Thesis: Although science has provided the technology for people to make their own choices when dealing with the future of the human race, life is best left up to chance and the diversity it brings.
Introduction
Perfection is something all people desire but few achieve. American society strives for perfection in almost all areas of life. There is a strong desire to marry the perfect person, find the perfect job, and raise a perfect family. But can this “ideal” be taken too far? Where is the fine line between doing one’s best and sidestepping moral obligations to go above and beyond? Eugenics seems to teeter on such a fine line. Eugenics is essentially the quest to create a perfect population. Proponents argue that eugenics seeks to create healthier people and avoid debilitating diseases that will only make their lives miserable. Critics argue eugenics is a horrible attempt to play God, killing off the “unfit” members of society. Is either of these groups correct in their thinking, or is there another answer, somewhere in the middle? Eugenics is a topic that has been disputed for years, especially as technology has allowed scientists to take part in the creation of a human being. Although believed by many to be a thing of the past, bits and pieces of eugenics have begun to spring up in genetic programs. Eugenics presents mankind with the great debate of whether we have the right to change the genetic makeup of humans, therefore creating the “perfect race.” Although science has provided the technology for people to make their own choices when dealing with the future of the human race, life is best left up to chance and the diversity it brings.
In order to truly understand eugenics, one must know the history behind it. The history of eugenics is not a long one, but it is filled with many complexities. Eugenics bases itself on Darwin’s idea of survival of the fittest. This has proved true of plants and animals but there are complexities involving the human race. Therefore some people have seen it necessary to change the genetic future for humans themselves. The actual term “eugenics” was created by Sir Francis Galton, Darwin’s cousin, in 1883. His theory stated that eugenics was a scientific approach to “give the more suitable races or strains of blood a better chance of prevailing speedily over the less suitable than they otherwise would have” (Smith,1989). Out of this came two sub-categories: positive and negative eugenics. Positive eugenics focused on encouraging people with superior genes to procreate with the hopes of creating a utopian society (Black, 2003). This is generally seen as the less destructive side of eugenics. Negative eugenics dealt with getting rid of genetic weaknesses, in many instances through the course of mandatory sterilization. Those deemed less fit to reproduce were discouraged from doing so. The unfit members of society have, in the past, been identified as “germ-plasm” (Smith, 1989). In the early 1900s eugenics was given a great deal of attention. At that time, the people who were labeled a burden to society included the feebleminded, the insane, epileptics, inebriates (including drug addicts), the diseased (people with chronic infectious diseases), the blind, the deaf, the deformed, and dependents such as orphans, the homeless, tramps, and the poor. It was from such labels that large scale programs were created to rid the world of the mentally or physically unfit through reproductive measures and controls. For instance, by 1925, 25 states in the United States had at least one part of eugenic sterilization legislation (Smith, 1989). In many instances, people were unknowingly manipulated by eugenicists, which needlessly violated their personal freedom. Behind such procedures lies the danger of stigmatization taken to extremes. For example, some of the great minds in history had physical or mental deformities. Isaac Newton was manic depressive and Abraham Lincoln had a congenital ailment. These men made great contributions to the world, but some eugenicists have promoted the idea that men with such deformities should not have been created (Packard, 1977).
One of the big debates in genetic engineering is who should have control of the eugenics programs. Some eugenicists imply that individuals have the responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary to lessen the chances of having a disabled child. Yet others push for compulsory state wide programs. This basically comes down to the question of whether eugenics, if practiced, should be voluntary or involuntary. In voluntary eugenics, each couple has the final say in whether to have a child. With this type of a program, the couples are encouraged to be aware of their chances at passing a defective gene and then make a sensible decision based on such knowledge (Santos, 1981). Some eugenicists have even suggested giving economic incentives, such as tax breaks, to individuals with superior genes. Yet it is highly improbable that such measures would ever be allowed as they are likely unconstitutional and highly immoral (Santos, 1981). Involuntary eugenics basically comes down to society coercing people to utilize certain eugenic techniques. This is more controversial than voluntary eugenics because of the question of whether the state has any right to interfere in personal matters. For example, marriage has always been a concern of the state. However this does not mean it is right for the state to stop a couple from getting married because of the possibility of disabled children. The most popular form of state regulation has been sterilization. Many attitudes about this have changed due to new knowledge about heredity and the use of sterilization in the Nazi eugenics program, discussed later. In general, for a program to take state interest, it must affect the health or safety of its citizens (Santos, 1981). It is important to the state to see if the benefits outweigh the cost as many of the genetic screenings are by no means cheap. All of these factors have to be taken into account when deciding whether an involuntary or voluntary program is inherently “better” for eugenics.
