Eugenics

Eugenics (/juːˈdʒɛnɪks/ yoo-JEN-iks; from Ancient Greek εύ̃ (eû) 'good, well' and -γενής (genḗs) 'born, come into being, growing/grown')^[1] is a set of beliefs and practices that aim to improve the genetic quality of a human population.^[2][3][4] Historically, eugenicists have altered various human gene frequencies by inhibiting the fertility of people and groups purported to be inferior or promoting that of those purported to be superior.^[5]

The contemporary history of eugenics began in the late 19th century, when a popular eugenics movement emerged in the United Kingdom,^[6] and then spread to many countries, including the United States, Canada, Australia,^[7] and most European countries (e.g. Sweden and Germany). In this period, people from across the political spectrum espoused eugenic ideas. Consequently, many countries adopted eugenic policies, intended to improve the quality of their populations' genetic stock.

It originated as a progressive social movement.^{[8][9][10][11]} In contemporary usage, the term is closely associated with scientific racism.^[12]

Historically, the idea of eugenics has been used to argue for a broad array of practices ranging from prenatal care for mothers deemed genetically desirable to the forced sterilization and murder of those deemed unfit.^[5] To population geneticists, the term has included the avoidance of inbreeding without altering allele frequencies; for example, British-Indian scientist J. B. S. Haldane wrote that "the motor bus, by breaking up inbred village communities, was a powerful eugenic agent."^[13] Debate as to what exactly counts as eugenics continues today.^[14] Early eugenicists were mostly concerned with factors of measured intelligence that often correlated strongly with social class.

The aforementioned eugenic programs included both positive measures, such as encouraging individuals deemed particularly "fit" to reproduce, and negative measures, such as marriage prohibitions and forced sterilization of people deemed unfit for reproduction.^{[5][19][20]: 104–155}

In other words, positive eugenics is aimed at encouraging reproduction among the genetically advantaged, for example, the eminently intelligent, the healthy, and the successful. Possible approaches include financial and political stimuli, targeted demographic analyses, in vitro fertilization, egg transplants, and cloning.^[21] Negative eugenics aimed to eliminate, through sterilization or segregation, those deemed physically, mentally, or morally "undesirable". This includes abortions, sterilization, and other methods of family planning.^[21] Both positive and negative eugenics can be coercive; in Nazi Germany, for example, abortion was illegal for women deemed by the state to be fit.^[22]

According to Plutarch, in Sparta, every proper citizen's child was inspected by their council of elders, the Gerousia, which determined whether or not the child was fit to live.^[31] If the child was deemed incapable of living a Spartan life, the child was usually killed in a chasm near the Taygetus mountain known as the Apothetae.^[32][33] Further trials intended to discern a child's fitness included bathing them in wine and exposing them to the elements to fend for themselves. To Sparta, this would ensure only the strongest survived and procreated.^[34] And so selective infanticide seems to have been comparably widespread in Ancient Rome^[35] as it had already long been in Athens.^[36]

Furthermore, according to Tacitus (c. 56 – c. 120), a Roman of the Imperial Period, the Germanic tribes of his day killed any member of their community they deemed cowardly, unwarlike or "stained with abominable vices", usually by drowning them in swamps.^[37][38]

The characteristic practice of selective infanticide in the Roman Empire did not subside until its Christianization, which however also mandated negative eugenics, e.g. by the council of Adge in 506, which forbade marriage between cousins.^[39]

For the parallel case of medieval China, as mediated by its meritocratic system of imperial examinations, a study analyzing genealogical records of 36,456 men from six Chinese lineages between 1350 and 1920 found that the literati (degree and office holders) had more than double the number of surviving sons compared to non-degree holders;^[40] ceteris paribus indicating stable and persistent eugenic pressures towards the associated traits.^[41]

The term eugenics and its modern field of study were first formulated by Francis Galton in 1883,^{[42][43][44][a]} directly drawing on the recent work delineating natural selection by his half-cousin Charles Darwin.^{[46][47][48][b]} He published his observations and conclusions chiefly in his influential book Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development. Galton himself defined it as "the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations".^[50] The first to systematically apply Darwinism theory to human relations, Galton believed that various desirable human qualities were also hereditary ones, although Darwin strongly disagreed with this elaboration of his theory.^[51] And it should also be noted that many of the early geneticists were not themselves Darwinians.^[48]

