Evolution and Ethics of Eugenics

The relationship of eugenics to science is intricate and many-layered, starting with Sir Francis Galton’s original definition of eugenics as “the science of improving stock”. Eugenics was originally conceived of not only as a science by many of its proponents, but as a new, meliorative science emerging from findings of a range of nascent sciences, including anthropology and criminology in the late 19th-century, and genetics and psychiatry in the early 20th-century. Although during the years between the two World Wars many central claims made by eugenicists were critiqued by scientists in these disciplines, in more recent years forms of eugenics (e.g., liberal eugenics”) have been defended as an inevitable outcome of biotechnologies and respect for autonomous choice. Understanding the shifting and varied roles that science has played in eugenics requires an appreciation of the ways in which science and values are intertwined.

Genomics, Society and Policy

With a shift from genetics to genomics, the study of organisms in terms of their full DNA sequences, the resurgence of eugenics has taken on a new form. Following from this new form of eugenics, which I have termed "eugenomics", is a host of ethical and social dilemmas containing elements patterned from controversies over the eugenics movement throughout the 20 th century. This paper identifies these ethical and social dilemmas, drawing upon an examination of why eugenics of the 20 th century was morally wrong. Though many eugenic programs of the early 20 th century remain in the dark corners of our history and law books and scientific journals, not all of these programs have been, nor should be, forgotten. My aim is not to remind us of the social and ethical abuses from past eugenics programs, but to draw similarities and dissimilarities from what we commonly know of the past and identify areas where genomics may be eugenically beneficial and harmful to our global community. I show that our ethical and social concerns are not taken as seriously as they should be by the scientific community, political and legal communities, and by the international public; as eugenomics is quickly gaining control over our genetic futures, ethics, I argue, is lagging behind and going considerably unnoticed. In showing why ethics is lagging behind I propose a framework that can provide us with a better understanding of genomics with respect to our pluralistic, global values.

2014

Eugenics was popularized in the in the United States in the 1890s. High school and college textbooks from the 1920s through the 1940s often had chapters touting the scientific progress to be made from applying eugenic principles to the population. Many early scientific journals focusing on heredity in plants and lower organisms were published by eugenicists and included “scientific” articles on human eugenics-promoting studies of heredity. When eugenics fell out of favor after World War II, most references to eugenics were removed from textbooks and subsequent editions of relevant journals. We cannot erase history. To do so would allow it to repeat itself. Definition of Eugenics Eugenics is a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed. 2 The word is derived from the Greek word eu (good or well) and the suffix -genes (born). Eugenics is sometimes broadly applied to describe any human action whose goal is to impro...

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2001

“Actuality of Eugenics”

The Editors One of the most hotly debated concepts in contemporary bioethics, eugenics is often reduced to an evil of Nazism that should have been discarded long ago. In this video dialogue, two leading scholars of eugenics— Ruth Schwartz Cowan and Rosemarie Garland-Thomson—contextualize and complicate the current discussion of eugenic practices. Beginning with a discussion of the definition of eugenics, the dialogue then examines how the history of eugenics can help us understand contemporary reproductive practice practices that are often labeled as " eugenist, " including prenatal screening and the selective abortion of fetuses with disabilities. It then examines the relationship between disability discrimination and reproductive freedom, and concludes by addressing the extent to which the association between eugenics and Nazism is useful to understanding contemporary medical practices.

BMJ, 1999

Southern Illinois University law journal. Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. School of Law, 1985

individuals with inherited diseases. 7 Under the rubric of the "New Biology," scientists are investigating and developing many interventions, including gene deletion surgery, splicing and transplantation, cloning in vitro or test tube fertilization, embryo implantation, parthenogenesis, amniocentesis, and experimentation with the scope and application of DNA.' Genetic engineering uses some of these procedures to reorganize human genes to produce varied, particular characteristcs. 9 To combat genetic disease, genetic engineering may, and frequently does, rely upon eugenics, the science that deals with improving heredity. Stated simply, a positive eugenics program seeks to develop superior qualities in man through the propagation of his superior genes, 10 and the positive eugenists seek to produce a "new breed" with keener and more creative intelligence. 1 ' Conversely, a negative eugenics program attempts only to eliminate genetic weaknesses. 2 When seen in application, positive eugenics programs encourage the fit and "proper" individuals to reproduce, while negative eugenics programs discourage those less fit and those with inheritable diseases from procreating. 13 Abortion is one way of implementing a program of negative eugenics after earlier attempts to regulate have failed. 4

2019

It is worthy of note that the scientific system is progressive in nature and tends towards human and societal advancement. Francis Galton, following the model of Darwinian Theory of evolution which holds that species do change as a result of natural selection, introduced Eugenics. He proposed that through eugenics, human beings could take charge of their own evolution by getting rid of the undesirable and by multiplying the desirables. This view was greeted with much criticism and didn’t record much success. But with the rise of gene-therapy and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis; which is a scientific technique that entails using invitro fertilization to ensure that a baby does not possess a known genetic defect of either parent; after genetic analysis of embryos so formed, only those free of defect are implanted in the mother’s womb; we are beset with the revival of eugenics. This work aims at evaluating the values and moral implications of eugenics in its varied shades and attemp...

History of Science, 1988

A BIAS TOWARD THE SUBJECTIVE SIDE OF SCIENCE? This paper sketches the general development of eugenics from the beginning of the twentieth century up to its middle, concentrating on a comparison of England and America with Germany and Scandinavia. The main purpose is to bring out the role that genetic science played in the process, through advances in knowledge as well as through a normative influence of scientific method on public thinking. In other words, this paper presents a case study of interaction between the growth of scientific knowledge and change in political ideology. It focuses on the effect that these two kinds of factors had on eugenic policy. As the account will illustrate, genetic science does not provide arguments either against or for eugenics in general, only for or against specific proposals.' But since political decisions are concerned with more or less specified proposals, the development of genetic knowledge may well have been decisive for the development of eugenics. The greater the benefits to be achieved, the more attractive will eugenic policies appear and the less serious the objections. One good reason for the continuing interest in the history of eugenics is that it demonstrates so well the problematic relationship of science to politics. While genetics provides one of the greatest success stories of scientific progress in the twentieth century, the application ofthe new knowledge in social policy has been highly controversial. Historical accounts of how science interacted with politics in this case have also been highly varied. A rationalist tradition, popular in the scientific community, has looked upon genetic science as a main source of moderation and sanity: it is when scientific and political issues are confused, and especially when free formation and communication of scientific opinion is suppressed, that evil varieties of eugenics have the best chance to prosper. But this view of science as a progressive social factor which enlightens and dissipates prejudices, has met strong challenges. Critics have claimed that when eugenic policies were abandoned, it was due only, or primarily, to ideological reorientation, not to growing scientific knowledge. Some have even considered science itself to be a main source of the evils, its spirit of objectivity and efficiency destroying other human values.