Eugenics is not without its own difficulties. One of the obstacles facing eugenics is the incidence of spontaneous mutations. The number of genetic mutations seems to be growing despite the fact that technological advances in science are working to decrease them. One cause could be radiation from the environment (Packard, 1977). The parents of the child may have perfectly normal genes, but because of a spontaneous DNA mutation, a dominant condition may appear. Although there are risk factors for mutations, such as the parents’ age, there is only so much one can do to control what happens to his or her genes (Shakespeare, 2005).
Changes in the Human Race
In looking towards the future, technology has come a long way in helping humankind. Medicine has reached new heights previously thought to be impossible. But with great power comes great responsibility. Doctors have the ability to take away life before it has even been given a chance to live. Prenatal tests such as amniocentesis allow them to discover genetic abnormalities and consequently offer the option of abortion. Eugenics emphasizes throwing out the “bad” and replacing it with something “good” rather than trying to fix or help the problem. By wanting to start out with something perfect, one has to focus on defining the thin line between good and bad. It is entirely possible that scientists may pick the wrong traits as being “good”, ending up with disastrous results (Buchanan et al 2000). In choosing the desirable genes, it may someday come about that certain individuals or corporations will own other people (Humber & Almeder, 1998). This is a frightening case with the possibility of leading to dehumanization. Instead of creating a perfect world, eugenics could inadvertently harm it. Children could be created simply to meet the wants and needs of the parents or society. This is not to say that all artificial measures of health are bad, as many have been helpful, such as hearing aids and caesarean sections. The main issue is deciding when such measures should be taken and when to let nature run its course (Santos, 1981).
The issue of nature verses nurture is more important now than ever before. As science becomes more advanced, doctors and scientists will have the ability to create “designer babies”. Currently there are several methods that come close to being able to choose exactly how a couple wants their baby to be created. It all began with the start of test tube babies. Children are being conceived outside of the womb. What may follow are chromosome and cell manipulations in order to put a child together just the way the parents wish. First it starts with screening for high risk diseases which may hinder a child’s life, followed by tests to check for random disorders. This seems harmless enough. However, then comes the ability to choose the gender of the baby. And while they are at it, why not specify certain genes they would like their baby to have? It may not be long from now when a couple can set up a genetic profile detailing how they want their child to look and genes to function. What may start out as changing genes for medical reasons, such as to ensure avoidance of debilitating diseases may shift to changing genes for cosmetic reasons (Center 2001). People may have very different ideas for the “perfect” child. This may lead to the debate as to who should categorize the good and bad genes. Should the parents or doctors be allowed to have this power? Or should the government have a choice in the matter? The idea of designer babies seems to follow a slippery slope. If each child receives certain characteristics that are seen as highly desirable, society could eventually lose all uniqueness. What would follow is a complete shift in what we now see as normal. Choosing specific genes implies that some people are just better than others (Chadwick 1987). Perhaps this just shows that as science and medicine reach new heights, the desire for diversity shrinks.
If eugenics was a science that was practiced all over the world, humankind could run the risk of losing genetic diversity. The well known sociologist Amitai Etzioni once said, “What may start as the biological control of illnesses could become an attempt to breed supermen” (Packard, 1977). These “supermen” would all have similar attributes and very similar, if not identical genes. Genetic diversity seems to be advantageous as it has produced a wide variety of physical, mental, and behavioral characteristics. Genetic diversity supports natural selection because it offers genotypic and phenotypic variation. Without such variations, a certain population may not be able to survive the changing environment (Resnik, 2000). Although scientists have the ability to change the genetic composition of humankind, it is unclear whether they have the right to do such a thing. Human beings really have no way of knowing which genes will be useful in the future. It is entirely possible to increase genetic diversity using artificial measures, but this does not seem to be the aim of eugenics programs. Much of this goes back to the private versus state debate for genetic control. If left in the hands of individuals, diversity can stay prevalent since different people have different goals and beliefs. One couple may prefer to raise their child to be incredibly intelligent and obedient. On the other hand, another couple may want their child to be fiercely independent and athletic. This seems to be especially true in America; Americans like having choices (Resnik, 2000). If the state gains control over genetic variability, choices could be severely limited. Societal pressures could result in a large population of genetically identical individuals. Gradually people would conform to the “norm” of society, whether they realized it or not, thus leading to a homogenous population (Resnik, 2000). Then the world would consist of a large group of clones; people with the same genes all focusing on their perfect lives.
Although survival of the human race does not solely depend on genetic diversity, it does play an important role. Lethal pathogens pose a threat to society as they are ever evolving. If humans were more or less genetically identical, what would become of them if a new virus or plague became evident? This may be unlikely, but it is imprudent to believe it could never happen (Resnik, 2000). Other measures, such as advances in biomedicine, would also be needed to fight such a virus. But genetic diversity could prove to be a very useful tool indeed in helping humankind survive.
Legal and Religious Implications
To present the argument against eugenics, one only needs to look at Germany during World War II. The worst case of state control over reproduction was the Nazi eugenics program. It was this program that led to the ultimate demise of previous eugenics programs. In this case eugenicists believed they were merely killing off people that were not worthy of living. As the American eugenics movement grew at the beginning of the 19th century, Germany began their own eugenics program. Many eugenicists from America and Germany exchanged ideas on racial mixing and finding the perfect race. Yet because of World War I, Germany gradually isolated itself from other eugenics movements (Black, 2003). Hitler developed his ideas about eugenics while in jail in 1922. Although his ideas were extreme, they seemed to be somewhat of an extension of American eugenics. “Nazi eugenics would ultimately dictate who would be persecuted, how people would live, and how they would die” (Black, 2003). Euthanasia and lethal chambers would become a norm under Hitler’s regime. Mein Kampf, Hitler’s program to create a purer race, shared many similarities with the U.S. National Origins Act that promoted eugenic measures. Many of the American eugenic ideas were modified to fit Hitler’s idea of racial hygiene. It is sad to note that many American eugenicists were actually proud of being the inspiration to the eugenic state being created by the Nazis (Black, 2003). Although this was a few years before Hitler’s horrifying regime, Americans played a part, however small, in Nazi eugenics. In 1922, the Rockefeller Foundation granted fellowships and gave money to Germany to promote scientific research, especially in the area of eugenics. Even though many Americans denied knowing what exactly was happening in Germany, Hitler’s hatred for Jews was published in American papers and broadcast over the radio (Black, 2003). However, by 1933 American-German eugenic connections were obsolete. Once Hitler’s government took power, Jewish repression became widespread. Mandatory sterilization became a major part of state control. Auschwitz became Jews’ “eugenic apocalypse” (Black, 2003). The one way to be spared was to be a twin, because twins were the ultimate experimental control group. By 1936, most people were reluctant to fund any projects that were associated with eugenics, outside of Germany. Auschwitz was the final stand for German eugenics. “The science of the strong almost completely prevailed in its war against the weak. Almost” (Black, 2003). Eugenics could not recover from such a blow.
Mankind’s attempts at perfection have always had negative consequences. This may in part be due to the fact that everyone’s idea of perfection differs. In wanting to create a utopian society, what group or person gets to decide what the ideal model of a human is? In the complex world that exists today, no specific human type can be said to be the best. Without a central model for the perfect human, eugenicists lose ground in their argument. Many claimed perfection could be found in those similar to them or in those people they looked up to (Buchanan et al, 2000). They did not tolerate behaviors or ideas that differed from their own. In essence, these men thought very highly ONLY of themselves. They looked down on those they thought of as lesser human beings, further supporting their self-worth. “This intolerance and self-glorification was a notable moral failure in mainstream eugenics” (Buchanan et al, 2000). While their ideas towards better health were not sadistic, the attitudes they adopted were. Too many assumptions about human worth were made, resulting in the extreme aspects of negative eugenics.