Eugenics became an academic discipline at many colleges and universities and received funding from various sources.^[52] Organizations were formed to win public support for and to sway opinion towards responsible eugenic values in parenthood, including the British Eugenics Education Society of 1907 and the American Eugenics Society of 1921. Both sought support from leading clergymen and modified their message to meet religious ideals.^[53] In 1909, the Anglican clergymen William Inge and James Peile both wrote for the Eugenics Education Society. Inge was an invited speaker at the 1921 International Eugenics Conference, which was also endorsed by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of New York Patrick Joseph Hayes.^[53]

Three International Eugenics Conferences presented a global venue for eugenicists, with meetings in 1912 in London, and in 1921 and 1932 in New York City. Eugenic policies in the United States were first implemented by state-level legislators in the early 1900s.^[54] Eugenic policies also took root in France, Germany, and Great Britain.^[55] Later, in the 1920s and 1930s, the eugenic policy of sterilizing certain mental patients was implemented in other countries including Belgium,^[56] Brazil,^[57] Canada,^[58] Japan and Sweden.

Frederick Osborn's 1937 journal article "Development of a Eugenic Philosophy" framed eugenics as a social philosophy—a philosophy with implications for social order.^[59] That definition is not universally accepted. Osborn advocated for higher rates of sexual reproduction among people with desired traits ("positive eugenics") or reduced rates of sexual reproduction or sterilization of people with less-desired or undesired traits ("negative eugenics").

In addition to being practiced in a number of countries, eugenics was internationally organized through the International Federation of Eugenics Organizations.^[60] Its scientific aspects were carried on through research bodies such as the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics,^[61] the Cold Spring Harbor Carnegie Institution for Experimental Evolution,^[62] and the Eugenics Record Office.^[63] Politically, the movement advocated measures such as sterilization laws.^[64] In its moral dimension, eugenics rejected the doctrine that all human beings are born equal and redefined moral worth purely in terms of genetic fitness.^[65] Its racist elements included pursuit of a pure "Nordic race" or "Aryan" genetic pool and the eventual elimination of "unfit" races.^[66][67]

Many leading British politicians subscribed to the theories of eugenics. Winston Churchill supported the British Eugenics Society and was an honorary vice president for the organization. Churchill believed that eugenics could solve "race deterioration" and reduce crime and poverty.^[49][68][69]

As a social movement, eugenics reached its greatest popularity in the early decades of the 20th century, when it was practiced around the world and promoted by governments, institutions, and influential individuals. Many countries enacted^[70] various eugenics policies, including: genetic screenings, birth control, promoting differential birth rates, marriage restrictions, segregation (both racial segregation and sequestering the mentally ill), compulsory sterilization, forced abortions or forced pregnancies, ultimately culminating in genocide. By 2014, gene selection (rather than "people selection") was made possible through advances in genome editing,^[71] leading to what is sometimes called new eugenics, also known as "neo-eugenics", "consumer eugenics", or "liberal eugenics"; which focuses on individual freedom and allegedly pulls away from racism, sexism or a focus on intelligence.^[72]

Early critics of the philosophy of eugenics included the American sociologist Lester Frank Ward,^[73] the English writer G. K. Chesterton, and Scottish tuberculosis pioneer and author Halliday Sutherland.^[c] Ward's 1913 article "Eugenics, Euthenics, and Eudemics", Chesterton's 1917 book Eugenics and Other Evils,^[75] and Franz Boas' 1916 article "Eugenics" (published in The Scientific Monthly)^[76] were all harshly critical of the rapidly growing movement.

Several biologists were also antagonistic to the eugenics movement, including Lancelot Hogben.^[77] Other biologists who were themselves eugenicists, such as J. B. S. Haldane and R. A. Fisher, however, also expressed skepticism in the belief that sterilization of "defectives" (i.e. a purely negative eugenics) would lead to the disappearance of undesirable genetic traits.^[78]

Among institutions, the Catholic Church was an opponent of state-enforced sterilizations, but accepted isolating people with hereditary diseases so as not to let them reproduce.^[79] Attempts by the Eugenics Education Society to persuade the British government to legalize voluntary sterilization were opposed by Catholics and by the Labour Party.^[80] The American Eugenics Society initially gained some Catholic supporters, but Catholic support declined following the 1930 papal encyclical Casti connubii.^[53] In this, Pope Pius XI explicitly condemned sterilization laws: "Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects; therefore, where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm, or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason."^[81]

