On Eugenics

In yet another attempt to stir the pot, so to speak, I find myself writing about yet another taboo topic in our modern world. Why is it such a distained topic, you may ask? Well, all too often it transforms into a race superiority topic which causes too many people to freak out. We all know about the idea known as Natural Selection, the strong mating with the strong to create a stronger offspring. Rinse, repeat, life goes on. We see it all over nature. After all, there is a reason that Great White Sharks, Alligators and Crocodiles basic construction hasn’t changed much in millions of years. I believe that the act of aiding Natural Selection through Eugenics is only seen as an abomination when it comes to scientists talking about humans. Why is that? What makes this topic so out there that the only program that ever started experimenting with humans was the Nazi party (no, I’m not condoning what Dr. Mengele did)? Come to think of it, we do it with livestock, dogs and cats! What is it that creeps us out so much when lab rats are replaced by humans?

            While we normally think of Eugenics being related hand in hand with the Nazis, the term is much older, and the practice pre-dates the birth of Christ. The term itself was first crafted by a man known as Francis Galton[i]. He believed that, just as traits from wildlife could be passed down from parent to offspring, so too would it relate to humans. Not only that, he believed that less concrete, and less noticeable traits, could be passed down, as well. In his book Hereditary Genius, Galton expressed his findings on historiometry, a study into the habits of children, their parents and their grandparents[ii]. By doing so, he supposed that his evidence on who we are, our physical and cognitive capabilities, were more closely related to nature rather than nurture, though he did concede that more study would need to be done to be sure. In another book of his on the same subject, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, Galton introduced the ideas of Eugenics and Dysgenics[iii]. Galton further explained that frailty of body or mind should be taken into account before having children with someone.

            Not taking anything away from Galton’s intellect, the concept was already in place as far back as Plato in 400 BC[iv]. In Sparta, every Spartan child was inspected by the council of elders, the Gerousia, which determined if the child was fit to live or not. Ancient Rome’s custom was that a father was obliged by law to kill his newborn if it was crippled[v]. As recent as the 19th century in America, a physician named William Goodell advocated the castration and spaying of the insane[vi]. Even after the horrors of World War 2, eugenics still lives on today.

            Supporters of the movement include UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, who claims that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics[vii]. In October of 2015, the United Nations' International Bioethics Committee wrote that the ethical problems of human genetic engineering should not be confused with the ethical problems of the 20th century eugenics movements[viii]. In fact, according to Richard Lynn, a former Ulster University professor, all of the following are components of modern-day eugenics[ix]:

1.      Advocacy for sexual abstinence

2.      Sex education in schools

3.      School-based clinics

4.      Promoting the use of contraception

5.      Emergency contraception

6.      Abortion

7.      Artificial insemination

8.      Egg donation

9.      Embryo Selection

10.  Pre-natal screenings

11.  Gene Therapy

In short, the claim by supporters is a simple one: just about everything for which we use today to conceive healthy children is simply us making choices which aid in Natural Selection and survival or termination of the child, sometimes all the way down to the genetic level.

            Those who reject Eugenics tend to fall into three categories: the religious, the academic and the misinformed, who still manage to consolidate to create a solid case for their opposition: who are we to play God? We’ve seen what can happen to a nationally supported study of Eugenics through not only Nazi Germany, but also from China’s one child policy, which led to mass drownings of infant girls. A common criticism, also the strongest, in my opinion, of eugenics is that "it inevitably leads to measures that are unethical"[x]. Many fear a scenario where racial superiority and classism will inevitably play a factor and will lead to the mandatory sterilization of those with dysgenic traits. This would perhaps not be limited to persons with genetic defects, the killing of the institutionalized and, specifically, segregation and genocide of races perceived as inferior[xi]. Although supporters point out that the goal isn’t about sterilization and abstinence anymore, but is rather about the sustaining of future development of humanity that is the goal, this statement does little to aid in pacifying people’s worst fears.

            And now, I will give my opinion, which will annoy someone, somewhere! I believe that Eugenics can be a good thing, but only in small doses. When we discuss the health of the unborn or the health of the mother, I’m all for it. When it comes to the advocacy for sexual abstinence, egg donation and pre-natal screenings, I will support it whole heartedly. When we speak of promoting the use of contraception or the use of emergency contraception, I am all for it. However, when we begin talking about Genetic Engineering, that’s where I tend to fall off of the bandwagon. For starters, why are we playing Sims with a future life? Who are we to alter a living being on a molecular level just because we want him or her (seriously, there are ways for you to pick now![xii]) to have smooth skin, green eyes instead of blue and red hair instead of brown? We are meddling with someone else’s existence, which goes too far into dabbling with nature for me. The truth of the matter is that those who want a designer baby don’t realize is they are messing with the mechanics of another life, which anyone of any faith could see as blasphemy. It may be a simple answer, but we were not made to play God with someone else like this. If Genetic Engineering becomes the norm, where would the process end? I tend to agree with the idea that, should such a road be taken, it will eventually end in an unethical destination.

[i] Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (London, England: Macmillan and Co., 1883), pp. 24–25.

[ii] Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary Genius. London: Macmillan

[iii] "Inquiries into Human Faculty and its Development by Francis Galton". galton.org

[iv] "Eugenics". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University

[v] The Laws of the Twelve Tables, c.450 B.C. "A dreadfully deformed child shall be quickly killed"

[vi] Goodell, William (1881–1882). "Clinical Notes on the Extirpation of the Ovaries for Insanity". The American Journal of Insanity

[vii] Epstein, Charles J. (1 November 2003). "Is modern genetics the new eugenics?". Genetics in Medicine. 5 (6): 469–475

[viii] "Report of the IBC on Updating Its Reflection on the Human Genome and Human Rights" (PDF). International Bioethics Committee. 2 October 2015

[ix] Lynn 2001. Part III. The Implementation of Classical Eugenics pp. 137–244 Part IV. The New Eugenics pp. 245–320

[x] Lynn 2001. The Ethical Principles of Classical Eugenics – Conclusions P. 241

[xi] Black, Edwin (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. Four Walls Eight Windows. ISBN 978-1-56858-258-0.

[xii] https://embryo.asu.edu/pages/ethics-designer-babies