By comparing negative and positive eugenics one question comes to mind: who has the right to decide? Eugenics brings out a multitude of moral and ethical implications. The prospect of genetic control raises issues of a whole new sort, for is it morally defensible to set out with the intention of creating “grade A individuals” or “kids made to order?” In the same sense, are they being created as humans with the intelligence to make their own decisions or simply dull robots for the monotonous chores of life? (Humber & Almeder, 1998). Perhaps the idea of perfection is not so wonderful. Many theologians believe that “evolution has a purpose and that this purpose is good” (Santos, 1981, p106). While this may be true, in eugenics perfection is taken out of context. In addition, intelligence seems to play a large part in deciding who is mentally fit to reproduce. However scientists are not entirely sure of the inheritance of such factors (Santos, 1981). Especially in the early stages of genetics, eugenicists made several unsupported claims that personality and behavioral traits had genetic origins. Since they were scientists, many people believed them, further advocating eugenics (Paul, 1998). It seems like this comes down to a number of possibilities, not facts, which eugenics can control.
The Other Side
In general, genetics could be very useful in the growth and survival of the human race. It is not good to solely depend on one factor to save humans from extinction, but rather to invest in a number of measures. Although eugenics has common links to genetics, they do differ. In some instances, genetic testing can assist parents. Some disorders, such as phenylketonuria (PKU), can be helped or cured if found early (Paul, 1998). Eugenics has been used in coercive measures, whereas genetic screening is based on autonomy. In general, eugenics focuses on the greater population while genetics is more concerned about the individual (Shakespeare, 2005). The common links cannot be ignored, so care must be taken so that a new eugenics movement does not result. It is important that doctors offer objective information to their patients and give them the ability to make their own decisions. Once societal pressures are inflicted on the patient, eugenics begins to take the place of genetics.
The Future of the Human Race
Many people are naïve when it comes to the matter of disability and disease. “The fact remains that the vast majority of disability has nothing to do with genetics” (Shakespeare, 2005). In the majority of cases, disability comes with age and degenerative conditions. Those present at birth are generally rare. Disability is not something that can be removed within a few generations. Rather it is something that will likely always be a part of human existence. While it is important to minimize the effects of disabilities, it is farfetched to believe disabilities can be completely wiped out. Therefore it is imperative for the state to provide social support to people with disabilities, but leave the decision for genetic testing and possible abortion to the individual.
American society has become very particular. Those people who do not meet the physical or mental norms lose a certain degree of humanness to the extent that their involvement in society is restricted. Critics of eugenics see this rejection as the inability to accept people different from oneself (Koch, 2004). They embrace the differences in disabled people and appreciate the obstacles they have had to overcome in order to survive in today’s world. Each person’s definition of personhood can reveal quite a bit about that person’s thoughts on individual differences, such as whether they include or exclude. Bioethicist Peter Singer of Princeton University strongly believes in the concept of self-consciousness as a necessity for other attributes of personhood. If any of these characteristics are not present in a person, his status is diminished as well as the amount of assistance society is obligated to provide him with (Koch, 2004). According to his beliefs, personhood is conditional. Society has the ability to grant full status or take it away, depending on the level of self-awareness. The power given to society seems to ignore many moral and ethical beliefs. Harriet McBryde Johnson, a lawyer, presents an entirely different view of personhood. To her, personhood cannot be given or taken away. It is an inherent quality which helps define society as a whole. The humanity of those with disabilities is acknowledged by the continual caring relationships they have formed (Koch, 2004). Diminishing a human’s personhood is like calling him an “it” rather than a human being. It is very dehumanizing and demeaning to that person. Relationships and the ability to relate to others help define each person. Disabilities may affect cognition, but the act of caring and being cared for defines humanity. “This is what McBryde Johnson described as potentially beautiful, the manner in which the ‘It’ of a restrictive condition was overcome by the relational ‘I’ of a caring context” (Koch, 2004). Personhood all depends on how one views societal differences.
Once children were seen as a gift from God, as an example of the miracle of life. Eugenics has assisted in degrading such beliefs. Cases have been brought arguing a “wrongful birth” because of a disabled child (Pritchard, 2005). Some doctors argue that the reason for genetic testing is to find unwanted defects and thus get rid of them through abortion. Yet many others believe that prenatal testing can be used to treat the unborn child or make preparations for assistance once the child is out of the womb. There is the belief that prenatal testing can be used to give the mother more options, not mandates (Pritchard, 2005). Inducing death because of a physical or mental deformity is intrinsically wrong. Although some doctors and eugenicists may argue that aborting the baby is saving the child from a lifetime of suffering, do they really know this to be true? In many instances that child, while not able to lead a completely “normal” life by societal standards, could live a very happy life. Aborting the child does not even give him the chance to experience life. This argument just does not work. It makes wrongful assumptions based on possibilities. Nothing in life is certain. The rights of the unborn child rest on the never-ending debate of when life begins. Why should one fetus be protected and the other aborted? It has been argued that “human life has an infinite and irreducible value” (Pritchard, 2005). Although such debates are controversial, this definition of life seems to be a fair one.
Conclusion
Parents want what is best for their children. They hope their children grow strong, make good decisions, and are happy with their lives. So why not want the best genetically for their children? One view is that in wanting the best for their children, parents seek to utilize environmental factors. They are developing the “potential” in their child rather than changing their entire genome (Buchanan et al, 2000). Even if genetic interventions were possible, giving a child perfect genes is easier said than done. It all goes back to the question of what defines a “perfect” person. Parental decisions could backfire and the hand picked genes could actually cause more harm than good. Who is to say that the parents would pick morally sound characteristics? There is always the possibility that the parents may be just a little greedy, wanting their child to be the best of the best, leading to possible disastrous results. It seems that natural selection has worked well so far, so why risk the possibility of messing things up? Just look at the history of eugenics and the stereotypes involved (Buchanan et al, 2000). What may be best for one individual may not be what is best for society.
Although people want to know what comes next, no one really knows the answer. There is always the possibility of “newgenics,” a new, more developed version of eugenics that could include human cloning (Black, 2004). With technology moving forward as it is, new genetic measures will come into play and new arguments about the sanctity of life will be made. What today is a societal norm may tomorrow be a thing of the past. The world is continually evolving and changing to meet the ever increasing needs of the people. There is only the aspiration that people will not lose their individuality or their sense of self. Is it possible that someday society may see designer babies, made to order like a new wardrobe? One can only hope not. It is important to embrace the differences that nature has given to each person. If it was in the best interest of humans to all be the same, natural selection would have taken care of that long ago.
References
Black, E. (2003). War Against the Weak. New York: Four Walls Eight Windows.
Buchanan, Brock, Daniels, & Wikler. (2000). From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chadwick, R. ed. (1987). Ethics, Reproduction and Genetic Control. New York: Croom Helm.
Center for the Study of Technology and Society (2001). Special Focus: Designer Babies. Retrieved on November 5, 2006 from http://www.tecsoc.org/biotech/focusbabies.htm.
Humber, J., & Almeder, R. Ed. (1998). Human Cloning. New Jersey: Humana Press.
Koch, T. (2004). The Difference that Difference Makes: Bioethics and the Challenge of “Disability.” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 29(6), 697-716.
Packard, V. (1977). The People Shapers. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
Paul, D. (1998). The Politics of Heredity: Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate. New York: State University of New York Press.
Pritchard, M. (2005). Can there be such a thing as a ‘wrongful birth’? Disability and Society, 20(1), 81-93.
Resnik, D. (2000). Of Maize and Men: Reproductive Control and the Threat to Genetic Diversity. Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, 25(4), 451-467.
Santos, M. (1981). Genetics and Man’s Future: Legal, Social and Moral Implication of Genetic Engineering. Springfield: Charles C. Thomas.
Shakespeare, T. (2005). Solving the disability problem: Whose responsibility? Public Policy Research, 12(1), 44-48.
Smith, G. (1989). The New Biology-Law, Ethics, and Biotechnology. New York: Plenum Press.