In fact, more generally, "[m]uch of the opposition to eugenics during that era, at least in Europe, came from the right."^[20]: 36 The eugenicists' political successes in Germany and Scandinavia were not at all matched in such countries as Poland and Czechoslovakia, even though measures had been proposed there, largely because of the Catholic church's moderating influence.^[82]

"Any new set of conditions which renders a species' food and safety very easily obtained, seems to lead to degeneration"

Ray Lankester (1880)^[83]

"We stand now in the midst of a severe mental epidemic; of a sort of black death of degeneration and hysteria, and it is natural that we should ask anxiously on all sides: 'What is to come next?"

Max Simon Nordau (1892)^[84]

The idea of progress was at once a social, political and scientific theory. The theory of evolution, as described in Darwin's The Origin of Species, provided for many social theorists the necessary scientific foundation for the idea of social and political progress. The terms evolution and progress were in fact often used interchangeably in the 19th century.^[86]

The rapid industrial, political and economic progress in 19th-century Europe and North America was, however, paralleled by a sustained discussion about increasing rates of crime, insanity, vagrancy, prostitution, and so forth. Confronted with this apparent paradox, evolutionary scientists, criminal anthropologists and psychiatrists postulated that civilization and scientific progress could be a cause of physical and social pathology as much as a defense against it.^{[87][page needed]}

According to the theory of degeneration, a host of individual and social pathologies in a finite network of diseases, disorders and moral habits could be explained by a biologically based affliction. The primary symptoms of the affliction were thought to be a weakening of the vital forces and willpower of its victim. In this way, a wide range of social and medical deviations, including crime, violence, alcoholism, prostitution, gambling, and pornography, could be explained by reference to a biological defect within the individual. The theory of degeneration was therefore predicated on evolutionary theory. The forces of degeneration opposed those of evolution, and those afflicted with degeneration were thought to represent a return to an earlier evolutionary stage. One of the earliest and most systematric approaches along such lines is that of Bénédict Morel, who wrote:

"When under any kind of noxious influence an organism becomes debilitated, its successors will not resemble the healthy, normal type of the species, with capacities for development, but will form a new sub-species, which, like all others, possesses the capacity of transmitting to its offspring, in a continuously increasing degree, its peculiarities, these being morbid deviations from the normal form – gaps in development, malformations and infirmities"^[88][d]

Accordingly, degeneration theory owed more to Lamarckism than Darwinism, for only the former knew a "use it or lose it" lemma so characteristically intuitive as to enter the public^[90] such as artistic imagination at the unprecedented scale that it did.^[e]

Compulsory sterilization, also known as forced or coerced sterilization, refers to any government-mandated program to involuntarily sterilize a specific group of people. Sterilization removes a person's capacity to reproduce, and is usually done by surgical or chemical means.

Purported justifications for compulsory sterilization have included population control, eugenics, limiting the spread of HIV, and ethnic genocide.

Several countries implemented sterilization programs in the early 20th century.^[102] Although such programs have been made illegal in much of the world, instances of forced or coerced sterilizations still persist.

Eugenic feminism was a current of the women's suffrage movement which overlapped with eugenics.^[103] Originally coined by the Lebanese-British physician and vocal eugenicist Caleb Saleeby,^{[104][105][106]} the term has since been applied to summarize views held by prominent feminists of Great Britain and the United States. Some early suffragettes in Canada, especially a group known as The Famous Five, also pushed for various eugenic policies.

Eugenic feminists argued that if women were provided with more rights and equality, the deteriorating characteristics of a given race could be averted.

The scientific reputation of eugenics started to decline in the 1930s, a time when Ernst Rüdin used eugenics as a justification for the racial policies of Nazi Germany. Adolf Hitler had praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf in 1925 and emulated eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States once he took power.^[115] Some common early 20th century eugenics methods involved identifying and classifying individuals and their families, including the poor, mentally ill, blind, deaf, developmentally disabled, promiscuous women, homosexuals, and racial groups (such as the Roma and Jews in Nazi Germany) as "degenerate" or "unfit", and therefore led to segregation, institutionalization, sterilization, and even mass murder.^[116] The Nazi policy of identifying German citizens deemed mentally or physically unfit and then systematically killing them with poison gas, referred to as the Aktion T4 campaign, is understood by historians to have paved the way for the Holocaust.^{[117][118][119]}

By the end of World War II, many eugenics laws were abandoned, having become associated with Nazi Germany.^[122] H. G. Wells, who had called for "the sterilization of failures" in 1904,^[123] stated in his 1940 book The Rights of Man: Or What Are We Fighting For? that among the human rights, which he believed should be available to all people, was "a prohibition on mutilation, sterilization, torture, and any bodily punishment".^[124] After World War II, the practice of "imposing measures intended to prevent births within [a national, ethnical, racial or religious] group" fell within the definition of the new international crime of genocide, set out in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.^[125] The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union also proclaims "the prohibition of eugenic practices, in particular those aiming at selection of persons".^[126]

Developments in genetic, genomic, and reproductive technologies at the beginning of the 21st century have raised numerous questions regarding the ethical status of eugenics, effectively creating a resurgence of interest in the subject. Some, such as UC Berkeley sociologist Troy Duster, have argued that modern genetics is a back door to eugenics.^[127] This view was shared by then-White House Assistant Director for Forensic Sciences, Tania Simoncelli, who stated in a 2003 publication by the Population and Development Program at Hampshire College that advances in pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) are moving society to a "new era of eugenics", and that, unlike the Nazi eugenics, modern eugenics is consumer driven and market based, "where children are increasingly regarded as made-to-order consumer products".^[128] In a similar spirit, 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. However, it is still problematic because it challenges the idea of human equality and opens up new forms of discrimination and stigmatization for those who do not want, or cannot afford, the technology.^[129] Before any of these technological breakthroughs, however, prenatal screening has long been called by some a contemporary and highly prevalent form of eugenics because it may lead to selective abortions of fetuses with undesirable traits.^[130]

Lee Kuan Yew, the founding father of Singapore, actively promoted eugenics as late as 1983.^[131] In 1984, Singapore began providing financial incentives to highly educated women to encourage them to have more children. For this purpose was introduced the "Graduate Mother Scheme" that incentivized graduate women to get married as much as the rest of their populace.^[132] The incentives were extremely unpopular and regarded as eugenic, and were seen as discriminatory towards Singapore's non-Chinese ethnic population. In 1985, the incentives were partly abandoned as ineffective, while the government matchmaking agency, the Social Development Network, remains active.^{[133][134][135]}

One general concern that many bring to the table, is that the reduced genetic diversity some argue to be a likely feature of long-term, species-wide eugenics plans,^[136] could eventually result in inbreeding depression,^[136] increased spread of infectious disease,^[137][138] and decreased resilience to changes in the environment.^{[139][page needed]}

In his original lecture "Darwinism, Medical Progress and Eugenics", Karl Pearson claimed that everything concerning eugenics fell into the field of medicine.^[140] Similarly apologetic, Czech-American Aleš Hrdlička, head of the American Anthropological Association from 1925 to 1926 and "perhaps the leading physical anthropologist in the country at the time"^[141] posited that its ultimate aim "is that it may, on the basis of accumulated knowledge and together with other branches of research, show the tendencies of the actual and future evolution of man, and aid in its possible regulation or improvement. The growing science of eugenics will essentially become applied anthropology."^[142]

More recently, prominent evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins stated of the matter:

The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.
I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons.^[143]

Scientifically possible and already well-established, heterozygote carrier testing is used in the prevention of autosomal recessive disorders, allowing couples to determine if they are at risk of passing various hereditary defects onto a future child.^[144][145] There are various examples of eugenic acts that managed to lower the prevalence of recessive diseases, although not negatively affecting the heterozygote carriers of those diseases themselves. The elevated prevalence of various genetically transmitted diseases among Ashkenazi Jew populations (e.g. per Tay–Sachs, cystic fibrosis, Canavan's disease and Gaucher's disease), has been markedly decreased in more recent cohorts by the widespread adoption of genetic screening^[146] (cf. also Dor Yeshorim).

Amanda Caleb, Professor of Medical Humanities at Geisinger Commonwealth School of Medicine, says "Eugenic laws and policies are now understood as part of a specious devotion to a pseudoscience that actively dehumanizes to support political agendas and not true science or medicine."^[147]

The first major challenge to conventional eugenics based on genetic inheritance was made in 1915 by Thomas Hunt Morgan. He demonstrated the event of genetic mutation occurring outside of inheritance involving the discovery of the hatching of a fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster) with white eyes from a family with red eyes,^{[49]: 336–337} demonstrating that major genetic changes occurred outside of inheritance.^{[49]: 336–337 [clarification needed]} Additionally, Morgan criticized the view that certain traits, such as intelligence and criminality, were hereditary because these traits were subjective.^[148][f]

Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple, seemingly unrelated phenotypic traits, an example being phenylketonuria, which is a human disease that affects multiple systems but is caused by one gene defect.^[151] Andrzej Pękalski, from the University of Wroclaw, argues that eugenics can cause harmful loss of genetic diversity if a eugenics program selects a pleiotropic gene that could possibly be associated with a positive trait. Pękalski uses the example of a coercive government eugenics program that prohibits people with myopia from breeding but has the unintended consequence of also selecting against high intelligence since the two go together.^[152]

While the science of genetics has increasingly provided means by which certain characteristics and conditions can be identified and understood, given the complexity of human genetics, culture, and psychology, at this point there is no agreed objective means of determining which traits might be ultimately desirable or undesirable. Some conditions such as sickle-cell disease and cystic fibrosis respectively confer immunity to malaria and resistance to cholera when a single copy of the recessive allele is contained within the genotype of the individual, so eliminating these genes is undesirable in places where such diseases are common.^[139] Such cases in which, furthermore, even individual organisms' massive suffering or even death due to the odd 25 percent of homozygotes ineliminable by natural section under a Mendelian pattern of inheritance may be justified for the greater ecological good that is conspecifics incur a greater so-called heterozygote advantage in turn.^[153]

Edwin Black, journalist, historian, and author of War Against the Weak, argues that eugenics is often deemed a pseudoscience because what is defined as a genetic improvement of a desired trait is a cultural choice rather than a matter that can be determined through objective scientific inquiry.^[2] Indeed, the most disputed aspect of eugenics has been the definition of "improvement" of the human gene pool, such as what is a beneficial characteristic and what is a defect. Historically, this aspect of eugenics is often considered to be tainted with scientific racism and pseudoscience.^[2][154]

Regarding the lasting controversy above, himself citing recent scholarship,^[156][157] historian of science Aaron Gillette notes that:

Others take a more nuanced view. They recognize that there was a wide variety of eugenic theories, some of which were much less race- or class-based than others. Eugenicists might also give greater or lesser acknowledgment to the role that environment played in shaping human behavior. In some cases, eugenics was almost imperceptibly intertwined with health care, child care, birth control, and sex education issues. In this sense, eugenics has been called, "a 'modern' way of talking about social problems in biologizing terms".^[158]: 11

Indeed, granting that the historical phenomenon of eugenics was that of a pseudoscience, Gilette further notes that this derived chiefly from its being "an epiphenomenon of a number of sciences, which all intersected at the claim that it was possible to consciously guide human evolution."^[158]: 2

In a book directly addressed at socialist eugenicist J.B.S. Haldane and his once-influential Daedalus, Betrand Russell, had one serious objection of his own: eugenic policies might simply end up being used to reproduce existing power relations “rather than to make men happy.”^[161]

Environmental ethicist Bill McKibben argued against germinal choice technology and other advanced biotechnological strategies for human enhancement. He writes that it would be morally wrong for humans to tamper with fundamental aspects of themselves (or their children) in an attempt to overcome universal human limitations, such as vulnerability to aging, maximum life span and biological constraints on physical and cognitive ability. Attempts to "improve" themselves through such manipulation would remove limitations that provide a necessary context for the experience of meaningful human choice. He claims that human lives would no longer seem meaningful in a world where such limitations could be overcome with technology. Even the goal of using germinal choice technology for clearly therapeutic purposes should be relinquished, he argues, since it would inevitably produce temptations to tamper with such things as cognitive capacities. He argues that it is possible for societies to benefit from renouncing particular technologies, using Ming China, Tokugawa Japan and the contemporary Amish as examples.^[162]

Michael J. Sandel is an American political philosopher and a prominent bioconservative. His article and subsequent book, both titled The Case Against Perfection,^[163][164] concern the moral permissibility of genetic engineering or genome editing. Sandel compares genetic and non-genetic forms of enhancement pointing to the fact that much of non-genetic alteration has largely the same effect as genetic engineering. SAT tutors or study drugs such as Ritalin can have similar effects as minor tampering with natural born intelligence. Sandel uses such examples to argue that the most important moral issue with genetic engineering is not that the consequences of manipulating human nature will undermine human agency but the perfectionist aspiration behind such a drive to mastery. For Sandel, "the deepest moral objection to enhancement lies less in the perfection it seeks than in the human disposition it expresses and promotes.”^[164] For example, the parental desire for a child to be of a certain genetic quality is incompatible with the special kind of unconditional love parents should have for their children. He writes “[t]o appreciate children as gifts is to accept them as they come, not as objects of our design or products of our will or instruments of our ambition.”^[164]

Sandel insists that consequentialist arguments overlook the principle issue of whether bioenhancement should be aspired to at all. He is attributed with the view that human augmentation should be avoided as it expresses an excessive desire to change oneself and 'become masters of our nature.'^[165] For example, in the field of cognitive enhancement, he argues that moral question we should be concerned with is not the consequences of inequality of access to such technology in possibly creating two classes of humans but whether we should aspire to such enhancement at all. Similarly, he has argued that the ethical problem with genetic engineering is not that it undermines the child's autonomy, as this claim "wrongly implies that absent a designing parent, children are free to choose their characteristics for themselves."^[163] Rather, he sees enhancement as hubristic, taking nature into our own hands: pursuing the fixity of enhancement is an instance of vanity.^[166] Sandel also criticizes the argument that a genetically engineered athlete would have an unfair advantage over his unenhanced competitors, suggesting that it has always been the case that some athletes are better endowed genetically than others.^[163] In short, Sandel argues that the real ethical problems with genetic engineering concern its effects on humility, responsibility and solidarity.^[163]

Some, for example Nathaniel C. Comfort of Johns Hopkins University, claim that the change from state-led reproductive-genetic decision-making to individual choice has moderated the worst abuses of eugenics by transferring the decision-making process from the state to patients and their families.^[169] Comfort suggests that "the eugenic impulse drives us to eliminate disease, live longer and healthier, with greater intelligence, and a better adjustment to the conditions of society; and the health benefits, the intellectual thrill and the profits of genetic bio-medicine are too great for us to do otherwise."^[170] Others, such as bioethicist Stephen Wilkinson of Keele University and Honorary Research Fellow Eve Garrard at the University of Manchester, claim that some aspects of modern genetics can be classified as eugenics, but that this classification does not inherently make modern genetics immoral.^[171]

In their book published in 2000, From Chance to Choice: Genetics and Justice, bioethicists Allen Buchanan, Dan Brock, Norman Daniels and Daniel Wikler argued that liberal societies have an obligation to encourage as wide an adoption of eugenic enhancement technologies as possible (so long as such policies do not infringe on individuals' reproductive rights or exert undue pressures on prospective parents to use these technologies) in order to maximize public health and minimize the inequalities that may result from both natural genetic endowments and unequal access to genetic enhancements.^[20]

In his book A Theory of Justice (1971), American philosopher John Rawls argued that "[o]ver time a society is to take steps to preserve the general level of natural abilities and to prevent the diffusion of serious defects".^[172] The original position, a hypothetical situation developed by Rawls, has been used as an argument for negative eugenics.^[173][174] Accordingly, some morally support germline editing precisely because of its capacity to (re)distribute such Rawlsian primary goods.^[175][176]

Self-described opponents of historical eugenics first and foremost,^[g] are known to insist on a particularly stringent treatment-enhancement distinction (sometimes also called divide or gap). This distinction, naturally, "draws a line between services or interventions meant to prevent or cure (or otherwise ameliorate) conditions that we view as diseases or disabilities and interventions that improve a condition that we view as a normal function or feature of members of our species".^[194] And yet the adequacy of such a dichotomy is highly contested in modern scholarly bioethics. One simple counterargument is that it has already long been ignored throughout various contemporary fields of scientific study and practice such as "preventive medicine, palliative care, obstetrics, sports medicine, plastic surgery, contraceptive devices, fertility treatments, cosmetic dental procedures, and much else".^[195] This is one way of conducting ostensively what has been coined the "moral continuum argument" by some of its critics.^[196][h]

Granting these assertions' validity, one may, once more, call this first and foremost a moral collapse of the therapy–enhancement distinction. Without such a clear divide, restorative medicine and exploratory eugenics also invariably become harder to distinguish;^[i] and accordingly might one explain the matter's relevance to ongoing transhumanist discourse.

The novel Brave New World by the English author Aldous Huxley (1931), is a dystopian social science fiction novel which is set in a futuristic World State, whose citizens are environmentally engineered into an intelligence-based social hierarchy.

Various works by the author Robert A. Heinlein mention the Howard Foundation, a group which attempts to improve human longevity through selective breeding.

Among Frank Herbert's other works, the Dune series, starting with the eponymous 1965 novel, describes selective breeding by a powerful sisterhood, the Bene Gesserit, to produce a supernormal male being, the Kwisatz Haderach.^[199]

The Star Trek franchise features a race of genetically engineered humans which is known as "Augments", the most notable of them is Khan Noonien Singh. These "supermen" were the cause of the Eugenics Wars, a dark period in Earth's fictional history, before they were deposed and exiled. They appear in many of the franchise's story arcs, most frequently, they appear as villains.^[200][j]

The film Gattaca (1997) provides a fictional example of a dystopian society that uses eugenics to decide what people are capable of and their place in the world. The title alludes to the letters G, A, T and C, the four nucleobases of DNA, and depicts the possible consequences of genetic discrimination in the present societal framework. Relegated to the role of a cleaner owing to his genetically projected death at age 32 due to a heart condition (being told: "The only way you'll see the inside of a spaceship is if you were cleaning it”), the protagonist observes enhanced astronauts as they are demonstrating their superhuman athleticism. Nonetheless, against mere uniformity being the movies key theme, it may be highlighted^[203] that it also includes a twelve fingered concert pianist nonetheless taken to be highly esteemed. Even though it was not a box office success, it was critically acclaimed and it is said to have crystallized the debate over human genetic engineering^[k] in the public consciousness.^{[204][205][l]} As to its accuracy, its production company, Sony Pictures, consulted with a gene therapy researcher and prominent critic of eugenics known to have stated that "[w]e should not step over the line that delineates treatment from enhancement",^[208] W. French Anderson, to ensure that the portrayal of science was realistic. Disputing their success in this mission, Philim Yam of Scientific American called the film "science bashing" and Nature's Kevin Davies called it a "surprisingly pedestrian affair", while molecular biologist Lee Silver described its extreme determinism as "a straw man".^{[209][210][m]} In an even more pointed critique, in his 2018 book Blueprint, the behavioral geneticist Robert Plomin writes that while Gattaca warned of the dangers of genetic information being used by a totalitarian state, genetic testing could also favor better meritocracy in democratic societies which already administer a variety of standardized tests to select people for education and employment. He suggests that polygenic scores might supplement testing in a manner that is essentially free of biases.^[212] Along similar lines, in the 2004 book Citizen Cyborg,^[211] democratic transhumanist James Hughes had already argued against what he considers to be "professional fearmongers",^{[211]: xiii} stating of the movie's premises:

1. Astronaut training programs are entirely justified in attempting to screen out people with heart problems for safety reasons;
2. In the United States, people are already being screened by insurance companies on the basis of their propensities to disease, for actuarial purposes;
3. Rather than banning genetic testing or genetic enhancement, society should simply develop genetic information privacy laws, such as the U.S. Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, that allow justified forms of genetic testing and data aggregation, but forbid those that are judged to result in genetic discrimination. Enforcing these would not be very hard once a system for reporting and penalties is in place.^{[211]: 146-7}

• Agar, Nicholas (2004). Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement. Wiley-Blackwell.
• Agar, Nicholas (2019). "Why we Should Defend Gene Editing as Eugenics". Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics. 34 (1): 9–19. doi:10.1017/S0963180118000336. PMID 30570459. S2CID 58195676.
• Anomaly, Jonathan (2018). "Defending eugenics: From cryptic choice to conscious selection." Monash Bioethics Review 35 (1-4):24-35. doi:10.1007/s40592-018-0081-2
• Anomaly, Jonathan (2024). Creating Future People The Science and Ethics of Genetic Enhancement. Routledge, 2nd Edition. ISBN 978-1-032-63657-3, doi:10.4324/9781003464266
• Buchanan, Allen (2017). Better than Human: The Promise and Perils of Deliberate Biomedical Enhancement. "Philosophy in Action" series. Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780190664046.
• Cavaliere, Giulia (2018). "Looking into the Shadow: Eugenics arguments in debates about reproductive technologies". Monash Bioethics Review. 36 (1–4): 1–22. doi:10.1007/s40592-018-0086-x. PMC 6336759. PMID 30535862.
• Paul, Diane B.; Spencer, Hamish G. (1998). "Did Eugenics Rest on an Elementary Mistake?" (PDF). In: The Politics of Heredity: Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate, SUNY Press (pp.102-118)
• Galton, David J. (2002). Eugenics: The Future of Human Life in the 21st Century. London: Abacus. ISBN 9780349113777.
• Gantsho, Luvuyo (2022). "The principle of procreative beneficence and its implications for genetic engineering." Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 43 (5):307-328. doi:10.1007/s11017-022-09585-0
• Harris, John (2009). "Enhancements are a Moral Obligation." In J. Savulescu & N. Bostrom (Eds.), Human Enhancement, Oxford University Press, pp. 131–154
• Kamm, Frances (2010). "What Is And Is Not Wrong With Enhancement?" In Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (eds.), Human Enhancement. Oxford University Press.
• Kamm, Frances (2005). "Is There a Problem with Enhancement?", The American Journal of Bioethics, 5(3), 5-14. PMID 16006376 doi:10.1080/15265160590945101
• Lynn, Richard (1997). Dysgenics: Genetic Deterioration in Modern Populations (PDF). Praeger Publishers. ISBN 9780275949174.
• Lynn, Richard (2001). Eugenics: A Reassessment (PDF). Praeger Publishers. ISBN 9780275958220.
• Maranto, Gina (1996). Quest for perfection: the drive to breed better human beings. New York: Scribner. ISBN 9780684800295.
• Ranisch, Robert (2022). "Procreative Beneficence and Genome Editing", The American Journal of Bioethics, 22(9), 20–22. doi:10.1080/15265161.2022.2105435
• Robertson, John (2021). Children of Choice: Freedom and the New Reproductive Technologies. Princeton University Press, doi:10.2307/j.ctv1h9dhsh.
• Rosenkranz, E. Joshua (1987). "Custom kids and the moral duty to genetically engineer our children". High Technology Law Journal. 2 (1): 1–53. JSTOR 24122379. PMID 11659156.
• Saunders, Ben (2015). "Why Procreative Preferences May be Moral – And Why it May not Matter if They Aren't." Bioethics, 29(7), 499–506. doi:10.1111/bioe.12147
• Savulescu, Julian; Kahane, Guy (2009). "The Moral Obligation to Have Children with the Best Chance of the Best Life" (PDF). Bioethics. 23 (5): 274–290. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2008.00687.x. PMID 19076124. Archived from the original (PDF) on 25 February 2021.
• Savulescu, Julian (2001). Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children. Bioethics. 15(5–6): pp. 413–26
• Shaw, David (2006). Genetic Morality. Bern: Peter Lang. ISBN 9783039111497.
• Singer, Peter (2010). "Parental Choice and Human Improvement." In Julian Savulescu & Nick Bostrom (eds.), Human Enhancement. Oxford University Press.
• Veit, Walter; Anomaly, Jonathan; Agar, Nicholas; Singer, Peter; Fleischman, Diana; Minerva, Francesca (2021). "Can 'eugenics' be defended?" (PDF). Monash Bioethics Review. 39 (1): 60–67. doi:10.1007/s40592-021-00129-1. PMC 8321981. PMID 34033008.
• Wikler, Daniel (1999). "Can we learn from eugenics?" (PDF). J Med Ethics. 25(2):183-94. doi: 10.1136/jme.25.2.183. PMID: 10226926; PMCID: PMC479205.
• Wilson, Robert A. (2019). "Eugenics undefended". Monash Bioethics Review. 37 (1): 68–75. doi:10.1007/s40592-019-00094-w. PMID 31325149. S2CID 198131924.

Wikiquote has quotations related to Eugenics.

Wikisource has original text related to this article:

Eugenics

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Eugenics.

• Embryo Editing for Intelligence: A cost-benefit analysis of CRISPR-based editing for intelligence with 2015-2016 state-of-the-art
• Embryo Selection For Intelligence: A cost-benefit analysis of the marginal cost of IVF-based embryo selection for intelligence and other traits with 2016-2017 state-of-the-art
• Eugenics: Its Origin and Development (1883–Present) by the National Human Genome Research Institute (30 November 2021)
• Eugenics and Scientific Racism Fact Sheet by the National Human Genome Research Institute (3 November 2021)