The term “eugenics” conjures up many associations,
but none more disturbing than the German effort to produce a “master race”
of blond, blue-eyed Aryans in the years from 1933 to 1939.
Hitler’s efforts to engineer “rassenreinheit”
or racial purity did not stop at selective breeding intended to produce superior Nordic genetic stock;
it included efforts to eliminate entire populations deemed subhuman,
often through involuntary sterilization, abortions, malnourishment and,
eventually, the infamous Nazi death camps.
Less well known than the history of these atrocities
is the dark record of eugenics in the United States,
where it flourished from roughly the Progressive Era
beginning in the 1890’s and culminated in the Supreme Court decision known as Buck v. Bell in 1927,
which upheld the right of the state of Indiana
to force the sterilization of mentally disabled individuals
in order to prevent so-called “imbeciles” from procreating.
While denounced as racist and discriminatory,
eugenics has not wholly disappeared.
For some critics, it’s merely been rebranded,
and now occupies the forefront of some very important ethical deliberation.
As you’ll discover in the supplemental reading for this module,
it’s clear that some practitioners of genetic enhancement
are focused on building a better human
through the selective augmentation of genetic traits
linked to desirable capabilities or characteristics,
such as height, strength or intelligence, and not just gender or eye color.
Our textbook notes that there are legitimate uses for human genetic enhancement,
such as eradicating disease or extending human life,
even if these might eventually involve lifting the current global ban
on inheritable genetic modification, also called “germ-line gene therapy.”
As Nicholas Agar notes in his defense of genetic enhancement in our text,
the wealthy will have far greater access to genetic engineering than the poor,
but he considers this a weak objection,
since the access that wealth creates
is not a material reason to reject genetic enhancement in general.
He dismisses the claim that genetic enhancement of embryos
denies the unborn the proper exercise of their autonomy,
since their environment can act as powerfully as their genes in shaping their lives,
which he calls “interactionism.”
Finally, he draws a distinction between radical enhancement and moderate enhancement,
rejecting the former as “a moral intrusion into nature’s way of making things,”
and accepting the latter as on a par with environmental enhancements such as improved nutrition.
Edwin Black offers an opposed perspective in his essay,
finding that Agar’s argument is nothing but a slippery slope
in which a chain of progressive genetic alterations will result,
if not in a claim to racial exclusivity,
at least in claims to genetic superiority.
As always, you’ll have an opportunity to discuss both of these arguments in your essay and on the Discussion Board,
along with pondering the question of whether a fetus has a right to not be genetically modified
or whether her parents possess the right to engineer her genetic code
to have the kind of child they desire.
Here, you may wish to reference the intriguing case of a deaf lesbian couple who,
with the help of a sperm donor with a history of family deafness,
created a deaf child –
a designer baby with a designed disability.
Was this an ethical decision?
I’d be very interested in reading what you think,
and so would your classmates.
Until next time, best wishes!
