant authority has faced such attack speaks volumes. Volumes on a deadly, guilty secret. KFkairosfocus
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT
BB, your ignorance of the relevant history is only sadly underscored by your snide dismissive remark; a remark that reflects the ill-founded and ruinous oppression thesis of cultural marxism, which if unchecked would destroy the civilisation that has brought substantial, transformative progress to the world -- for all its flaws. At founding, in the text of the original draft, Jefferson [yes, himself a slave owner] spoke against slavery. On the challenge that they had little choice but to unite if the clear and present danger was to be addressed,an initial draft was developed by a committee of five, but on presentation to the congress a compromise was struck-- one that retained a clear universal declaration but did not explicitly attack slavery. Eighty-odd years later, that compromise multiplied by intransigence was paid for with the blood of 600,000 and the ruin wreaked by civil war. As for women etc, you full well know that despite what radicals may say, "all men are created equal" clearly embraces any member of the human species whatsoever. So, the intent to smuggle in a taint of a state paper marking a breakthrough in liberty carried out in service to robbing our living posterity in the womb of their right to life collapses. Your rhetoric is duly exposed and fails. Further fair comment, that, in context, it is written in enablement of an ongoing holocaust of our living posterity in the womb is sufficient to utterly condemn it as serving manifest evil. KF PS: Jefferson's relevant text:
he [--> King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating it's most sacred rights of life & liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating & carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. this piratical warfare, the opprobrium of infidel powers, is the warfare of the CHRISTIAN king of Great Britain. determined to keep open a market where MEN should be bought & sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce: and that this assemblage of horrors might want no fact of distinguished die, he is now exciting those very people to rise in arms among us, and to purchase that liberty of which he has deprived them, & murdering the people upon whom he also obtruded them; thus paying off former crimes committed against the liberties of one people, with crimes which he urges them to commit against the lives of another.
You owe a retraction.kairosfocus
July 20, 2019
July
07
Jul
20
20
2019
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
Eric
The US is the only country in the history of civilization founded upon the idea that merely being human gives everyone the right to life, ...
Unless you are black, or indigenous, or a woman.Brother Brian
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
05:01 PM
5
05
01
PM
PDT
@BB the real question is what gives us the right to life. The US is the only country in the history of civilization founded upon the idea that merely being human gives everyone the right to life, and this idea is foundational for everything else in the US constitution. This is one of the greatest principles in history, and we've only gained the more we hold true to the principle that all humanity have a right to life. I say we make progress in this direction especially for those must incapable of protecting their right to life, yet who are most often deprived of their fundamental right: the preborn child.EricMH
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
03:29 PM
3
03
29
PM
PDT
Let us take a look at the jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court In Roe vs Wade, Mr Justice Blackmun, writing for the Court gave us this: "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer." Mr Justice Blackmun claimed for the Court that the time of when life begins to be "a most sensitive and difficult question", when any sane Biologist, or 9th grader who has taken Biology, knows*** that it begins at fertilization. This was was the Court's most important decision, even more important than Dred Scott vs Sandford, as it decided the life or death++++ of 60 million innocent and defenseless human beings. Mr Justice Blackmun did present scholarly expositions on such irrelevancies as medieval medicine, the theology of ensoulment, the thinking of the Stoics, and even references "new embryological data that purport to indicate that conception is not an event but is a "process" over time", Due to the Court's ignorance of science there is no mention of the term "DNA.", whose discovery in 20 years prior to his writing eliminated any remaining doubt about when life begins. , The Supreme Court of the United States of America Your tax dollars at work! ++++ the Court's decision was death. *** In fairness to Mr Justice Blackmun and his colleagues, their ignorance of basic Science is shared by other prominent legal scholars. (such as then Senator Barack Obama in a 2008 debate)chris haynes
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
03:22 PM
3
03
22
PM
PDT
F/N: We should rather be concerned that one biologist in 20 denies the obvious facts established since C19. Dehumanising a target group and robbing them of right to life etc is an old and notorious step of oppression. KFkairosfocus
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT
PaV
As to “when” human life in the womb should be “afforded the same rights as the mother?,” don’t you see that this question ends up sounding like an answer one could give to this question: how much ‘human life’ should we afford a slave?
Not at all. We think that human rights are absolute but we make plenty of exceptions. We kill people in wars. We lock up late stage alzheimer patients. We lock up people who break any number of rules that we have established. In some cases we even invoke the death penalty for some crimes. We do not allow children to drink or to drive. What is in contention is the idea of when does a fetus's right to life start. Some believe that this starts at conception. Some believe that this occurs when the embryo is viable. Others believe that it starts when the fetus starts to become conscious and can perceive pain. I don't have any hard answer to this and, frankly, I don't really care. For whatever reason, the general public, doctors and society have gravitated towards the three month mark. Even in jurisdictions with no prohibition on late term abortion, the vast majority occur in the first couple months. Rather than criminalizing women and doctors, I prefer an approach that will reduce unwanted pregnancies and, therefore, abortions. Sadly, many who oppose abortion also oppose approaches that have been proven to significantly reduce them.Brother Brian
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
11:47 AM
11
11
47
AM
PDT
Brother Brian: As to "when" human life in the womb should be "afforded the same rights as the mother?," don't you see that this question ends up sounding like an answer one could give to this question: how much 'human life' should we afford a slave? In other words, the 3/5th solution. Maybe we apply the same answer to pregnancy: i.e., 3/5ths of 9 months, or around five months. How does this questioning now sound to you? Is it chilling?PaV
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
10:40 AM
10
10
40
AM
PDT
Of course life begins at conception. I don't think that many people, biologists included, would disagree with this. The only question worth asking is "at what stage is that life afforded the same rights as the mother?"Brother Brian
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
08:27 AM
8
08
27
AM
PDT
Steven Jacobs’ 5-year fight and when mammalian life beginskairosfocus
July 19, 2019
July
07
Jul
19
19
2019
05:12 AM
5
05
12
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply